House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was senate.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Nanaimo—Alberni (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Criminal Code February 7th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to support Bill C-202, an act to amend the criminal code regarding flight from a police vehicle, which was put forward by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

Hardly a week goes by without reading in the papers about the carnage on the highways as a result of an individual fleeing the police. In many cases an innocent person pays with his or her life as a result of this reckless behaviour.

Such was the case in Toronto when Father Ilce Miovski was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Father Miovski was struck and killed by a stolen car being pursued by Scarborough police. A 21 year old man now faces nine charges, including criminal negligence causing death, impaired driving causing death and theft over $5,000. Unfortunately we do not have a specific section in our criminal code which deals with the offence of fleeing a police officer.

The facts of these cases are indeed frightening. Between 1991 and 1997 police entered into more than 10,000 high speed chases in the province of Ontario alone. That is over 1,000 high speed chases a year in Ontario. Six innocent bystanders were killed as a result of these chases, another 33 who were directly involved were killed and 198 were injured. This has to stop.

As I said previously, fleeing police as it now stands is not a separate offence. Bill C-202 proposes a new criminal code prohibition against leading police on a high speed chase and it would add maximum penalties. This is a good first step.

I commend the member for taking this issue forward. I am pleased to say that this bill is endorsed by all parties within the House.

The maximum penalty for evading a police officer in a motor vehicle will be raised from two to five years. The maximum penalty for injuring an individual while trying to flee police will be raised from 10 to 14 years. Anyone who causes the death of another person is liable to imprisonment for life. This is testimony to the emphasis put on this issue and the gravity of these offences.

The solicitor general for Ontario is very supportive of this bill, in particular for its criminal code implications. Ontario's solicitor general has tabled his own code of conduct for police officers involved in high speed chases. In my own province of B.C. the attorney general introduced new rules in September, specifying that police can only close the distance and chase without lights and sirens if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle has been involved in an indictable offence. Officers in that situation have to regard public safety before starting a chase.

While these actions attempt to address the growing menace of our highways, they do not stop the behaviour of the criminals who take on the police. The criminals must be stopped.

Bill C-202 sends a message that society has simply had enough of this carnage. Leading a police car in a chase is akin to taking a lethal weapon in the form of a two tonne vehicle and driving it with abandon.

Here are some of the more disturbing facts about high speed chases. From 1993 to 1997 high speed chases on the island of Montreal killed three people and injured 59. In B.C. the RCMP and 12 municipal police forces were involved in over 4,000 high speed chases from 1990 to 1997. Twenty-one people were killed and another 748 were injured. This problem is growing.

Some of these pursuits can cover great distances, as one in Ottawa did recently, where a young intoxicated person with his 16 year old girlfriend took the Ontario police on a 50 kilometre chase. That same week a 21 year old Brampton, Ontario woman who was pulling out of a parking lot was killed by a drunk driver travelling at 140 kilometres an hour trying to evade police. This is the situation we have at the present time. Just last week a teenager in Aldergrove, B.C. died while driving a stolen van in a police chase.

Some people would paint the police as causing the deaths. The police are not the problem. The people driving the cars are the problem. Telling police not to chase, hands these criminals carte blanche. For all intents and purposes, it says “If you want to carry out a criminal offence, simply get in a car and drive fast. The police won't chase you”. We do not want that to happen. This is hardly the way to attack the problem and in fact it avoids it.

The Department of Justice is currently studying the problem of police pursuits. The justice minister seems to realize that in many cases the police are able to lay criminal code charges, such as for dangerous driving, but in other cases the offender just receives a slap on the wrist. This is wrong. Society has had it with these people and it wants to have the problem put to an end.

Bill C-202 does just that. The problem is escalating and we simply must act.

Bill C-202 proposes necessary amendments to the criminal code which will deter individuals from taking police on high speed chases and endangering or taking away the lives of innocent bystanders. I fully support the bill and hope that it has speedy passage through the House.

Petitions December 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from 577 constituents within my riding. They request that parliament enact legislation requiring manufacturers and growers to label genetically altered foods and seeds.

Petitions December 17th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from my constituents in Nanaimo—Alberni.

They ask that parliament exempt from the GST the cost of spaying and neutering animals in order to reduce the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats.

Justice December 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario court of appeal in the Bavinski decision stated that there must be a new trial when the key crown witness recants or, in other words, gives false evidence. In a similar case, the Hache case, the Nova Scotia court of appeal came to the same decision. In both Bavinski and Hache new trials were ordered.

Patrick Kelly has been in prison for 16 years based on the testimony of a witness who now says that her evidence was untrue. Why will the Minister of Justice not use her power to order a new trial for Mr. Kelly, or at the very least refer his case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Fisheries December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report on the west coast fishery makes it clear that the fishery is headed for disaster unless DFO makes significant changes to improve the management and conservation of Pacific salmon.

The auditor general raises serious concerns regarding DFO's strategic planning record and calls for salmon management based on sound science. He calls for improved data quality and changes in reporting on the status of stock and habitat, and catch reporting. He also calls for mandatory recovery plans on threatened stocks and an independent allocation board for fish.

The situation is critical. The auditor general says that it may be necessary for the fishery to close for five years to recoup stocks unless immediate change is implemented.

Last week the fisheries minister denied the auditor general's criticism. It is time for the minister to read the report and face the facts. The minister must take control before Pacific salmon disappear, much like the Atlantic cod.

Fisheries December 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, due to gross mismanagement DFO has destroyed the Atlantic cod fishery and, according to the auditor general, is about to do the same with Pacific salmon.

The auditor general states that the Pacific salmon fishery is in trouble and the sustainability of the fishery is at risk. He warns that the Pacific salmon fishery may face a five year closure to allow stocks to recover.

When will the fisheries minister do as the auditor general suggests and actually manage the west coast fishery?

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day we have quoted a number of people from British Columbia who appeared at the hearings last Friday. They did not have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee because, as we are all aware, it was stacked unfavourably. There was no neutrality. The witnesses who wished to appear who were against the Nisga'a deal did not get much of a hearing.

I would like to quote Mr. Harry Bell-Irving, who is a director of the Citizen's Voice. I have taken a few of his thoughts, because I do not have the time to go through them all, but there are some excellent points that I would like to put on the record. He stated:

The Government of Canada was represented by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, which stood in a position of trust with respect to the Nisga'a, and accordingly, was in a position of conflict with respect to all other Canadians. In support of this statement, it is interesting to note that the Canadians who take this position most strongly are aboriginal Canadians living in the Nisga'a area, who claim that significant rights belonging to them have been given to the Nisga'a and are protesting.

These aboriginal Canadians are not Nisga'a and they are having their lands taken away.

Mr. Bell-Irving continued:

These protesting aboriginals have already launched court proceedings to try and regain their rights. I submit that the people of Canada have had no true representation at the federal level....With one important exception, mainly amendments introduced dealing with questions as to the certainty of future benefits, the final agreement passed in the British Columbia legislature contained no significant amendment to the agreement in principle tabled in 1996.

Basically it was the original document. Does that sound familiar? It is the same story.

The NDP also resorted to a form of closure and rammed the bill through the legislature with great haste and in contempt of democratic process. The NDP never consulted the people at large as to the parameters of the agreement, and have refused to let the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to vote on a referendum to approve or disapprove the agreement.

The Liberals last week did exactly the same thing in the House. We put forward a motion that the Liberal federal government hold a referendum in British Columbia, and it refused.

I contend that if it were in Ontario or Quebec it would have been an entirely different story. The government simply does not care about the west.

Mr. Bell-Irving continued:

If you are to ask me what is wrong with the Nisga'a agreement, my answer, unfortunately, would be to say a very great deal. It is badly drawn and ambiguous in many places. There are many sub-agreements yet to be finalized. The Nisga'a agreement will create a right to fish based on race. It grants the right to the Nisga'a to make laws which in certain circumstances will be superior to the laws of Canada and British Columbia.

I will repeat that because it is important. It grants the right to the Nisga'a to make laws which in certain circumstances will be superior to the laws of Canada and British Columbia. Is that what Canadians want in a modern treaty?

It provides for Nisga'a citizenship and that only Nisga'a citizens can vote for the Nisga'a government. Think of it; a state within Canada with a separate citizenship in which Canadian citizens cannot vote. Are there to be 60 or more such states within British Columbia? What a disaster for British Columbia, what a disaster for Canada. The federal and provincial governments have said many misleading things in support of the agreement. One of them is that it will create certainty, implying that we should not nitpick about small details and get on with it. I submit that the only certainty the Nisga'a agreement will create is that for years to come there will be uncertainty because various aspects of the agreement will be before the courts.

Already a number of court actions have been commenced....The most serious flaw in the Nisga'a agreement is with respect to the self-government rights granted to the Nisga'a. These rights have been deceitfully described by the federal and British Columbia governments as being similar to local or municipal rights. Yet in 14 different instances, the self-government rights provide and I quote: “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the Nisga'a law and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict”.

Again, is this what we want? I thought we were looking for one law and one country. This adds another layer of government which in my mind and from what I am hearing from the people in my riding is not wanted.

He continued:

The implications to me are very frightening....No business, profession or trade can carry on except under Nisga'a law. As is the case in a number of places in the act, there is the pap that accreditation must be in accordance with the law of the rest of the country, or the law of British Columbia, but that really isn't of significance, (because) the self-government rights are contained in land claims treaty, they will be constitutionalized and can only be amended according to the constitutional process, and it is my understanding that they cannot be amended without the consent of the Nisga'a.

Therefore, it is a closed door. Why would the government set these powers in constitutional concrete without first having a trial period to see if they are working out?

There have been other treaties before the House. For example, the Yukon treaty was before the House in the last parliament and it was not constitutionalized. It was a separate bill. I have to ask why the government is taking this route when the Yukon bill of a few years ago, which was a separate bill, was not constitutionalized. Why would it constitutionalize rights in this treaty? It makes me wonder. I have to ask what is the agenda of the government. Where is it going?

Mr. Bell-Irving continued:

I recommend that the Nisga'a agreement be amended so as to remove self-government rights from the agreement, placing them in a separate agreement, which may be amended from time to time—

I think that is very sound advice. We have done that before in the House. I spent a year going through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The old bill stated that it would return to the House every five years. What is wrong with that? That is good legislation. Where is the government going? Exactly in the opposite direction. It is constitutionalizing this. It is closing the door. It will be there forever. We will not be able to amend it.

Another point of great concern are the resources, forestry and fisheries. For example, it was stated by Skeena Cellulose Inc. in the Nisga'a area that should the treaty go forward Skeena Cellulose would sue for $75 million in lost timber resources. Guess what? The province bought Skeena Cellulose. That gets rid of that issue, I suppose, but I am not sure it was a wise use of tax dollars. The fishery is of more concern because the fishery is tied to race. Remember, this is the first of 60 such agreements. In my view, if we carry this forward to 60 agreements there will not be a commercial fishery in Canada. There will not be any fish left to divide. There will be a native commercial fishery, but what about the non-native commercial fishery? We only have so much of the pie to cut up.

There was the Marshall decision which concerned the fishery on the east coast. I am a member of the fisheries committee which was holding hearings last week on the east coast. The Marshall decision, which was clarified by the supreme court, is finally getting through the fog and coming to the middle ground. What is finally coming through with the number of cases that have been before the supreme court is that if we err too far on one side treaty rights will be violated. However, if we err too far on the other side and affect the rights of the people already in the fishery, that will not work either.

The people who are already in fisheries, forestry and other areas who are being pushed out because of these treaties will go to the supreme court, and so they should. We will have years and years of litigation because of this treaty. Again, why? Why could we not start with an open process? There was clearly no open process in British Columbia. It was all closed.

We should have a process that all or most people agree with, have a referendum at the end of it, and then we would have what people want. We are not going in that direction at all. We are going in exactly the opposite direction, creating another layer of government that we do not need. At the end of the day we want laws and rights that apply to each and every one of us, regardless of where we come from.

Petitions December 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni and contains 226 signatures.

These petitioners call upon parliament to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. Court of Appeal decision regarding child pornography and reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the Criminal Code to make child pornography illegal.

National Highway System November 19th, 1999

It is the Trans-Canada Highway between Golden and Field, B.C. One would expect that this piece of road would have been fixed. I have been driving it for probably four decades and there has not been any great improvement in the road. Imagine a two-lane road, the Trans-Canada Highway, that is that dangerous and yet it has not been fixed. The question is, why? Clearly it is a function of money.

Every province has its killer chunk of highway, as my hon. colleague mentioned earlier. We all know that there is one where each of us comes from. Whether it is down around Windsor, in the maritimes or across the prairies, there are chunks of the main highways of this country which are clearly dangerous. They are killing people. How are we going to address that? How are we going to fix that up?

There are a couple of ways. One is dedicated revenues, which I agree with. I am not a big fan of dedicated revenues but I think in this case it is correct. Another way would be toll roads. The Americans do some of that. We tried it for example with the Coquihalla highway which was built for Expo '86 basically to feed the lower mainland during Expo. My understanding is that it has been paid for seven times over. The provincial government is now looking at it as a cash cow.

Toll roads have opportunities but they tend to get abused. Again it brings up the question of double taxation because we are taxed already on our fuel taxes. Why should we be then taxed to use the road?

I would like to use the American model because I believe the Americans have excellent roads. They have dedicated revenues. They have found the prescription that is fair. My NDP colleague was commenting earlier about areas like Manitoba that get no revenues, that are getting no money this year in the budget. The Americans solved that by doing it on the number of miles of roads. Some poor areas such as Mississippi and Arkansas because of their tax bases and their situations cannot afford to put the money into roads, but the national system does it on a per mile basis.

If we transferred that formula to Canada, where Saskatchewan and Manitoba are having trouble in getting finances, this formula would solve it. There would be dedicated revenues and the national highway system would be fixed up. That is a good formula we can look toward.

My colleague from the Liberal Party commented earlier that it was in the budget and he is not supporting it but to my mind it is too little too late. We have to address the system. Certainly the budget is dedicating some revenue and I do not quarrel with that, but it is not dedicating nearly enough revenue toward highways. We are putting back about 5% of what we take in taxation revenue just from fuel. That is wrong. Fuels are not a cash cow. They simply need to be put back into the system.

There are areas like Windsor where 10,000 trucks a day are coming across the bridge and are being dumped into downtown Windsor. This is not a freeway system; basically they are municipal roads. In situations like that, there is a bottleneck. NAFTA is clearly going to expand and there will be more trucks. We should fix the situation. We can deal with it with dedicated revenues.

In many ways the government is missing the point. The point is where do we direct our tax revenues from gasoline, from diesel? Do they go into general revenues, into the main pot? Do they go, as most of us in the House would agree with, back into the highway system? We do not need a Cadillac system, the same as that of the Americans. But we certainly do not need roads that are going to be like those of a banana republic if we keep going the way we have been for the next 10 years.

I support my colleague. It is a good idea. In fact, I would ask unanimous consent of the House that this motion be votable.

National Highway System November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands in dedicating fuel tax revenues to highways.

I would like to start by describing a section of road: non-existent shoulders and blind curves, a narrow road jammed with tourists and commercial traffic made even more dangerous by wildlife, steep grades and falling debris, some roadsides with abrupt 500 metre drop-offs and no guardrails. Where would this piece of highway be? Is it in the Cape Breton Highlands? Is it in Newfoundland? Is it in a rural area of Ontario or Quebec?