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

Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the member's comments, in particular with regard to the movement of our talent south.

I am not sure whether he saw the article in the Citizen last weekend about Nortel's CEO. It was a very interesting article about the amount of brain power that is moving south of the border and the inability of our system to replace that talent.

It is interesting that we also have a Prime Minister who says there is not a brain drain in this country, that it is just a myth. Yet, these high tech firms categorically state that they cannot compete with the U.S., in particular because of the tax structure. I certainly concur with the member's comments that we are taxed out of our socks in this country.

How are we going to stop this brain drain? It fits with the space station and it fits with the high technology arena that we are in. Where does the hon. member see the solutions to stopping the brain drain and getting the country on its feet again?

Petitions November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which will provide for the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and our laws.

Petitions November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.

In the first petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to give Canadians a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years, starting with the next federal budget.

Aboriginal Affairs November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the supreme court clarified the Marshall decision, stating that native Indians had no treaty rights on natural resources such as timber.

However, in response, the minister of Indian affairs stated that the government plans to negotiate natural resources with the native community.

Considering that under our constitution natural resources belong to the province and the supreme court has just stated that natives have no treaty rights on resources such as timber, what exactly is it that the minister is going to negotiate with the native community?

Aboriginal Affairs November 5th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court ruling regarding Donald Marshall and native fishing rights has led to chaos on the east coast and uncertainty across the nation.

That is because the judicial ruling is unclear regarding the geographical limitations of the treaty, and rich resources will be affected. The Liberals refuse to ask the courts for clarity. The government chooses not to ask for clarification. It prefers to introduce uncertainty. One has to ask why?

Is it the government's agenda to give natives unlimited access to all natural resources in the country? Is that the agenda?

Fisheries November 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court ruling regarding Donald Marshall and native fishing rights has led to chaos on the east coast and uncertainty across the nation. The judicial ruling is unclear yet this government is unwilling to ask the supreme court for clarification.

Clarification is required regarding who the beneficiaries of the treaty are, what DFO's regulatory powers regarding the native fishery are, what the definition is of moderate income, what the geographical limitations of the treaty are, what rights the existing commercial fishery have and how far-reaching the decision is. Is it limited to eels or does it affect lobster, snow crabs, forestry, oil or more? Finally, how much will it cost?

It is time for the fisheries minister to get involved so these issues are clarified and all Canadians know where they stand regarding this decision.

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act November 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final agreement act.

Many of my colleagues have addressed the serious concerns shared by British Columbians regarding the Nisga'a bill, but the bottom line is that this is deeply flawed legislation. The agreement was negotiated in secret. It was negotiated by a provincial government that has faced numerous scandals and which now has the lowest approval rating of any elected government in Canada. The Liberals may want to look at the process in B.C. and see what it did to that government because it is going to do the same thing to the government here. Those who try to force legislation down the throats of people who do not want it will pay the political price.

There was no active consultation in B.C. The member for Vancouver Island North went into this in great detail. He was our party's aboriginal affairs critic in the last parliament. In his speech last week, he went through in detail how the consultation process simply did not work. He said that it was smoke and mirrors, that there was no listening, no involvement. Because of that, British Columbians want to have a referendum. They want their chance to have a say. They do not feel the provincial government or the federal government are listening to the people of B.C.

What is the answer from the government side? That it is too complex of an issue, that a referendum simply is not going to work.

People are not that stupid. They understand the ramifications. They see the inequality. They see the holes in this agreement. Quite frankly they do not trust many of their politicians. They want to have a say. There is nothing wrong with that. There have been referendums before that have worked.

A referendum that worked was the Charlottetown accord. Canadians voted down ethnic based legislation. They said no. They voted it down no more strongly than in British Columbia. They simply said that equality was the way to go and this government is going in exactly the opposite direction. That is typical of this government. It has bungled legislation over the last six years we have been in opposition.

The public service pension bill was considered a few months ago. The government is raiding the pension fund for $30 billion. Remember it is the government that promised to scrap, abolish and kill the GST but we still have it.

In many ways that is the Trudeau solution. It goes back that far. Trudeau's Canada did not include the west. He had no understanding of the west. He did not comprehend anything beyond upper and lower Canada, Ontario and Quebec. That was his Canada.

This government's vision is very much Trudeau's vision. It is insisting on forcing controversial treaties on British Columbians. Bear in mind that this is the first treaty of many that are going to spread right across the country. There is no support. There is no support in British Columbia for this type of legislation. It is not surprising that the Trudeau legacy simply does not work.

Look at Alberta, the province next door to B.C. The national energy program throttled Alberta's booming oil economy. What is different in this case? Nothing, other than it is British Columbia's turn to get the Liberal boot.

This heavy-handed government is not going to allow forthright debate in the House. A few hours ago the government moved time allocation on the bill which means that the opposition parties and even the government cannot fully debate it. The government said no, that is enough. At the end of today there will be a vote and it will be a done deal. It will be over. Is that democracy? Is that where we are going with the government?

I would like to broaden the picture. The Nisga'a agreement is the tip of the iceberg. The government and the courts, particularly with the charter, are taking us in a direction I do not believe Canadians want to go. They are taking us away from equality into areas where special groups have special rights.

The Nisga'a deal and the Marshall decision on the east coast have given us an inkling of where this country is going. We are going to be in turmoil over the next number of years. I can refer to the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver where the leases on land with $150,000 and $200,000 homes are being taken over. A lease is now $25,000 a year and people are being thrown out of their houses.

The Marshall decision simply said that Donald Marshall had the right to fish for eels. It has expanded to lobster. We now see it affecting snow crab. The Sable Island oil deal is now on hold because the natives want to be heard. Logging in British Columbia and New Brunswick is being undertaken against the will of the provincial governments. That is where this treaty is taking us. It points out the lack of vision on the part of the government.

What is the vision? Where did the government see this parliament and this country going? Are we headed to become a group of separate societies? That is where the government is taking us. Natives will have separate rights. We have seen what is happening in Quebec. Is that the vision? Is that where we are going? It is a shotgun approach.

Do we want to have equality? Do we want to have a country where the laws are the same? Despite one's ancestry, despite one's race, despite one's sex, whatever, the laws are the same. I thought that was what Canada was all about but apparently not because the government and the courts are taking us in a completely different direction.

The Nisga'a deal is the tip of the iceberg. The provincial NDP and the federal Liberals are ramming this agreement through against the will particularly of British Columbians. We can see where this is taking us.

The Marshall decision is another example of where we are going or perhaps where we do not want to go. The newspapers have shown many cases where natives have decided that the natural resources are theirs. It started with Donald Marshall and the ability to fish for eels and it has now gone to oil and gas. My colleague from northern Alberta was talking about what is happening with the oil industry. There are other natural resources, such as timber. Where is it going to stop? Where are we going?

The supreme court has brought down decisions which are against the will of this parliament. Parliament has laid down what is supposed to be the rules for the laws of this land. Yet the judges have decided that they know better and are circumventing the will of parliament.

That is the bigger issue of what we are talking about with Nisga'a. It is the bigger issue of where Canadians should be looking to the future, of where they want the government to go. What is the vision of the government? Where do we want the country to end up? Do we want a group of separate fiefdoms or do we want equality and togetherness? I believe we want to be united with one set of rules for all in one country.

Fisheries October 29th, 1999

So much for the Liberal commercial, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the Marshall decision, aboriginals on Vancouver Island now believe they have the right to fish commercially year round and plan to test the Douglas treaty with an illegal fishery as early as this weekend. Clearly the government has lost control of the situation.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell Canadians who is managing the fishery? Is it the aboriginals, is it the courts, or is it the government?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police June 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni the RCMP are being short funded by the federal government. The province, on the other hand, is paying its fair share.

The RCMP cannot operate the coastal boats on a regular basis, the drug squad has been shut down and officers have been moved on to general duty. All of this is occurring because the federal government is not holding up its side of the bargain.

When will the solicitor general reinstate core funding for the RCMP?

Petitions June 7th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.

The undersigned believe that citizens of B.C. deserve a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty and request that parliament reject the Nisga'a treaty on constitutional grounds.