House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was years.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 49% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Department Of Natural Resources Act November 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I assume we will be voting on the amendments separately but I would like to speak on all of them in the interest of time. Is my assumption correct?

Department Of Natural Resources Act November 21st, 1994

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Abitibi seemed to be addressing portions of Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member for Timiskaming seemed to be addressing none of them.

Before I make any comments, I would like to know if this is going to be the end of the debate on the motions? Will we be voting on the motions immediately after?

Department Of Natural Resources Act November 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable impatience while the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane weakened the case for his eminently sensible amendment with a lot of separatist cant and whining provincialism. Surely we can debate matters of this nature without constantly getting off track and riding that horse into the sunset.

With respect to the merits of his amendment and without any special reference to Quebec, I agree it is not good enough that information be provided piecemeal by the departments to members of Parliament. There should be an annual report.

The suggestion in the hon. member's amendment that this be in a fixed timeframe is also excellent and the Reform Party supports this. We are aware that there will be costs involved but it is important that the principle of accountability to Parliament be maintained.

However, I hope that future Parliaments will not be satisfied with reports of the nature that I have seen from previous years where we are given a bunch of pretty pictures and platitudes. I would like to see some meat in these reports.

However, with that caveat, the hon. member's amendment is a good one and we will support it.

Department Of Natural Resources Act November 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, we are debating something which is a little more fundamental than semantic.

The basic premise expressed in this amendment is that sound management practices and sustainable development are mutually exclusive. This I cannot accept, nor can my party. If we remove the two offending words, integrated management, what we will be suggesting to the department is that the traditional and honourable concept of multiple use of resources is to be thrown out the window.

I maintain that all that will be left is the equally undefined concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development is in the eye of the beholder. Surely if it is to be sustainable it must be properly managed. On that basis and that basis alone the Reform Party will oppose this amendment.

Petitions November 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to table a petition bearing 113 signatures, mostly from the village of Pambrun in my riding.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Gun Control November 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the bedrock of the Canadian legal system is the British common law.

It is unnerving to know that our justice minister, Canada's top lawyer, has so little regard for the common law that on May 4 in the House he stated that the possession of personal arms is not a right but a privilege granted by the state.

He should reread his Blackstone. This greatest of all British jurists pointed out in his commentaries that without the auxiliary right to have arms, the absolute rights to life, security of person, liberty and property are illusory.

There is already more than enough regulation of firearms in Canada. Do we really want to continue sliding inch by inch into the Mexican model where firearms are restricted to criminals and agents of the state?

Income Tax Act November 4th, 1994

Anyway, I thank the minister for his positive response and I will await with some eagerness the outcome of this.

Income Tax Act November 4th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not press for an answer sooner after having given notice is that the minister is so rarely in the House.

Income Tax Act November 4th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Farmers who lose their land due to debt settlement are being treated unfairly due to the taxation of capital gains. When land is taken back in debt settlement it is deemed to have been sold for the amount of the debt with interest. The deemed proceeds usually exceed the value of the land. This results in a taxable capital gain. The taxpayers lose land, livelihood, child tax credits or benefits and they have to pay provincial tax as a result of the fictitious calculation.

Will the minister confirm that the Income Tax Act will be amended to retroactively rectify this situation?

Yukon Surface Rights Board Act November 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak briefly with respect to Bill C-55 because like much of this government's legislation it resembles the Bishop's egg. It is excellent in parts, but it contains a lot of tainted material.

The administrative clauses of the bill are well drafted. They are quite similar to legislation in some provincial jurisdictions. The rules are comprehensible. I am perfectly aware that many mining industry executives regard acceptance of C-55 as preferable to continued regulatory uncertainty.

Having worked in that industry for many years, I think I understand the corporate mind. If a company is effectively blocked by bureaucratic stalemate, it will accept almost any compromise in order to survive. As the crofter said: "It is better to sleep with the devil than to lie a'cold".

My objections to the bill are based on the proposed composition and terms of the reference of the Yukon surface rights board. Like its evil older sisters, Bills C-33 and C-34, this bill is tainted by racial bias. The board will consist of a chairperson and from two to ten other members. Since these will be prize patronage appointments you can be sure that the higher number will prevail. At least half of the members shall be appointed, and I quote: "on the nomination of the Yukon Council of Indians" or to express it more crudely and directly: "They shall be Indians". As my hon. colleague has just said, this is a double-edged sword. Not only is it expressly directed that five members of a ten member group shall be Indians but it is also expressly directed that five of them shall not be Indians.

I thought I lived in Canada. Can anybody imagine the uproar that would ensue if the articles of a quasi-judicial provincial board, let us say in Ontario, required that a certain percentage of its members be Caucasian?

Just in case the board is not sufficiently biased, there is provision in clause 23 of the bill to budget funds for and again I quote: "cross-cultural orientation, education and other training". That is to say for social brainwashing.

Perhaps in so far as the board's duties will deal partly with disputes involving native settlement lands, a little well-intentioned genetic bias can be justified, but why in the name of common sense should the colour of a person's skin determine eligibility to rule on disputes concerning non-settlement lands, that is to say on public lands?

Even if the biases were applied only to settlement lands, it should be remembered that the board will arbitrate compensation for expropriation of these lands. Yet half of its members are required by law to be beneficiaries of such compensation. Does that make sense?

Remember, this unaccountable board will have wide ranging powers and its decisions will have the force of law. Should not its independence be protected?