Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was reform.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Reform MP for Kindersley—Lloydminster (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Farmers Union December 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with farm leaders in Atlantic Canada and attended the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union in Charlottetown.

The following resolution was carried by the NFU membership:

Whereas we supposedly live in a democratic country, and whereas much money is spent on getting MLAs and MPs elected to represent the people, therefore be it resolved that the NFU pressure all provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada to allow elected officials to fairly represent the people who elected them by permitting free votes without fear of reprisal.

The hon. member for Malpeque seems to have forgotten what he did prior to being elected to the House. Let me think. Could it be the president of the National Farmers Union?

It appears as though there has been a change of mind for the hon. member for Malpeque since arriving in Ottawa. Instead of representing the wishes of his constituents, the member has decided to become a traditional politician, toe the Liberal Party line and become part of the Prime Minister's "Yes, whatever you say" club.

Now is the time for the hon. member for Malpeque and his seatmates to return to reality and recommit themselves to representing their constituents.

Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James let me say that we are not talking about a change to the Constitution, but about a new constitutional procedure that could be implemented under the seven and fifty rule.

We are talking about using the legislatures of the provinces twice to try to implement something behind closed doors, rather than going to the Canadian people to ask them directly what their opinion is and then having that ratified by the seven and fifty formula, seven provinces with fifty per cent of the population agreeing to the constitutional change.

This is a very dangerous bill. It is trying to pit province against province. It is trying to find out who will put forward the best deal. B.C. and Manitoba in the western provinces, or Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the Atlantic provinces, can somehow concoct a deal with the federal government, with the support of Ontario and Quebec, to change our Constitution without going to the Canadian public. Once that is done, the second step is much easier, which is getting seven provinces with fifty per cent of the population to agree to the constitutional change. It is sneaky, it is crafty, and it is wrong. It should be stopped.

Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I know that many Canadians are watching as we debate Bill C-110 which would give veto power over constitutional change to four regions in Canada, one region being the region I am from, western Canada, four provinces with a population of over eight million.

I have been requesting feedback from the province of Saskatchewan. Early indications are that there is absolute rejection of the proposal put forward by the government in Bill C-110 and also in the motion we debated yesterday, the motion on recognizing the distinct society as a special status for the province of Quebec.

I would hope and I would plead with this government that it would reverse its direction, reverse its position and walk away from the failures of the past, the closed door approach, and embark on a new course of action, an open and an honest approach with clear proposals that are made open to the public, that they can access those proposals and that they can also express their opinion in quantifiable ways.

I want to talk about past performance. When we have gone down this road before what has happened? We have two classic examples, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord.

I grant that with the Charlottetown accord there was a referendum and, in fact, Canadians were able to express their opinions. From one end of the country to the other they said no to the Charlottetown accord. They said no in the province of Quebec, but they also said no in the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and even the province of Nova Scotia.

How do we come up with these concoctions, particularly the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord? How did we develop something that was rejected so adamantly by Canadians?

It started out with 11 people behind closed doors. If you go back to the Meech Lake accord, it was 10 premiers and the prime minister. It was Prime Minister Mulroney, the Conservative prime minister. They got behind closed doors and began a wheeling and dealing session. We are opening the opportunity for another wheeling and dealing session with Bill C-110.

What happens when they start wheeling and dealing behind closed doors? I will tell you what happened in the province of Saskatchewan. Premier Devine sat at the table and said: "I will go along with this Meech Lake accord idea, but I want something for it". What did he ask for? He got a billion dollars for the agricultural industry. It was a difficult time for agriculture, so he said: "I will sell my soul for a billion dollars".

I spoke shortly after that decision with an aide of one of his MLAs. This was during the time of the GST debate when the federal government was trying to implement the GST. I said to this member's aide: "Why did our provincial government agree to lend support? Why are we going on with the GST and why are we going along with the Meech Lake accord concept?" Very honestly this assistant said: "You have to do something to get a billion dollars".

We have paid billions of dollars in GST to get that billion dollars. As a province we signed on to the Meech Lake accord even though the people of Saskatchewan opposed it.

Closed door negotiations without including the Canadian public is wrong. More than that it is dangerous. It very costly. It detracts from the reputation of politicians. It gives us a bad name.

We got our billion dollars. Newfoundland got Hibernia. Joe Ghiz in Prince Edward Island got the fixed link. Mr. Bourassa thought he was going to get a special deal for the province of Quebec. We all remember there was a big news story when his staffers got caught talking on a cell phone. They were debating whether or not he had sold out too cheaply, whether he gave up too much. In this cell phone conversation that was recorded some of his assistants felt that Mr. Bourassa had settled for too little.

That tells us they were wheeling and dealing behind closed doors. They were wheeling and dealing with our future. It is wrong. It is dangerous. It is sad that this government is embarking on the exact same course with the implementation of Bill C-110. It needs to be defeated. It will not be accepted by the Canadian people if they have any say in whether it is a success or not.

The same thing was going on in British Columbia. The wonderful thing about modern technology is that some of these politicians get caught. They get tripped up. One of the B.C. cabinet ministers, Moe Sihota, was in the interior of B.C. He did not realize there was a reporter or a camera there or he was not thinking. He talked about how B.C. had got the best of the deal at other provinces' expense.

There was outrage in the province of Quebec. They realized there was wheeling and dealing behind closed doors. There are winners and losers. The winners are not the people. The winners are the politicians who are trying to get re-elected by making these deals behind closed doors. It is shameful and it is disgusting.

What happened with the province of Alberta? Mr. Getty wanted something but it has not lasted. He got the election of a senator. We have elected one senator to the other place and that was through wheeling and dealing with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. This one happened to be in relationship to the Charlottetown accord. That was his plum and it did not even last. He got one senator elected and after that we just slipped back into the old patronage system where friends of prime ministers are appointed to the other place. It was not a very valuable plum that the premier of Alberta received from his wheeling and dealing behind closed doors.

The previous prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, has been in the news a great deal lately. He was involved in this wheeling and dealing. How did he describe this whole process? He described it as the rolling of the dice. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? You remember how incensed Canadians were. It began the demise of the former prime minister as Canadians began to realize these people were not looking out for the best interests of Canadians. They were out to protect their own hides and wheel and deal and see what they could get. They were gambling with our future. It was repulsive to Canadians then and I assure the House, as sure as I am standing here, it is repulsive to Canadians today.

If we give the regions a constitutional veto through their governments alone and bypass the people, there will be wheeling and dealing again. As sure as I am standing here there will be closed door negotiations. They will be sitting in a hotel room somewhere deciding who gets how many senators. They will deciding what distinct society means. They will be deciding what special privileges this confers on the province of Quebec. They will be deciding what plums the province of Ontario gets, if they go back to this wrongful way of deciding our country's future.

It is time for a new direction. It is time to bypass governments and their whips. It can be said these 11 people represent the electorate because they were voted in. I have been here long enough to know that the way the electorate are represented in this House is by way of the traditional party whips who whip their members into voting for legislation. I have been told and I believe that the same thing happens in our provincial legislatures.

In fact you have given power to eleven people without giving true accountability to the public if you allow the provincial governments to have a veto, bypassing the people and not allowing them to speak their minds through a referendum. In most cases Canadians will reject the approach of determining our country's future behind closed doors.

I conclude by expressing how important this is. We are not talking about fishing violations. We are not talking about registering a pesticide. We are talking about the future of our country. We are talking about the operations manual for the future of our country. This will have an impact on my three children. It will have an impact on our grandchildren. It will impact future generations, who will ask how eleven people managed to wheel and deal their future away and no one rose to speak against it.

I am standing against this process. It is wrong. It is harmful to Canada. It is harmful to our reputation as a democracy. It cannot go on. It has to stop. Canadians keep telling us to stop. When will the government listen and abide by the wishes of the people?

Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-110.

This is a serious time in the history of our country. I see all the empty chairs across from me. I cannot speak to members who are not here, but you would think there would be more than two Liberal members in the House.

Witness Protection Program Act November 28th, 1995

We are just being friendly.

Small Business Loans Act November 28th, 1995

Why?

Small Business Loans Act November 28th, 1995

They call the shots.

Parliament Of Canada Act November 28th, 1995

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act (confidence votes).

Madam Speaker, this bill if enacted would amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

It would end the uncertainty over when our general elections would be called. Provisions in this bill would call for the general elections to be held every four years. This would in no way contravene our Constitution. No constitutional amendments are required because the Governor General still has the authority to determine whether or not that election shall be called.

There are also amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would clarify when a byelection would be called. It would ensure that in constituencies where members no longer represent their constituents because they have either been appointed to the Senate, as we have seen in the past, or they have passed away, timely byelections would be called on fixed dates.

Provisions in this bill would come into play if there was a crisis thus giving the bill the flexibility to be very usable.

I ask that all members of the House give serious consideration to this bill. If the bill passes, we would know that the next general election would be held on October 20, 1997.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Agriculture November 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows no bounds in his attempt to become the replacement for our current Prime Minister.

One wonders if the minister's delay has more to do with the fact that the report will give legitimate fodder for those farmers calling for the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister indicated yesterday in the House on a plebiscite that "this plebiscite was not the be all and end all of wheat and barley marketing". It seems that the minister fears allowing producers the right to determine how they market wheat and barley.

Does the joint commission's report contain definitions and content that the minister is withholding from the public's view because it might influence the outcome of the Alberta plebiscite on wheat and barley marketing toward an outcome the minister does not particularly want?

Agriculture November 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

His minister of agriculture was to release the final report of the Canada-U.S. Commission on Grains two and a half months ago on September 11. The minister of agriculture is rivalling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development in the do nothing department.

My question stems from his promises to launch reforms to a number of key agriculture areas based on numerous reports and studies. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why he allows his agriculture minister to delay the Canada-U.S. joint commission report, even though the commissioners who have drafted the report have suggested the content is complete and is similar to material released in the interim preliminary report?