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

Canadian Peacekeepers In Bosnia November 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I would not bring this matter to the attention of the minister except that we are hearing reports actually back from the field saying that they are concerned that there is no plan and morale is becoming lower.

The Minister of National Defence insists on referring to the detention of Canadian soldiers but let us speak frankly as the UN commander has done and admit that our troops are now being held as hostages and as bargaining chips.

As we noted yesterday, the minister promised to withdraw Canadians if the situation on the ground changed or if their safety were called into question. How far must the situation deteriorate before the government acts to remove troops from this dangerous situation?

Canadian Peacekeepers In Bosnia November 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, further to the questioning of the Minister of National Defence on the Bosnia situation, yesterday he acknowledged that Canadian troops in Bosnia are in a very dangerous situation and he indicated that very little has changed.

The most recent reports indicate that the situation may have even deteriorated further. Last night retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie was quoted as saying: "The United States was willing to fight to the last Canadian".

Given the growing danger, will the minister tell Canadians if he even has one contingency plan and if he does what that plan might be?

Points Of Order November 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in Statements by Members under Standing Order 31 the hon. member for Vancouver South said that the leader of the Reform Party should apologize for misleading Canadians.

Under citation 489 of Beauchesne's it is unparliamentary language to use the words misleading the public. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you also rule in this case and perhaps ask the member to withdraw his statement.

Points Of Order November 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, even in your own response which is also recorded in Hansard you said-and I am not quoting exactly-that this was the first time you realized how many votes you won by.

Obviously the Prime Minister needs to do some explaining in the House.

Points Of Order November 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order following the Prime Minister's comments during question period yesterday on the results of the election of the Speaker.

Standing Order 3(6) states:

The Clerk of the House shall, once all members wishing to do so have deposited their ballot papers, empty the box and count the ballots and being satisfied as to the accuracy of the count, shall destroy the ballots together with all records of the number of ballots cast for each candidate and the Clerk of the House shall in no way divulge the number of ballots cast for any candidate.

In reference to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the Prime Minister stated yesterday, and I quote from page 8170 of Hansard :

-Mr. Speaker, that it was by two votes he did not become the Speaker. A lot of people thought we had two great candidates and he lost by only two votes.

In so doing the Prime Minister left the impression that he was in possession of information that is supposed to be secret. By making these comments the Prime Minister has called the whole process into question. I merely want to ensure that the rules of the House were adhered to and that the Standing Orders were not compromised.

I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if his comments were purely-

Department Of Natural Resources Act November 23rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, a bill that reorganizes the Department of Natural Resources.

The issue of natural resources is very important to my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster. Primary industries form almost the entire economy of west central Saskatchewan and are affected by this department or by the department of agriculture. Agriculture is also a natural resource.

Within my riding there are two potash mines, the Cory mine near Delisle and the Cominco mine near Vanscoy. There are also two Domtar salt mines, one near Biggar and the other at Unity. I have a vibrant oil and gas industry within my constituency, as well as the controversial government megaproject, the heavy oil upgrader at Lloydminster. The majority of my constituency is involved in the greatest natural resource of all, agriculture.

I have included agriculture as a natural resource even though it is traditionally thought of as separate from the other primary industries and perhaps is not affected by Bill C-48. It is appropriate in today's tough fiscal climate to reconsider the role of government in the lives of those working in primary industries. After all, this sector is the primary stimulus of all other economic activities.

Currently Canada's primary industries are divided into three categories by the federal government. There is agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and oceans, and then mining, forestry, oil and gas, atomic energy and other energy sources grouped together in the Ministry of Natural Resources. As the direct role of government in these industries decreases it may be time to consider an administrative merger of these departments.

It is worth while to consider that most of the provinces also have these three departments. Once we can agree which of these responsibilities are federal and which fall within provincial jurisdiction it will be easier to avoid duplication of effort. This will lead to less bureaucracy and may facilitate a merger of the federal ministries at considerable savings for Canadians.

I do not want to give the impression that it is the policy of my party that these three ministries be immediately merged. I am merely suggesting that the current division between Canada's primary industries are somewhat arbitrary. On examination it may prove optimal to merge two or three of these departments.

Currently the federal government seems to have its priorities reversed when it comes to funding our primary industries. The Lloydminster upgrader in my riding is a good example. Within the oil and gas industry the federal government concentrates its efforts on subsidizing the most expensive oil to produce like the heavy oil upgrader, the Alberta tar sands and the Hibernia project. The conventional oil and gas industry is then taxed more heavily to provide the money to subsidize the otherwise non-viable enterprises.

If governments would avoid the megaproject boondoggles and reduce the tax burden on the smaller companies that are making a go of it on their own the industry would blossom and flourish. We would find that both productivity and employment within the industry would increase. The government would discover that the industry would employ more people than the megaproject would employ in any case.

Those real jobs within the industry are more likely to be permanent jobs than the jobs created by government subsidy where megaprojects lose money or perhaps even collapse. The same is true throughout Canada's primary industries. The conventional industry, which provides most of the jobs and job growth, is heavily taxed in order to subsidize government megaprojects.

Being a farmer I am familiar with agriculture but the past year has given me the opportunity to become familiar with other primary industries within my riding. Earlier this spring I toured the heavy oil upgrader. I was impressed with its operation but on my tours through my constituency, I was even more impressed with the level of ingenuity and diversity of the people who are proving that large scale government intervention is not required to make industry work.

The renewal of the agriculture industry and the strength of the oil and gas sector has happened, some would say, despite the best efforts of the federal government.

The infamous national energy program of a previous Liberal administration is an example of Liberal gouging that still haunts the energy industry. The industry will not stand for another form of carbon tax no matter how the government chooses to disguise it. Instead of presenting these reorganization bills such as Bill C-48, why does the government not assure us that there will be no raping of the energy industry via taxation or via regulation?

The reason I mention all these activities in my constituency is to demonstrate that large scale government intervention is neither necessary nor is it wanted. If farmers, foresters, fishers, and oil men and women are left to run and develop their own industries then more economic activity will result. Not only does the government activity in these areas not lead to a rejuvenation of the economy, but it is largely counterproductive.

These megaprojects create an artificial competition which, when combined with the higher taxes needed to support government enterprises, stifles the growth and productivity that would naturally occur.

Bill C-48 is yet another housekeeping bill brought in by the Liberal government. For the most part, it merely amalgamates the old Department of Forestry with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I support the principle of consolidating government departments but it seems to me that when the government is reorganizing departments it makes sense to rethink its whole involvement.

What better time is there to seriously re-evaluate the role of the government in the area of natural resources? What better time to do this than in the first year or two of a new Liberal administration? Unfortunately what we have is an old bill reintroduced into the House with a few new brush strokes and no new imagination or input.

Rather than conduct a long overdue and in depth evaluation of the role of government, the Liberals would rather do nothing and just pass the legislation prepared by the previous government.

I support the small step the bill takes in reorganizing the government bureaucracy but I do not feel that the bill will improve the plight of the industry at all. There is still a long way to go. I am looking forward to the day when the government introduces some serious legislation in the area of primary industries.

The current model of government involvement does not reflect the reality that exists today outside the Ottawa bubble. The massive amount of bureaucracy and administration supporting the megaprojects is outdated and hurting the rest of the industry. The administrative overlap and high costs have to be cut. The natural resources industry is too valuable to the Canadian economy to be regulated to death.

In closing I will repeat my support for the principle of the bill. I look forward to the day when the House can consider some legislation with a little more meat in it.

Supply November 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I do not have a lot of time to speak on this issue but there are a couple of things I would like to respond to that were brought forward, particularly by members on the other side.

Several times I heard speakers say that MPs have to be properly remunerated if we are going to get quality in this place. I remind the hon. members that we have a best selling book out right now called On the Take written by Stevie Cameron. It speaks about MPs who are paid very well and who are subscribing to this gold-plated pension plan. The book outlines scandal after scandal of abuse of privileges that are available in this House. Yet this situation is not of concern to the members on the other side because they do not seem to think that the remuneration and the gold-plated pension plan will have an impact.

I suggest that if we can attract people to this place who do not want to be on the take and who are not looking at the pension plan we will probably get better quality. It is those people who are looking for a fleece-lined retirement, looking for that paradise that comes with parliamentary service, that we want to exclude from this place.

I am concerned about these multimillion dollar pensions that, for instance, the member for Sherbrooke will be receiving should his party be decimated and the final two members moved into extinction.

The other concern that I have is that if we do not deal with some of the perks and particularly the pension, Stevie Cameron will write another book and that book will be called "On the Take No. 2". It will refer to the current Liberal government and those members who put their own best interests ahead of the interests of Canadian taxpayers, those members who looked for every possible excuse and made flowery speeches about how deserving they were of all these dollars the taxpayers worked so hard for, to which they are entitled after six short years of service. It is unconscionable.

I urge the other members, in the few remaining minutes and seconds we have, to consider the situation, to support the Reform motion today and to commit to reforming the MPs' pension plan to please Canadians and to restore respect to this place, which is what Canadians are crying for.

Justice November 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, if this government was really taking this matter seriously it would move with much more speed than it is.

There is no excuse for delay. The minister acted with amazing speed to eliminate the cultural defence. We applaud that, but he is dragging his feet over the drunken defence. One has to wonder about his commitment to eliminating this defence.

Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to stop this madness today? Why does he not get in step with Canadians and place this item ahead of his own pet agenda of sexual orientation and gun control legislation?

Justice November 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, Canadians' nerves are fraying over this matter. The parliamentary secretary refers to a discussion paper, but in reality we should snap to some common sense in this place and do something.

The Minister of Justice knows that under the common law judges are guided by previous decisions in similar cases. Criminals are on to this scam, realizing that they can get drunk or shoot up before or even after a crime if they are clever enough and be acquitted.

Once again, will the minister commit today to a date before Christmas by which he will introduce legislation closing this loophole in the Criminal Code so that this travesty of justice can be stopped?

Justice November 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House a very serious matter. This week the drunken and cocaine defence arguments acquitted a person charged with a serious crime once again since the Supreme Court ruled that intoxication could be used as a defence in any crime.

Will the government commit to introducing a bill promptly in order to deal with this critical inadequacy in the law?