House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Cariboo—Prince George (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act May 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member opposite, unfortunately what I have just heard is the standard answer when someone dares to criticize aboriginal programs. That standard answer is: "You simply don't understand the aboriginal people".

I live in an area of British Columbia where there are many aboriginal people. I have talked extensively with many of them and I have listened to their concerns. The one concern they have is they want to break this dependency on the federal government. They want to be able to provide for their own self-sufficiency.

This is a good direction to go but Bill C-16, as I stated earlier, does not break the dependency. It only provides an obligation for continued dependency on the federal government.

I believe that any agreement the federal government enters into with aboriginal people respecting settlements or land claims must lead to an ending of continued federal government funding. The aboriginal people must be permitted to enter into an economic base for themselves that will create self-sufficiency.

The member opposite asked about my definition of inherent right to self-government. My understanding is inherent right to self-government means that it always existed and is answerable to no other authority. I consider every inhabitant of the country a Canadian. We have a federal government, provincial governments and municipal governments. My vision of self-government for the aboriginal people is that they get to a position where they are Canadians within the existing federal, provincial and municipal laws.

I do not support new governments being established within my country that would operate outside the established laws to which every other Canadian is obligated.

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act May 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to address the House in relation to Bill C-16. This agreement was signed on September 6, 1993 and tabled in the House on March 10, 1994.

I know the Sahtu Dene and Metis overwhelmingly supported the bill in a ratification vote. It appears that they are more than satisfied with this settlement. However I believe we would be negligent, as parties in the past have been, if we did not address some of the problems contained within Bill C-16.

Certainly my colleagues and I in the Reform Party are willing to obtain concepts of aboriginal self-determination, but only in situations in which aboriginals will clearly come to a position of self-sufficiency within the Canadian society. Unfortunately Bill C-16 does not address this situation.

Bill C-16 in fact calls for more bureaucracy, huge settlement moneys, continued DIAND programs and extensive future negotiations on self-government. The bureaucracy which will be spawned by Bill C-16 is in a word overwhelming.

There will be seven new boards, panels and councils established to manage the resources of 2,200 people. These new entities will have representatives from the Sahtu Dene, the Metis and the government itself.

One wonders why aboriginal representatives could not be incorporated into existing DIAND boards which manage the resources in the settlement area. The agreement, Bill C-16, appears to propagate bureaucracy in so far as it overlaps existing regulatory boards and threatens to turn a very small population into a community of regulatory bureaucrats.

The potential for bureaucratic havoc in this new regime appears to be very serious, and this is something we want to address. We must take the resource management arrangements in this settlement as something that will set a benchmark for future and existing management agreements in other areas.

As all members can appreciate the resources governed by these boards will traverse a wide area. Accordingly matters concerning wildlife or water would affect a number of distinct settlement areas all sharing in these resources and all having their own regulatory regime, a formula for bureaucratic havoc.

Moreover, the various regions may have different attitudes as to how to deal with a particular problem. Certainly that they have exclusive rights over the resources in their area, claims of mismanagement arising from governments or neighbouring bands may be difficult to establish and address.

In short, there is a huge potential for an interbureaucratic tangle among the various boards in the various settlement areas. The government's position with respect to the decisions of these boards is very unclear and may contribute to the bureaucratic bog already created under the agreement.

The new boards, the territorial government and the federal government will all have input into the process of resource management. The new bureaucracy in Bill C-16 will be responsible to, and I quote the minister, "as the context requires". This could be a minister of the Government of Canada or a minister of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Aboriginal boards, ministries of the Northwest Territories and ministries of the Government of Canada will all grapple with and decide on such issues as transport, the environment and natural resources. Moreover, bureaucracies within settlement areas and bureaucracies within various levels of government will all vie for the ability to regulate in their respective fields.

The net effect of this bureaucratic web is increased cost, increased confusion and increased time to enact any necessary measures. Further, we must consider the potential harmful

effects of all this regulation and consultation, the effect it may have on future economic development in the country.

Under Bill C-16 companies that may wish to develop subservice resources would have to consult with this bureaucracy, would have to consult with the Sahtu tribal council on such matters as environmental impact and Sahtu employment opportunities. I would suggest that this new extensive bureaucratic structure that is bound to be set up, is destined to be set up under Bill C-16, and the processes established in this agreement may discourage many firms from investing in that region.

In all we create an enormous bureaucracy with a small economic base to support it. This bureaucracy and the control that goes with it are far from this government's notion of self-government. Despite the large settlement area, despite compensation to the tune of $130 million, despite regulatory authority, and despite royalties derived from gas and oil production the Liberals are committed still to the establishment of self-government for the Sahtu as stated in appendix B of this agreement.

An inability to define the term inherent self-government seems to in no way deter the government from undertaking negotiations to implement it.

This voluminous, complicated, expensive agreement is simply the introduction to a more voluminous, more complex, more expensive round of negotiations on self-government. I believe it is our duty to question what type of structure this new level of government will take, what will be its duties and powers.

Is self-government even appropriate for a population of 2,200, of whom some 982 are adults? Does the federal government recognize the time and cost involved in separate self-government negotiations with every native band in Canada as it is committed to? Will the government continue to deny the reality of the situation as it has in not believing that a definition of self-government is necessary before negotiations start to take place?

The government has no definition of aboriginal self-government and yet is prepared to embark on this journey without a map. The government will not be able to sweep this one under the rug. Provisions in this agreement and future self-government negotiations will hit Canadians where they will feel it the most: in their pocketbooks.

Since 1990 the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has increased approximately $400 million a year, the largest increase of any of the ministerial budgets. In 1994-95 DIAND will spend some $5 billion, of which 68 per cent or $3.38 billion are grants and contributions to band and tribal councils, a process which the Auditor General himself criticized in 1991 as faulty since the department could not ascertain whether the funds were used for the purposes intended or managed with due regard to the economy, to efficiency and to effectiveness.

Despite this agreement, despite Bill C-16, it is clear that the Sahtu Dene and the Metis will continue to have access to every DIAND program that is currently offered. This is in addition to the settlement terms of this agreement.

This agreement and the parameters for negotiations on self-government do not address the spiralling inefficient expenditures of DIAND. The government does not address the issue of financial self-sufficiency for the Sahtu. As it now appears future self-government negotiations will do very little to assist aboriginals out from under their continuing dependency on DIAND.

By not addressing the issue of self-sufficiency it seems to me that self-government will simply represent a different instrument for the dispersal of government funds to aboriginals. I would suggest the taxpayer can no longer afford DIAND's huge and inefficient expenditures and I would suggest that aboriginals as well no longer wish to live in the dependency of a federal department.

Bill C-16 does not deal clearly with this issue. The bottom line is that this agreement creates more bureaucracy and thereby more expenditures for DIAND. Furthermore, since this settlement does not concern itself with aboriginal self-sufficiency and since the beneficiaries of this agreement are entitled to all benefits continuing derived from DIAND's programs, agreements such as this will simply push this country further into debt.

I believe it is time to settle all land claims as quickly and as fairly as possible. However, with consideration as to the current financial state of Canada I believe that these claims, every claim, must be settled with an eye to removing aboriginal dependency on government funding. I would apply the same criteria to any negotiations surrounding self-government. Otherwise DIAND simply will become a larger sinkhole for government funds.

We do not need agreements such as this one guaranteeing government funding well into the future. We need a strategy that will break the cycle of dependency. That is what the Canadian people want. That is what the aboriginal people want. I look forward to the day when aboriginals stand as economic equals with all other Canadians. Unfortunately agreements which create more bureaucracy and more expenditures will only exacerbate the dependency that these aboriginals have on the federal government.

This settlement is just one such agreement and I therefore must opposite it.

Supply April 28th, 1994

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Could the hon. member specifically and briefly give me a couple of examples of interprovincial trade barriers that the government is working on that would begin to allow western producers to have access to the Ontario and Quebec markets? Are there one or two specific trade barriers he is working on at the present time that would allow that?

Supply April 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief to the hon. parliamentary secretary. You mentioned the breaking down of interprovincial trade-

Supply April 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, coming from B.C. the subject of grain is not a big issue in our area. However, I want to make a couple of comments to the member about some of his statements regarding his concern about the lack of grain or the decrease in grain passing through the St. Lawrence seaway.

Clearly the member realizes that there has been a huge market change in the demand for grain in the world. Europe, for example, has gone from a net importer to a net exporter of grain. This is a predominant factor in grain shipments throughout the east coast ports.

I sit in the House every day and listen to the members from the Bloc crying about how hard done by the province of Quebec is and how things are so tough and they are being penalized so much. The member should realize that for so many years the pendulum swung the other way toward the province of Quebec.

We talk about the supply management system. Today in the domestic market the province of Quebec enjoys a huge protectionist advantage for shipping things like cheese and milk products and some of the other items in the domestic market.

In our province, for example, because of the supply management system we are restricted to pretty much a local area for selling our product. The member is once more bringing up the hard done by Quebec issue and I think that his facts are not exactly correct.

Highway 16 April 19th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion. On its surface I cannot find the normal things wrong with it.

The member for Leeds-Grenville clearly stated that he was not requesting additional federal government funds, which I appreciate. Certainly this side of the House looks for that in every motion. He talked about the safety concerns on the roadway. I appreciate the statistics that he presented in his background material have borne out the cause of concern.

I am not going to take too long on this motion. If I have any concerns it would be whether changing the rules of the infrastructure program as laid out in the famous red book would set any kind of precedent we might regret later on down the line. The infrastructure program clearly calls for a sharing of one-third federal government, one-third municipal and one-third provincial.

If we are to spend this credit card infrastructure program money anyway, I am wondering whether changing the rules to accommodate a need in the member's riding will set a precedent in the future throughout the life of the infrastructure program that we may have to address later. If we make an exception for one, we may find ourselves having to make exceptions for others. Even though this particular one might have justifiable merit in the minds of many, will the others who seek exceptions to the general rules of the infrastructure program have merit? Could they cause us any harm?

The member has stated that he would like to see the provincial government pick up two-thirds of the cost. I have seen the reports on the financial position of the provincial government. I am wondering whether that is at all possible with the state of the finances of the province of Ontario.

Clearly the premier of Ontario has stated on a number of occasions that they simply do not have enough money to go around. On one project, highway 407 I believe it is, they have sought financing from the private sector to help complete it. I am wondering whether it might be an idea for them to do that in this case.

Does the provincial government have $300 and some million to invest in the project even if the rules were changed? My main concern is whether we are setting a precedent both on making the exception from the municipal contribution and on the extension of the time limit of the infrastructure program application to be completed. I am wondering whether the precedent may cause us a problem down the road on other applications.

We are not being asked to spend any more federal money, any more federal funds than have already been allocated, the one-third sharing. Apart from those two points I do not have any opposition to the motion. Perhaps the member might be able to explain the two points.

Budget Implementation Act, 1994 April 14th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just about done.

The budget was supposed to represent stability and certainty in the future economic direction of our country. Sadly, very sadly, budgets such as the one presented on February 22 do not provide any kind of stability or certainty. Continued deficits point to higher taxation, individuals are cautious in the use of their disposable income as they see it shrinking and as they see their job certainty becoming more uncertain and industry is looking south of the border for a more hospitable economic climate.

The underground economy is running at about $70 billion a year. This all represents definitive evidence that there are problems with taxation on industry and taxation more generally.

Alberta has recognized the negative effects government debt produces. Accordingly in its provincial budget it has taken measures to eliminate the provincial deficit within a few years and is predicting a surplus. Those people from western Canada hope that will work and they are confident it will.

Other provinces and the federal government must take similar action. Rosy revenue projections are simply no longer acceptable. The federal government needs to take action on this issue and we need action today.

I will just sum up. We in the Reform Party have been constantly speaking about taking action. The government has failed to listen to us. We in the Reform Party will continue to speak on additional cuts that the government has to make to its budget and we have been. We will do all these things in an

attempt to prevent the government's fiscal house from crumbling and come crashing down.

The implementation of Bill C-17 and the budget generally represent the removal of yet another cornerstone of our financial house. It is on the verge of collapse and accordingly our party and I must oppose it.

Budget Implementation Act, 1994 April 14th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in the debate on Bill C-17. I might point out that although I have spoken many times during the questions and comments periods of the debate, I find it hard to believe this is my first speech in the House. I hope all the folks back home in Prince George-Bulkley Valley are watching today.

In my address today I am going to acknowledge some of the good points of the budget, which I think is appropriate. Our party is not here simply to criticize. Where credit is due we certainly will applaud.

Accordingly I must inform the House that in our opinion there are very few good points in the budget, so a great deal of this address will deal with many of the problems in the budget generally and the negative effects that we feel it is having and will continue to have on the economy of the country.

First, I congratulate the government on certain aspects of Bill C-17 which indicate at least some fleeting recognition of the necessity to curtail government spending within the public service and in the area of transfers to persons and provinces. For example, the government has extended an existing salary freeze for public service employees and has frozen the salaries of members of Parliament. I applaud that. The government has also frozen transfers to the provinces under the Canada assistance plan for the fiscal years 1994-95. As well, amendments to the unemployment insurance lengthening qualification times may encourage some firms to hire and may discourage the abuse of the system.

On that point, it possibly would have been appropriate if the government had looked at putting a hiring freeze on the public service sector as well and let attrition actually contribute to this effort to cut costs in the public service sector.

Clearly these actions could be representative of a step in the right direction. There is some indication that the government recognizes problems surrounding expenditures devoted to public sector salaries, transfers to the provinces and social programs.

Unfortunately this is where the government's foray into the realm of reality ends. Despite repeated warnings from domestic and international investors there has been no significant reduction in government spending. Overall government spending has increased. The reaction of the markets in recent times reflects the government's continued neglect to address the financial problems of Canada in its recent budget.

On April 22, 1993, the present finance minister questioned the Conservative government on its budget. At that time he stated that the Conservative budget was a stop-gap budget that did not address Canada's real needs. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that perhaps he should apply his past comments to his recent budget. In so doing he may just come to an understanding as to why the financial markets have reacted in the way they have. Quite simply, the budget brought down by the Liberal government does not address Canada's real needs.

It is my opinion that the Liberals are on course to add $100 billion to the national debt over the term of their mandate. The consequences of that will cause severe stress to our economy. Specifically it could translate into such excessive tax increases that the Canadian consumer will be left with a severely deflated disposable income and those who would invest in this country, the investors and the developers, would end up having a zero comfort zone.

Our standard of living and our way of life would begin to become dramatically downgraded. The people of the country could be transformed into minions of the state, simply working to feed the government and its insatiable spending habits.

Some forecasters predict that government growth could be the strongest among the G-7 countries in 1994. I believe industry is looking to the government for stability in politics and in taxation so that as a result of the forecast it may begin to develop this comfort zone and take any advantage it can of any upswing in the economy.

Unfortunately it is not the intention of the government to allow industry to have that comfort zone and it has been demonstrated in the recent budget. The government appears to be well on its way to being a major deterrent to economic recovery in Canada as a result of the budget. Nowhere is it more pronounced than in the budget.

It is the opinion of our party and of millions of Canadians that we need serious cuts in federal spending if we are ever to transform Canada into an attractive country for investors. As well we need serious cuts in government spending and some clear indication that the government is getting its financial

house in order if the consumers of the country are ever again to develop any measure of consumer confidence.

The government has introduced some cost cutting measures. However the government will still be running a $40 billion deficit this year. This is because it has introduced 18 new spending programs and 15 new studies.

In the budget speech the Minister of Finance stated that people told the government it should freeze spending and it agreed. That is what he said.

The minister may have agreed with that point but he took no action to implement it. In fact he did the opposite. Total government spending is up from $160 billion to $163 billion. Because of this action and the recent rise in interest rates it is my opinion that the government cannot possibly reach its target of 3 per cent to GDP ratio in three years. It is impossible under the present budget.

Total debt as a percentage of GDP has been increasing steadily over the last 25 years. In 1970-71 total debt represented 21.8 per cent of GDP. Forecasting predicts that in 1995-96 total debt will represent approximately 75 per cent of GDP. By the turn of the century, if current government spending habits continue, total government debt will surpass our GDP. This would mean that we would eventually owe more than we earned in a year as an entire nation. I find this a national shame.

Our poor financial condition is evident in some recent trends in the Canadian economy. The dollar has come under increasing pressure and foreign investors are withdrawing their money in response to the staggering government debt load.

The IMF warned of such a situation last year. It predicted that the dollar would begin to slide if "Ottawa and the provinces fail to cut spending in their upcoming budgets". This is exactly what happened.

The Dominion Bond Security Rating Service recently downgraded its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt from AAA to AA high. Dominion stated that it had no choice but to downgrade the rating since there were no "meaningful reductions" in the government's recent budget.

This represents yet another harbinger that the nation's fiscal house is in disorder and could be on the verge of collapse. None of this has frustrated the Prime Minister and his government. It has not frustrated them at all. The encouraging news that I have just outlined has somehow prompted the Liberal government to embark on a $6 billion credit card infrastructure program.

Interest rates have been edging up as foreign investors see Canadian debt load increasing and as they react by selling off their Canadian dollar holdings. The dollar has lost two or three cents since budget day and as well the government deficits will continue at unreasonably high levels in the short term.

The budget similar to the Liberal election victory is a status quo entity, that is if they do nothing and say nothing they hope to emerge undamaged by public scrutiny. Contrary to the claims of the finance minister the budget is just nibbling at the edges of the problem.

The one area of spending that needs to be reformed and is not, which is the largest government spending program, transfers to provinces and persons remains relatively untouched by the government. Over 50 per cent of our budget is spent on social programs and transfers to provinces and persons. This huge area has been virtually untouched.

Industry, investors and individuals are looking for signs of stability and thereby certainty of the future economic direction of our country.

Budget Implementation Act, 1994 April 11th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed I did not get to make some comments to the hon. member across the way. I know he was looking forward to that.

I just heard the hon. member for Fundy-Royal talking about the merits of the budget. There were a couple of things that sort of struck me which I have discussed with other members in these debates.

First of all I would like to say the statement made by the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as the member pointed out, rang about the same bell as that of the chairman of one of the major banks during the referendum debate when he said that in essence the world is going to end if the Charlottetown accord did not pass. Of course we saw that did not come about exactly.

The member is saying that this gentleman has said that the Liberal budget is on the right track. I wonder just exactly where that track leads to. There are a couple of inconsistencies. The member talks about all the different job creation programs that the budget is going to bring about. I wonder if the answer to the unemployment problem in Canada to the Liberal government is simply to put everyone who is unemployed on a government program.

I am sure those people would rather have real jobs. I go back to my earlier comments about where real jobs come from. They come from the private sector industry that has confidence in the fiscal responsibility of the government.

That is what this government has to show and it has to show it by cutting spending in real and positive terms. This has not happened.

The actual spending has increased by $3 billion this year. The member said they had made significant cuts in spending. That may be quite true but this is in proposed spending and projected spending not in real spending.

I can say I am going to spend $50,000 next week on something and then cut it back to $2,000. Can I take credit for saving $48,000? This is the same type of accounting that the previous administration used and the Liberal government before that.

We have to start talking in real terms about what it is going to take to get this economy going again. It is not going to be credit card infrastructure programs. It is not going to be job creation programs for which there are no jobs once the people graduate from those programs or attain their apprenticeships.

It is going to come from private sector confidence and private investor confidence when they start investing in this country and expanding their business. That is where it is going to come from.

Budget Implementation Act, 1994 April 11th, 1994

Say that with a straight face.