House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was energy.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Fisheries November 5th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, Spanish overfishing off the east coast prompted this government to respond with guns and Captain Canada. Meanwhile on the west coast, Americans continue to overfish and continue to violate the Pacific salmon treaty and this government does nothing.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why the double standard for British Columbians?

Justice October 28th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Victoria provincial court judge Brian MacKenzie.

Last Friday Judge MacKenzie sent a clear message to individuals breaking into homes in greater Victoria. He sentenced Raymond Caziere to seven years in jail for breaking into the home of Elizabeth Kitchen and terrorizing the 73-year old with a butcher knife. He gave Caziere a further two years for a total of nine years for other crimes he committed.

Judge MacKenzie's ruling clearly puts the interests of victims first. The nine year sentence is longer than most people get for manslaughter. Judge MacKenzie is sending a message to predators such as Caziere that Canadians are no longer going to tolerate this type of action.

Most important, I would like to encourage the Minister of Justice to follow Judge MacKenzie's lead and start getting serious about punishing criminals. Three cheers for Judge MacKenzie.

Newfoundland School System October 27th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one observation. Sitting in the last row you can see all the rows in front of you on the other side of the House. It was encouraging this afternoon to hear the last eight speakers all agree. I hope that people on the government side of the House will take notice of that.

Newfoundland School System October 27th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend on the other side brought up this voucher system question. I know it is a little bit off the topic, but by empowering the students who are going to use the service, a minimum standard curriculum could be provided. I believe this would give a much better quality of education because it would be market driven and it would be up to the institution to provide the best service.

A parent may have five or six choices and would pick the institution which was most suitable and which would provide the best education. A dollar value should not be placed on the voucher. It is to provide a service. It would make the schools or institutions very competitive. Again it is such an important issue.

My colleague from Calgary West suggested that should have been part of the choice given to the people of Newfoundland. We are setting a trend for the rest of the country. It is such an important issue that we should really think it through so that we provide the best alternatives for our children.

Newfoundland School System October 27th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a topical issue when we look at the news today and see what is happening in Ontario. I want to put a few comments out for thought. I also agree with my colleague from Calgary West when he speaks of a voucher system.

I, too, believe in the democratic process. The people of Newfoundland have spoken and we have come up with this three part test. I also would encourage a free vote in the House.

I recognize how important education is to all of our children. We are setting trends for what could follow across other provinces. We need to provide the best possible education we can for our children.

This comes close to home for me. In British Columbia, we face numerous challenges and problems within our public school system. I have studied very carefully the next door province of Alberta which has both the public school systems. It has the Catholic public school board and the other public school boards. The taxpayers are given the option of choosing where their tax dollars go. They have some choices for their children. By doing so, they hold the school boards and the schools accountable.

Again it follows along the lines of if someone provided the student or the child with a voucher, the schools and the school boards would have to be accountable because they want to attract those vouchers to their schools.

I believe in the democratic process. The people of Newfoundland have spoken, provided they have satisfied these three tests. I am not convinced they have totally done that but it is something we have to be having a hard look at. We need to look beyond December 5. It is something that is of provincial jurisdiction, but it is something we must all be thinking about for the sake of our children and their future.

Division No. 11 October 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, there is a part of me that wanted to go home but I could not leave without making a few comments.

I apologize to my colleagues on this side of the House for keeping them here but it is important for me to make these comments. I can talk about Bill C-10. I have read it. I can talk about the technicalities, what the bill really does, how it will really increase taxes and how it will really increase revenue for this government, but I want to talk about what the government is doing.

I admit that I am a new member in this House. I have been here only a few weeks. I had my maiden speech prepared on Bill C-2. My constituents asked me to speak on it. It is a huge concern in the riding where I come from. I come here and I am silenced. That is wrong because we live in a democracy.

I am saying this from my heart because I really do believe this. I followed Parliament and I was going to speak on Bill C-10 Wednesday but I have been silenced. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast said I am in the line-up. It may happen today or it will probably happen on the next speaking rotation. I read up on the bill and studied the effects of taxes being raised. However, I am being silenced and not given a true opportunity to debate this in the House because of the government's tactics.

We have been here only a few weeks. I say this very sincerely from my heart. They can laugh and they can make all the rhetoric they want, but on two occasions I have been silenced. That is a dictatorship. There is no other word for it.

Why are we even here if the government just does what it wants? On Bill C-10 we could go into the technicalities of it. We could talk about how this government has the figure 70% stuck and ingrained in its brain. That is the one thing I have come to learn from both of these bills that I was going to talk about. The government will have raised the premiums by over 70% in Bill C-2.

Now when I study Bill C-10, if you want to talk about it let us do that. Prior to 1995, 50% would be included in your taxable income. Now, guess what? It is going to be 85%. It is a simple case of arithmetic, a 70% increase. Imagine that. This is not rocket science.

We can debate this bill. I know the Minister of Finance is probably off smiling and padding the government coffers where all this money is coming into. I am sure the government knows how much extra revenue this will create. This is wrong.

The government stands up on the other side time after time and says there have been no tax increases but they are all sneaky hidden tax increases. What is even worse, it will not even allow debate in this House. It just rams them through and uses any tactics it can.

I could not leave without standing up and saying that I was prepared to speak on both these bills. What I see in this House is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is absolutely deplorable what this government is doing. It is silencing the opposition. It is trying to run a dictatorship and it is going to have to be accountable to the people of Canada whether it likes it or not.

The government members can stand there and laugh but I can remind them that the Tories once sat on that side of the House and laughed too and they paid a huge price and those guys are well on their way to going down that same path.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex has recognized there was a problem and that they have attempted to fix it.

I am going to reiterate my earlier comments that this is a tax grab. I will explain to the member why the Minister of Finance is smiling these days. He continues to take bites out of our wallets.

What concerns me the most is that—and I am saying this after the House has been in session for only three or four weeks—the government seems to be stuck on the number 70%. In Bill C-2, the largest single tax grab, they are going to raise the taxes of the working Canadians by 70%. There will be a 70% increase in those premiums, over 70%.

The inclusion rate was 50% in the 1984 protocol which was up until 1995, but now we are going to see that 50% inclusion rate raised to 85%. What does that amount to? A 70% tax increase. This government is stuck on raising our taxes by 70%.

The member for Essex keeps bringing back the rich versus the poor. In Bill C-2 it was the working against the retired. This is not what this is all about. It is about arithmetic and the numbers do not add up. This party stands for the poor, believe me, more than anyone on that side of the House.

There are tax provisions that we wanted to implement. We would have taken people making below $30,000 right off the tax rolls.

We are not suggesting that low income people should pay tax on this at all, by no stretch of the imagination. What we are suggesting will ensure that this will be dealt with fairly and that is not what is being done. It is another tax grab.

I ask them to show us the numbers. The Minister of Finance can show us those numbers. I am sure it is another tax grab by the government.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, we are in the House today to debate Bill C-10. I looked back on the 35th Parliament and counted about 36 tax increases by this government. Today we are in our fourth week of Parliament and this is the second tax increase proposed by this government.

We saw in Bill C-2 the single largest tax grab, again with respect to the Canada pension plan, which was brought in by this government and rammed through this House without debate. The government wanted to do the same thing with Bill C-10. It approached the opposition and asked to move this bill through very quickly without debate in the House.

With Bill C-2, I was very concerned for the future of Canada's children. Would they get a pension? Would their premiums be paying for the benefits of people today while they would never see a dime? Today I am concerned for their grandparents. Last week it was the children. Today it is the grandparents. There is absolutely no question that this again is another tax grab by this government. It is another sneaky hidden one.

What concerns me is in only four weeks of parliament we are already into the second tax increase. They are increasing the rate of what they did in the last parliament.

We already know the senior supplement is coming. This will be another massive tax grab on middle income seniors. When is the government going to wake up and realize the Canadian public is not going to stand for this?

We heard members this morning from the opposition and the government sides. I made some notes with respect to the speaker from the government side. With the proposed changes he said recipients of this benefit will have to claim only 85% of their income as taxable income. What he is not telling us is under the previous tax provisions they were required to claim only 50% of their income.

The net effect of this is a 70% tax grab on these people. The government knows full well it is putting more money in its pocket to do with as it wants.

I agree with the comments of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. I would like to know what that number is. Some of the bureaucrats within the ministry of finance know exactly what that number is. We have a right to know what it is.

Supply October 9th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the comments by the member from the government a few moments ago. What we are debating today and what I think the Bloc is getting at is the Liberal influence peddling with reference to campaign funds.

What I find most troubling though in listening to this whole debate are the words that are being used and that are flying around so loosely. I hear from the member on the government side, a transparent process, accountability. A few minutes ago I heard democracy, something that is respected.

I have been in this House only a few weeks. This is my first time elected and I have a lot to learn after witnessing what has happened in the House yesterday and today. Words like accountability the government does not know. Democracy it does not know. This government is trying to silence the people of this country.

I am sent here to represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and I come with their voice. I came here to speak on various issues and every time I look in this House, this government is trying to silence it. Whether it is sending a bill to the Senate first, whether it is trying to bring closure on a bill, whatever it does it is trying to silence it.

This government does not have a clue about democracy or accountability or transparency. They talk about fraudulence. I have no doubt in my mind about the accusations that are coming forth and we will have to wait and see.

What I have witnessed in this House the last few days absolutely confirms in my mind what has been coming forth. It frustrates me to hear these words used so loosely by the other side, that those members are democratic, that they are accountable and then they pull the kind of stunts we have seen in this House is absolutely a disgrace. It is shameful and it should not be allowed.

Supply October 9th, 1997

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc stated that financial interests are not more important than the interests of Canadians. He is asking this government to consider making sure that happens.

I suggest that after what we saw yesterday in with Bill C-2, obviously this government does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. It is silencing us in this House on some of the most intrusive legislation, referring to Bill C-2, by not allowing debate and not allowing us to proceed.

I am sure the hon. member from the Bloc would agree that this government does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. It is no surprise to us after we saw what happened on the most intrusive legislation against young Canadians in this country. It does not surprise me that this government is acting in this way and we cannot expect anything different from it.