House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament October 2010, as Conservative MP for Prince George—Peace River (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 64% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated once again it lacks the will to get the job done. It cannot balance the budget. It does not understand Canadians want concrete and not imaginary changes to the justice system and it has failed to introduce real MP pension reform. Canadians are tired of making sacrifices, tightening their belts and watching the government squander their tax dollars.

We saw what happened after the government failed to bring in a tough budget. Moody's downgraded our credit rating when it became clear the government is not committed to eliminating the deficit. Likewise, these cosmetic changes to the MP pension plan prove the government is not serious about MP pension reform either.

Canadians have seen the government waste countless dollars on study after study, review after review, with no tangible results. Bill C-85 is yet another charade with few substantive reductions to the extravagant MP pension plan. The government knows that due to its lack of hard fiscal policies there will be difficult days ahead. It knows if it does not tackle the debt Canadians will have fewer social safety nets left at the end of the day. Does it care? Obviously not. It is padding its own retirement coffers while it ignores a looming financial crisis. How serious is it about getting Canadians back to work and turning the economy around if it is going to such great lengths to protect an exorbitant MP pension plan?

With the ever increasing debt, will the Canada pension plan survive? With rising debt service payments, will the government cut deeper into RRSP savings plans? At the same time as it sets ridiculously low targets for tackling the deficit it makes taxpayers pay ridiculously high amounts into MP pensions.

Young people saving money now may not have enough put away to live above the poverty line when they retire. Yet MPs will receive fully indexed pensions at age 60, indexed from the moment they retire from public office.

The government has its priorities screwed up. MPs are here to serve Canadians. Canadians are not here to serve the interests of MPs. They will not stand for these double standards much longer. Canadians will still pay $3.60 for every dollar an MP puts into this plan. Why can the government not bring it into line with private schemes? Why can it not face reality and realize even MPs must tighten their belts?

Time and again as we have questioned the Prime Minister about excessive MP pensions we have seen him avoid the real issues. Time and again we have seen him deflect the discussion about retirement plans and begin to talk about MP salaries. These are two distinct issues and he knows it. We are discussing pensions today, not salaries. I am perfectly willing to discuss salaries. Do not confuse an extravagant retirement plan with the argument that MPs are underpaid while they hold office.

If the Prime Minister wants to discuss salaries, fine. First he can set the wage at what it should be and take away the special allowances. Get rid of the tax free allowance and provide an equivalent in taxable income. Get rid of the $6,000 travel allowance we use to maintain a second residence in Ottawa and make sure our income will cover the additional costs we must incur. Do not avoid an honest debate on the validity and sustainability of the proposed pension plan by throwing up smoke and mirrors about the unrelated issue of salaries.

The truth is the government knows this plan is too generous and knows the public will not support it if it is debated on its own merit.

There is a one time opt out clause. Only members of this 35th Parliament will ever be able to opt out of the plan. There is a significant financial disincentive for the class of `88 to opt out because all of the money it has accrued in the pension plan since 1988 will be returned to its members in one lump sum this tax year. Only one-third of it can be rolled into RRSPs or private retirement plans and the rest will be taxed this year if they choose to opt out.

While we are on the subject of how insubstantial the changes to the MP retirement plan are, I ask the government why it did not consider a mechanism for making some of these changes retroactive. Why has the government not included a clause which would allow us to buy out the multi-million dollar pension packages some of the sitting MPs will be looking at

when they lose their seats in the next election? They will still be in their forties but entitled to fully indexed pensions.

Is this an admission that spending too long in this place leaves one incapable of doing anything else? I notice Reformers are opting out and confident of supporting themselves, so perhaps this inability to find gainful employment has something to do with being tied to traditional parties, reliant on traditional perks and privileges.

The government does not want MP pensions to come up as an election issue next time around, but I have news for the government. Until the MP pension plan is brought into line with private pension plans it will be an issue at every election. As more Canadians realize that despite their best efforts they will not have enough to retire on, they will look at retired MPs supported by public funds and grow increasingly bitter.

Yes, we work long hours in this job. Yes, we frequently work seven days a week. Yes, we must make sacrifices and spend time away from our families to do our jobs properly, but so do a lot of other Canadians. They get paid for the time they put in. They do not expect an unrealistic, unsustainable retirement plan as a result of their hard work.

As a grain farmer I have grown up expecting I will have to take responsibility for my own retirement. Farmers know there will be good crop years and there will be droughts. We have to plan ahead to make sure we can get through the bad years. That also means putting money aside for old age.

Farmers, like all small business people, do not have a company pension to rely on. Small business is the economic backbone of the country and the driving force behind new employment opportunities, and yet most small businesses cannot afford pension plans for their employees and everyone must save for their own retirement.

It would be nice if all Canadians had a pension plan as lavish as that of MPs, but let us be realistic. Why should taxpayers support someone so generously just because they held public office for six or more years?

I never believed other Canadians should be responsible for supporting me after age 60 or 65 and I certainly have not changed my views since I was elected. MPs are no different than other Canadians. We just have a different job. Yes, it carries a lot of responsibility but we chose to go into politics.

If the government cannot bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension plans it is holding MPs up as more deserving than other hard working Canadians. I do not believe that is the case and that is why I will be opting out.

I did not get into politics for the retirement plan. I came here to help change things for the better. Maybe that is idealistic of me but at least I will be true to my principles. When I look across the floor to my hon. colleagues, the vast majority of whom will accept this plan, I cannot help but wonder how they can look some of their constituents in the eye.

In my riding office I receive calls from seniors concerned about missing income security cheques. I receive calls from people on unemployment looking for work. I receive calls from people on disability pensions. These Canadians have a tough time making ends meet, even if their cheques are a few days late. That is how close to the line they are. Yet the government is asking taxpayers to toss almost four times as much as we do into our personal retirement funds.

How can my Liberal colleagues across the way opt into this generous pension plan and then turn to help their constituents with no shred of shame? I know I could not.

If the government had the best interests of Canadians at heart it would bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension schemes and demonstrate a real commitment to fiscal responsibility to ensure all Canadians will be able to retire in comfort.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 9th, 1995

Talk about hypocrisy, look in the mirror.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 9th, 1995

What did you do with yours?

Petitions May 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River asking Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament. They feel the rights and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected and defended by the Bloc Quebecois.

Aboriginal Affairs May 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I was chuckling because of the difficulty the minister has as he stumbles over the word plan. He has no plan.

Quoting once again from the leaked document: "The aim is to develop a strategy to address the red book commitment, manage expectations and develop federal views on the substance of a contemporary treaty process". The government does not intend to address treaty issues until this fall and until then, "there will be no authority to commit to substantive treaty processes".

How is it possible for the federal representative to negotiate in good faith with First Nations in Quebec when he has no authority?

Aboriginal Affairs May 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the government has recently appointed a chief federal negotiator to help interpret the recently recognized 1760 Murray treaty. This leaky brief, or should I say leaked brief, of the minister states: "Our participation could not be postponed for fear of being perceived as not wanting to discuss the treaty and allowing Quebec to take the lead in a tense political climate".

If the government is only participating because of the Quebec sovereignist agenda does the federal negotiator have a real mandate to interpret the treaties in contemporary terms as promised in the red book?

Seagram April 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should mark this day on the calendar. It is the first day I am aware of that a minister across the way has admitted to being wrong.

Given the talks with heritage officials and given the heritage minister's meeting with the Bronfmans, how can the minister deny that he has allowed Investment Canada's decision to be tainted by the appearance of undue influence?

Seagram April 28th, 1995

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

Yesterday the minister stated that the heritage minister has no role to play regarding the Seagram acquisition and that Industry Canada is dealing with the issue on its own. Despite this, Investment Canada officials confirm that they have already had discussions with heritage officials regarding the Seagram file.

If Investment Canada is to work on its own and if heritage has no role to play, why are this minister's officials consulting with heritage officials? Why is it the minister does not seem to know about it?

B.C. Trappers' Association April 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, following their 50th annual general meeting held recently in Prince George, the B.C. Trappers' Association communicated its concerns about the anti-gun legislation to me.

Its members are worried that the registration of all firearms and the prohibition of certain firearms as proposed by the government would impose an unreasonable burden on trappers, hunters, and other law-abiding citizens.

They also believe that the controls on firearms, ammunition, and lawful gun owners proposed in Bill C-68 are an assault on the traditional liberties and freedoms that are at the heart of our history and culture.

Therefore, they have requested that their provincial MLAs and federal MPs place a priority on fighting these elements in Bill C-68 and fight any other variants that might be proposed. I am one B.C. MP who intends to continue to do just that.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy April 25th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether or not it is going to stay within its budget.

Failure to identify a sustainable fishery has created great uncertainty for the same TAGS recipients. Everyone hopes they will be among the lucky few to get work if and when the fishery recovers, but it is cruel of the government to hold out false hope. At the same time as Atlantic fishermen struggle to feed their families we see the minister of fisheries spending over $200,000 on office furnishings.

I have a supplementary question. Everyone knows fish stocks will not have recovered within five years. What is the government's plan for the fishermen following the end of TAGS?