House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was aboriginal.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Vancouver Island North (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He made some comments about the RCMP training centre. This is a very significant issue that sends a very strong signal about where the government is coming from when it comes to supporting our police forces.

My understanding is that the RCMP anticipates that it is going to have a 50% attrition rate over the next five-plus years. That is a very high rate of attrition. The bubble is going through in terms of the high percentage of people approaching retirement. In order to replace that natural rate of attrition a certain number of recruits must be going through the system. It would be a challenge under the very best of circumstances if that training centre were open today, but it is not and it has not been. We do not know where the government is going with all this.

What on earth can be going on in the mind of the government that would allow this to happen? Sure, it will not affect major things in six months or twelve months, but there are downstream ramifications for our national police force, which is one of the most important symbols of this country and one of the most important practical organizations we have, although it is receiving no support from over there.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on that and maybe shed some new light on the subject.

Supply March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member from Kamloops. I heard him make reference to the rate of incarceration of our aboriginal peoples. He also made reference to looking at the front end, trying to look at prevention and so on.

I have often thought about two statistics that are not normally linked. I wonder if the member has some independent thoughts on them. I would like him to share them with the viewers and listeners. They relate to what we all know so sadly as fetal alcohol syndrome which affects the aboriginal population in a statistically high way. We also know that victims of fetal alcohol syndrome have traditionally and statistically provable high rates of incarceration.

If we look at those two statistics independently in the broad population there is a definite linkage. If we look at them specifically in the aboriginal population, it would be very interesting to know what the link is. We are possibly understating the true impact of fetal alcohol syndrome and how it is ravaging the population, particularly in terms of the rate of incarceration of aboriginal peoples.

I have never actually seen a study that links those two statistics. Does the member from Kamloops want to make any comments in that regard?

Forest Industry March 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the government is not taking this issue seriously. We have heard all this before. The government cannot just cross its fingers and muddle its way through. This is an organized campaign directed specifically at Canadian forest products.

Why is the minister sitting in silence while an orchestrated campaign against our number one export earner is gearing up?

Forest Industry March 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, one of the Canadian forest industry's most valued customers is the Home Depot chain of North American stores.

On March 17 Rainforest Action Network is co-ordinating a massive protest at Home Depot stores across Canada and the U.S. to urge people not to buy our old growth forest products. By definition most of the forests harvested in Canada are old growth.

Why is the minister sitting in silence while foreign lobbyists denigrate our forest products?

Water March 5th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, control of one of our great national treasures, water, is under threat in a precedent setting case before NAFTA, the Sun Belt bulk water export case. At any moment now this case and Canada's control over water might be subject to a NAFTA panel.

What is the government doing to ensure that Canada continues to retain sovereignty over its water? What is it doing to make sure we keep bulk water out of NAFTA?

Citizenship Of Canada Act February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about immigration and citizenship from a historical perspective because I think it helps us to understand something about ourselves and about how we got to this debate on Bill C-63. Everyone needs a history reminder once in a while.

Immigration to Canada is very much based on the Canadian dream of upward mobility. A fascinating book was published in 1988 called The Chinese in Canada by Peter S. Li. Being from British Columbia, the story in this book is of strong interest to me. As of the 1981 census about 75% of Chinese origin Canadians resided in B.C. and in Ontario. I have no reason to believe this has changed significantly.

Aside from our native population it is commonly held that no other racial or ethnic group has experienced harsher treatment than the Chinese in Canada. The Government of Canada passed the first anti-Chinese bill in 1885. It is no accident that this coincided with completion of the CPR railway. Fifteen thousand Chinese labourers worked on the B.C. section of the CPR between May 14, 1880 and July 29, 1885, saving the company millions of dollars.

The 1885 bill brought in a poll tax put in under the Conservative government of the day, a poll tax being a head tax. The Liberals increased this poll tax to $100 in 1900, a hefty sum indeed in those days, and then increased it again in 1903 to $500.

In 1923 the Liberal government passed the Chinese Immigration Act which suspended Chinese immigration until 1947 when it was repealed. Chinese Canadians refer to the passing of the 1923 act as humiliation day. Between 1923 and 1947 essentially no Chinese were allowed to immigrate to Canada and those already here were denied many of their civil rights.

The 1885 to 1947 policies resulted in few women Chinese Canadians. Prior to 1923 Chinese immigration was usually arranged by contractors or with individuals and voluntary. Typically, as a consequence of the head tax which was a cost for bringing wives or parents to Canada, men arrived single and lived as bachelors in Canada. In 1931, for example, out of a total Chinese population of 46,000 in Canada, less than 10% were women.

The 1885 to 1923 migrants were largely men and then essentially all Chinese immigration was stopped for a period of 24 years. This bachelor society inhibited a second generation of Chinese Canadians and the population of Chinese Canadians shrank dramatically between 1923 and about 1950. It was only post-World War II that family reunification and new immigration brought normality to Chinese immigration and family relationships in Canada.

Structural racism in Canadian immigration gradually disappeared after 1947 due to a combination of court challenges and government initiatives. In 1957 a major event occurred with the election of Douglas Jung as a Conservative MP in Vancouver, the first Chinese Canadian member of parliament. We all know of the valued contribution of the Chinese Canadian community in Canada today.

As distasteful as the story is of how government handled Chinese immigration to Canada, there are lessons for us all. The story I have told is to demonstrate that government has discriminated against racial groups in Canada and it is important to design our immigration and citizenship rules in such a way that this discrimination does not occur.

Canadian citizenship is an enviable status in the world community. Canada must set the rules and we must do so in a way that is fair to legitimate aspirants who match Canada's needs, that offers fair opportunity and that penalizes those who want to impose their priorities on the country by queue jumping or abusing Canada's hospitality.

Some of the provisions in Bill C-63 give too much discretion to the minister and are invitations to abuse our hospitality. This is distasteful and should be changed. My colleagues have pointed out many of these shortcomings.

In many ways a nation is defined by its immigration and citizenship policies. Ours need major rework and this act does not contribute in a major way to doing that. Today Chinese Canadians are represented in all professions in Canada and in all walks of life. As a cultural group they have emphasized education because that is how best to express upward mobility. This is the legacy many cultural groups have brought to Canada and that is what we want to encourage.

I will now get into some of the specifics of Bill C-63. The bill is intended to replace an act which has been in existence without any real change since 1977. It has been billed as a major reform but it really does not do that. Critical areas have been neglected and other areas have been altered in a negative way.

The unwillingness to change integral elements of the act will result in the court system ultimately creating law and an increase in power of the minister to make closed door decisions without oversight by parliament.

There is one major section on citizenship at birth. Bill C-63 states in effect that all children born in Canada will continue to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration or citizenship status.

Recommendations from the 1994 all party standing committee stated that children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both their parents is a permanent resident of Canada. In the judgment of Canadians there is abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil. The minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because there was no research done on how big a problem the citizenship at birth issue is.

That is quite a statement, recognizing there is a problem, not addressing it and not taking the four and a half years since the report came out to do anything about gathering statistical evidence to support or refute the dimension of the problem.

Under grant of citizenship the current legislation allows individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for their citizenship application.

Bill C-63 penalizes applicants for bureaucratic delays within the system, even if those delays are no fault of the applicants. Many groups have petitioned the minister to change this provision so that applicants are not penalized for bureaucratic delay. The official opposition calls for reinstatement of this provision.

The last point I will speak about is the citizenship oath. This may as well be called the minister's oath. It was not done in the public domain with public input. We missed a grand opportunity. The government wants to retain its monopoly on citizenship and immigration against the better judgment of Canadians.

Citizenship Of Canada Act February 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the burden that is placed upon the system when we end up with refugee claimants who have actually departed from a location with identification and have arrived without it.

We have a strong recommendation that we use digital technology. We all know that with the new digital technology we can take pictures at one end, plug them into a computer and pull them off anywhere in the world. I have done that with things as simple as getting pictures in Ottawa of my son playing hockey in Victoria. I know it works even though I am fairly illiterate technically.

That simple bit of technology added to the immigration and refugee system at all major points of departure for Canada seems to me would reduce the huge burden on the immigration and refugee system. Would my colleague like to comment on what he knows about that and what the cost might be?

Citizenship Of Canada Act February 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the parliamentary secretary said we attacked aboriginal people. I would like an apology from the parliamentary secretary. He is talking about my family. Please withdraw that comment.

Supply February 9th, 1999

Madam Speaker, my question is very brief. Does the government consultation with the provinces have all-province consensus on bulk water exports?

Supply February 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, water is quite an emotional issue with most Canadians. We have great sensitivity to our reputation that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Under the NAFTA agreement, unprocessed logs are an exemption. Would it not be most appropriate if water also fit under that same category?

I think that was addressed in the speech but I want to carry it a bit further. A contradiction in view has become apparent this morning, that is the role of the federal and provincial governments in terms of the whole question of bulk water exports. The parliamentary secretary said that this was federal jurisdiction. We certainly have outstanding permits in Canada to this day where provinces have actually issued bulk freshwater export licences.

Would my colleague like to comment on the role of the provinces from his perspective?