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

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 10th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the issue of MPs pensions. It is certainly one issue that raises the blood pressure of the majority of Canadians and one time slot on the parliamentary channel that receives attention.

I dare say there is not a single MP who has not been dogged by constituents on the issue. The obscenity of the bloated pension scheme for MPs raised the hackles of the majority of Canadians. If I were not to opt out of the plan my face would be as red as the Liberal red ink book. It is the ultimate in Liberal spin doctoring to call it pension reform. I do not know how MPs could face their constituents.

I remember during the campaign being told by the incumbent when I complained about the MP pension scheme that once I got here I would certainly change my mind. I have not changed my mind.

I challenge any government member to look in the face of a struggling overtaxed and overextended constituent and defend the ultra-luxurious pension plan. I further challenge government members to defend Bill C-85 and the so-called amendments contained in the legislation.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell can obfuscate, twist and distort the Reform position on MP remuneration. I challenge him to tell a dairy farmer in Cumberland why he deserves the gold plated pension. I bet he hopes no one is watching the theatre of the absurd practised by the member on the issue of pensions.

We are witnessing a serious double standard characterized by greed and complete disrespect for the taxpayer's dollar. On the one hand the government preaches deficit reduction and debt control. On the other hand it introduces Bill C-85 under the guise of reforming the obscene pension plan. In other words, do what I say and not what I do. This is not the kind of leadership Canada needs at this time. It shows a lack of leadership.

The Reform Party supports a pension plan that brings MPs pensions into line with private sector pensions. In my view if the Liberal government vacillates on the issue it will vacillate on every issue. There is a major principle involved and the government has fumbled the ball. Where is its conscience? What does Bill C-85 give us and the taxpayers?

The bill lowers the rate at which benefits accrue. At 4 per cent they are still double the rate allowed for registered plans under the Income Tax Act. The so-called reforms include provisions for virtually full compensation for inflation which certainly does not parallel private sector pension plans. Over 78 per cent of private sector plans have no automatic adjustment for inflation.

The bill's minimum age provision of 55 does not go far enough. Under the Income Tax Act pension benefits must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected prior to attaining the age of 60 or alternately has 30 years of eligibility or attaining age and years of service totalling 80 years. This avoids that provision of the Income Tax Act.

The legislation before us today will still use the special arrangement called an RCA account to pay members' benefits that are twice as generous as private sector norms. Until this is addressed, the whole bill is just window dressing. I want to see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell sell this to a hard working farmer in his riding who has to save and administer a plan of his own. I have hard working loggers, miners, mill workers, fishermen and business people in my riding. I would not envy trying to sell it to them.

We estimate that long run costs for the new pension plan will be close to 50 per cent of the payroll costs for currently sitting members. A plan the Reform Party could have supported would have had a maximum cost to taxpayers of 9 per cent of payroll.

Again the government is bleeding the taxpayer dry and at the same time selling snake oil to cure the illness. It is deceitful and unfair, especially given that it will not allow opting out for members elected in the next election. The pension scheme will be an issue in three years. We guarantee it.

Many Reform MPs ran their election campaigns promising to come to this Alice in Wonderland place and reform MPs' pensions. It was a solemn commitment to weary Canadians bled dry by greedy governments. The government's response has been to raise MPs' take home salary by reducing the MPs' contribution rate to the pension plan.

Aboriginal Affairs May 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in B.C. the current treaty process has created expectations that are forecast to cost $8 billion to $20 billion. There is no way that governments can deliver on this. The public is clamouring for a new approach.

What will the minister do to create an affordable process and reduce aboriginal expectations so that B.C. can support modern treaties?

Aboriginal Affairs May 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs raised the expectations of aboriginal people to the point where his departmental officials are now asking him "to bring high expectations of the aboriginal community to manageable levels".

What will the minister do in his statements and in his processes to reduce expectations upon which he cannot possibly deliver?

Lightstations May 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the coast guard lightstation services project went to 28 B.C. locations and cost $202,000. Its report is now more than one month old and will be released today.

I hope the current minister responsible has read it and will conclude what the B.C. public has concluded. Public consultations with 1,397 residents, mariners and aviators, representing hundreds of thousands of users, indicate that opposition to destaffing B.C.'s lightstations is widespread, often vehement and overwhelming.

The rationale is solid. Public safety, drug interdiction, science and sovereignty are paramount. The only minister from B.C. stated he would support keeping staffed lightstations if coast guard consultations said the public wants them.

The people have now spoken.

Indian Affairs April 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it would be refreshing to have the minister stop attacking the Reform Party every time he is asked a question. He could start being a professional manager.

The minister has given conflicting reports as to when he knew about the overcutting at Stoney Reserve. Did he know when the department knew one year ago? If not, why not? If he did, why did he not do something?

Indian Affairs April 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister of Indian affairs clarified his conflicting answers on the series of events on the Stoney Reserve. It is now evident the minister did not seriously investigate this ongoing situation until after yesterday's question period.

I have now heard reports that there are five other locations in Alberta where logging may be exceeding DIAND permits: Gerard, Sturgeon, Hart Lake, Boyer and Eden Valley. What is the minister doing about this?

Indian Affairs April 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs displayed petulance and obfuscation which has forced him this morning-

Indian Affairs April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the timber removed from the reserve in the last 12 months conservatively exceeds $35 million. The minister's department knew logging at Stoney Reserve exceeded the permits last April, one year ago.

Can the minister tell the House who is liable for these lost revenues?

Indian Affairs April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question follows the question from my leader and is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I would like to quickly say that we foster sensible dialogue, and in our aboriginal town halls in British Columbia offered a very welcome and refreshing point of view.

I would like the minister, in response to the question about the Stoney Reserve, to tell the House the current market value of the timber removed in the last year and how he intends to collect revenues lost to the band plus the reduced stream of future revenues accruing to the band, which has now been lost.

National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act April 4th, 1995

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this first debate of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I am sure the member for Kamloops initiated this bill with the best of intentions, borne out of concern for recognition of the contribution of native cultures to the Canadian mosiac. Canadians are proud of the uniqueness of native cultures and their contribution to what we call Canada. From coast to coast, respective Indian tribes have brought their own specific background and history to what we have built in this country. We in Canada are all unique as a consequence of native cultural contributions and from those cultural contributions brought by others over the past centuries. That understanding and respect for many cultures is why Canada stands as a beacon of tolerance, compassion and stability.

Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have met and visited with aboriginal people from every region of Canada. The diversity among aboriginal peoples is obvious and they are the original Canadians. Their cultural legacy is a major contributing reason why Canada is different from the United States. Canadians enjoy this distinction.

I do urge caution in playing politics with the dynamism of native cultures. Our native people are a sensitive, intelligent and proud people who, despite years of inequities, outright discrimination at times and at other times criminal mishandling of their affairs by others, have continued to carry on their cultural pursuits and have developed a community of interest.

My party supports native peoples' independence and full-fledged partnership in this country, we support their self-sufficiency, and we support the removal of the albatross of the Department of Indian Affairs from their necks. We support their advancement, not a reinforcement of the past.

As I said previously, theirs is a dynamic culture that deserves to grow and flourish no less than any other in this country. The tremendous cultural contribution native peoples have brought to this country stands on its own merit. It is a rich and endearing culture, not one to be isolated and ghettoized, as we did under section 91.24 of the BNA Act and then again under many aspects of the Indian Act. This is what our native cultures are trying to shake off. The surly bonds of colonialism must be relinquished.

As I understand it, recognition by this Parliament of a day of recognition is innocuous in that there is no statutory holiday or out-of-pocket expenses associated with this recognition.

Is it necessary to talk about national solidarity for aboriginal peoples? This has connotations of Poland climbing out from under the yolk of communist oppression. Surely, we can celebrate aboriginal culture without calling it Solidarity Day. This sounds confrontational. Let us not build walls. Let us nourish without singling out or separating our aboriginal peoples from the mainstream. Let us build on our strengths, our consensus, the very thing that has been the strength of Canada in the face of adversity.

Canadian consensus, more than any other government action, has protected the minority against the tyranny of the majority in modern times.