House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was military.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore (Nova Scotia)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a good point. My Progressive Conservative colleague from Cumberland--Colchester raised the fact that if people want a job on the Hill for example, they have to live within a certain radius of the Hill. These are federal taxpayers' dollars. Any Canadian who qualifies for a position should be able to send in his or her resume. No minister or department should have the power over that to freeze people out of the hiring process. The best person through the resume and interview process should be hired for the job and not appointed because of who that person knows in the PMO.

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Alliance has hit the nail on the head. That is what this entire debate is all about. A lot of people in this country owe their livelihood to one person and that person is the Prime Minister. His office can control all three branches of government. The member is absolutely correct. That has to change for people to know that their vote counts, and that their opinions and concerns matter. Supreme Court justices, members of the Senate, and members of major bodies that govern this country are all appointed. My hon. colleague is absolutely correct, that has to change.

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, normally I would bat that one out of the park but I will be easy on my colleague over there. There is probably no more democratic organization than the union movement in this country. The CLC and unions are more democratic than this structure.

Does my hon. colleague think that the board of directors of the major corporation that his party gets some funding from asks its shareholders if they should donate money to the Liberal Party? I think not. As I respect the hon. gentleman I will leave that one in the park for this time.

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, in a roundabout way I was getting back to my point about appointments. Governments are free to appoint whomever they wish, whenever they wish, wherever they wish. All we ask on this side of the House is for an opportunity to speak to those people and ask for their qualifications because Canadian taxpayers are paying their salaries, whether it be the Transportation Safety Board, the Veterans Appeals Board, the Senate, the CBC, the post office or whatever. Canadians have a right to know who those people are that are appointed to those boards. What are their qualifications? What are their plans? What are their objectives? Will Canadians get the best value for their tax dollars to ensure we have the best person?

It should not be because of what the member for LaSalle--Émard said: “Who do you know in the PMO?” That was a telling statement. I could not agree with the individual more than I am sitting here now. He is absolutely correct. Getting things done in this country and moving things forward depends upon who one knows in the PMO.

We talk about a declining voting rate in this country of 61%. My colleague from Saskatchewan in the Reform Party said earlier that it will be even lower in the next election. He is absolutely right. This is the fault of all of us, not just the government, for not explaining to Canadians clearly enough what our roles in society are as members of Parliament and how we as legislators enact laws and taxation policies, et cetera, to better the lives of all Canadians. Instead we do a lot of in-fighting in the House. We do it a lot to get that little four or seven second sound clip. We do it to make the government look bad, or the government to make the opposition look bad, or opposition members to make one another look bad.

The reality is that Canadians do not care. We could stand in the House day in and day out, and I may get one or two responses from my riding saying that they heard my speech or saw me on TV. All Canadians care about is whether they are getting the best value for their tax dollars by their elected officials and those officials who are appointed to various boards and agencies.

There is nothing wrong with a venting process of people and their applications. If someone were appointed to the Transportation Safety Board, we would hope that person would have some kind of background in transportation policies. If someone were appointed to the CBC, we would hope that person would have some sort of cultural or technical background in issues of that nature. If someone were appointed to the post office, we would hope that person would have some sort of expertise in mail delivery or something of that nature. We hope, but we do not know because these people are appointed and we hear about it later. That is simply wrong and unacceptable.

Canadians want a clear and transparent process. That process should be vented in committee, and not a stacked committee where the Liberals bring people who are more favourable to the whip at any time to make certain concessions or allowances, or rubber stamp the appointment. The whip should be off committees. Backbench members of Parliament must be able to vote their consciences, vote the way their constituents are telling them, and vote with what their guts are telling them half the time, not what someone else is telling them. That is not happening right now.

We constantly hear in the papers that the chair of a particular committee has already been selected. We have not even met in committee, yet we already know who the chairperson is. How can that be? The chairperson is supposed to be voted for in committee, yet we are told in newspapers that the chairperson has already been selected. If that is not a farce of parliamentary procedure, I do not know what is.

Canadians and the opposition want to know why that is happening? Why is so much power controlled in the hands of so few?

Democracy is not a spectator sport. We all have obligations and responsibilities and so do the citizens of this country. However when they see what is going on they just turn off the TV or crank it up or throw our householder in the garbage. They say they have their own lives and they forget us altogether because we have no effect on their lives. If anything we interfere in their day to day lives and they want us gone.

That is a sad state because pretty soon we will be celebrating Remembrance Day, a celebration and remembrance of those who passed on in defence of freedom and democracy. What do we do? We force issues down people's throats. We ram them through behind closed doors. We appoint people to the Senate to ram a bad bill through that no one wants except a handful of people. We tell Canadians we live in a great democracy. It is a capitulated democracy in many ways. As long as we tell them what we want and we have the majority to do it they will have to live with it. That is the way it is and that is wrong.

Instead of top down solutions we should have ground up solutions. Whether we are talking about fisheries, forestry, Kyoto or whatever, the solutions for these issues can come from Canadians. We should engage Canadians in the debate.

Stanley Knowles, a great parliamentarian and probably the finest parliamentarian to grace these halls, once said that debate is not a sin, it is not a crime, debate is good. The exchange and free flow of ideas is a good thing to have. However we shut Canadians out of that process. We tell Canadians they elected us and we will see them in four or five years, to go away and not bother us. This is what we are going to do and the heck with them.

That is simply wrong. With that type of attitude coming out of this legislature and other legislatures across the country it is no wonder Canadians are turning off from the polls. There was a 6% reduction the last federal election. In our province of Nova Scotia 48% voted provincially. Municipally, in the HRM area of Halifax, 38% of the people voted. About 62% of the Halifax regional municipality did not even bother to vote for their council or their mayor. By all accounts that number will be lower the next time.

Is anyone from the PMO or anywhere else asking why this is happening, where the problem is? No, it is the status quo, everything is fine. They are the government. They were elected with a slim majority. Although only 38% of the people of Canada voted for the Liberal government, 62% of the people said they did not want those people, yet they have them. This is why my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle is working so hard on proportional representation, to say if one votes for the Alliance in Saint John's, Newfoundland and Labrador or if one votes for the NDP in Calgary, then that vote will count at the end of the day. That is why PR is so important in changing the actual structure of this place.

We are one of the few parliamentary democracies without PR and the sooner we can get a committee together to seriously strike this idea and discuss it in an open and transparent manner, it will be much better for democracy and for all of Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois has a right, and I thank it for bringing this important motion to the House today. It is something the government does not want to talk about because as long as power is controlled in the hands of a few everything is fine. I thank my hon. colleagues from across the House for bringing their issues to debate because I am sure in many ways we can agree that Parliament must change to be more proactive and acceptable to Canadians who pay our salaries to be here.

Supply October 29th, 2002

My colleague from Kings—Hants says that it is a great tax. However just the mention of an increase in that tax and we would have the wrath of Canadians on us like a pack of dogs to a raw piece of meat. If the Conservatives believe that it is a great tax, then why not raise it once or twice to pay for things like military expenditures, health care, education, et cetera?

However, mention the GST to Canadians and they will be on us like anything. It is not a great tax. It was a tax forced upon Canadians by the Conservatives. However what did we hear from members on that side of the House? They said that if they were elected they would get rid of it. Here we are nine years later and the GST is still here.

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to what I consider a very important motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

I think most Canadians would be quite surprised that the perception of the separatist party bringing forward a most democratic motion for the entire country is one that is worthy of debate. I thank the Bloc very much because I know it is rooted in social democracy. I know it has many policies similar to that of the NDP. I want to thank it for taking the opportunity to use its day in order to raise this very important issue.

It is not too difficult to understand why we are having the debate when we see in Quorum today that the finance minister said in the Ottawa Citizen “MPs should elect governor general”. Why does that same finance minister not say that we should peer review and have a serious look at supreme court judges and the chairmen of various boards?

Recently we saw the member from Malpeque, P.E.I., who I consider to be a very good friend of mine, become the Solicitor General. He admits that he is a farmer by trade and a very proud farmer, but is now, by the appointment of the Prime Minister, the number one top cop in the country. I would never ever stand up in the House to say to the Prime Minister that he cannot appoint people into his cabinet whom he or his ring of people deem fit. What this particular motion talks about are those people on all the boards and agencies outside of the House, one of those, of course, being the Senate.

We have long known that Conservative and Liberal governments have used the Senate for what I call a den of iniquity in terms of putting their people there in order to get things passed. I will not come down too hard on the Tories because I think they are starting to change their tune on this, but Brian Mulroney forced the GST through the Senate by stacking the Senate with his friends to do one thing and one thing only: pass the dreaded GST when it went through the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate were going to hold it up but it was then turned around and the GST was passed.

Supply October 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague from the Alliance Party that although we tend not to agree on too many things, I definitely agree with his summation of the debate. I too thank the Bloc for bringing forward this important motion.

As the member knows, the committees are stacked with Liberals. They have the majority. If there are Liberals who want to vote for a particular opposition motion, the Liberals can stack the committee if they wish with people who are more favourable to the whip's charges.

If we are going to vet nominations, for example the head of the CBC, we want that person to appear before the committee to show what qualifications he or she has and what he or she plans to do with the CBC under his or her leadership. How would the member change the committee format so that we do not have a biased perception, one side over the other, so that we have a clear vetting of the individual's qualifications to ensure that we indeed get the best person for the job?

Health Care System October 28th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for his speech. He is correct in one assumption. The Liberals have dropped the ball when it comes to the health care debate.

My question for him is this. He said very clearly that the Canadian Alliance does not support in any way, shape, or form a parallel two tier system, but we have yet to hear members of that party say anything about the creeping privatization happening in provinces like Alberta, Quebec, Nova Scotia, et cetera. I am just wondering if he can clarify his position as to why we have not heard any kind of criticism or critique of the private sector creeping into the provinces when it comes to health care in the country.

National Defence October 28th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Defence is successful in getting more resources for the military, I suggest the first place he put it is in the replacement of our Sea Kings. However NHIndustries and Eurocopter have now asked for a delay in the procurement process because they cannot meet certain specifications under the contractual bid out there now. In fact, the defence department has said no to their changes and yet they have gone to the PMO's office and the PMO has now told the defence department to look at this one more time, which causes a further delay in the replacement of the Sea Kings.

My question for the defence minister is: Why?

Health Care System October 28th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that again it is the government that brought in the child tax benefit but allowed the provinces to claw it back. So there was really no benefit at all to the people when the provinces were allowed to do that.

I thank the hon. member for focusing on aboriginal people. One of the biggest concerns we have in Canada is finding qualified doctors and nurses of aboriginal heritage who are in the medical field so they can return to their communities as medical professionals. This is not due to a lack of desire on the part of aboriginal people. It is due to the lack of finances and resources. The cost for many Canadians who are now 18 years old and getting out of high school and wanting to enter medical school is prohibitive. If the cost is prohibitive for the vast majority of Canadians, imagine what it is like for aboriginal people who wish to enter into the medical field?

I lived in Yukon for nine years. I think a large part of our problem when dealing with northern communities is that a lot of aboriginal communities are suffering from permanence in their medical staff or having a regular doctor that they can see frequently. One of the concerns the aboriginal people have is that they simply do not have the finances to take the courses at university to get a medical education.

What will the hon. member's government do to prepare young aboriginal people throughout Canada to get a medical degree so they can move back to their communities, if they so desire, to help the men and women on their reserves in their area?