Lost his last election, in 2011, with 2% of the vote.
Petitions May 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from M. J. Hertz of Saskatoon. He and other signatories to this petition ask that Parliament use all possible legislative and administrative measures to ensure that the current legal definition of marriage remains unchanged, and that is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Criminal Code May 7th, 2003
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence).
Mr. Speaker, this bill is otherwise known as the 10-20 life law for the simple reason that what it would do is require a judge to add 10 years to the sentence of someone who commits an indictable offence by brandishing a firearm while doing so.
Second, if the firearm is discharged in the commission of that offence, the judge would be required to add 20 years to the sentence and if someone other than the perpetrator of the crime or an accomplice is injured by the discharge of that firearm the judge would be required to add a life sentence.
This is an effort to target the criminal use of firearms instead of targeting law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters, and collectors of firearms which the Liberals are doing through the firearm registry.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Employment Insurance April 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, excessive employment insurance premiums rob taxpayers twice: once on their paycheques and the other on their property taxes.
Excess EI premiums paid by municipalities and their employees means higher property taxes which are diverted into Ottawa's consolidated revenue fund. Property taxes were never intended for this purpose. Last year Ottawa siphoned over half a million dollars from Saskatoon's property tax base.
Why is the finance minister using EI deductions to double-dip into the pockets of commercial and residential property owners?
Human Rights April 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the 1885 head tax on Chinese immigrants, the imprisonment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, the anti-English bigotry of forced bilingualism, the constitutional entrenchment of racial discrimination and race-based hiring quotas are all examples of Liberal racism and intolerance which divide Canadians against each other.
The Liberals refuse to acknowledge that we cannot attach conditions of race to social policy without unfairly attacking the equality rights of all Canadians. The most vile scheme in this hidden agenda to undermine the equality of all Canadians is special race-based privileges for Indians.
Clearly the vast, though silent, majority of Canadians oppose the racist effort by Indian lobbyists and Liberals to build a society that divides us into so-called first nations and the rest of us. Furthermore, the federal government policy of segregating Indians and forcing taxpayers to pay $8 billion a year for this neo-apartheid system is unconscionable.
Parliament of Canada Act April 9th, 2003
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-429, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act (fixed election dates).
Mr. Speaker, simply put, this enactment would provide for fixed election dates, so that federal elections would be held on the third Monday of June every four years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act April 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first it is rather comical that the hon. member says they will do a thorough review and report in June. The Liberals have been in government since 1993. He has said that the EI premiums have come down over that time period but they have always been in excess of what the EI fund needed. It has been a tax rip-off from day one.
He said that employers had not paid more than the maximum amount of each employee. However, collectively they have. If an employee has earned more than the maximum in a year through working for different employers collectively, those employers have overpaid. That is why there is a $750 million overpayment. Revenue Canada is well aware of the numbers.
To suggest that it would somehow be an invasion of privacy to repay the employers who have overpaid their EI premiums is ridiculous. Revenue Canada already has the numbers. It could simply inform employers what they have paid over the course of the previous year. Between the two of them, they could have a formula that divides it up and says that collectively an employer overpaid x number of dollars for a certain employee and that employer should get that money back. It is not an invasion of privacy and it would be a simple calculation, easily done.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act April 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government came to power in 1993, it has been overtaxing employers and employees through the employment insurance fund. In other words the premiums that employers and employees pay into the fund have exceeded, every year the Liberal government has been in power, the amount of money that the fund actually needed to operate. It has exceeded it to the tune of between $5 billion and $8 billion a year so that collectively over the years the Liberal government has been in power, employers and employees have overcontributed $39 billion to the EI fund.
However, that money is not in the EI fund. That money has been diverted to the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. It has been spent on wasteful programs such as bilingualism, the firearms registry and $8 billion a year in handouts through the Indian affairs department, to name a few examples.
That is an issue in and of itself, but on February 20, I brought up another issue with respect to employment insurance premiums. When a person leaves employment partway through the year and starts a new job, that person and the new employer begin contributing to the employment insurance fund through their premiums all over again. In many instances a worker in the course of a year actually exceeds the EI contribution limit.
Employees at the end of the year on their taxes get the overpayment back, but the employers who collectively overpaid do not get their money back. That amount is $750 million a year.
The federal government has been using excessive EI premiums to overtax employees and employers under the guise of employment insurance but is really diverting the money to the consolidated revenue fund. What it is doing here is a similar taxation by stealth. Most employers are not even aware that they are being overtaxed. How would they know whether or not an employee they had employed for a few months at the beginning of a fiscal year who had left that employment had overcontributed?
My point to the finance minister on February 20 was why did he in the recent budget not eliminate this taxation by stealth, this unfair tax grab that rips off employers? In many cases they are not even aware that it is taking place. The minister's response was that it would be difficult to contemplate what kind of system could be put in place to do this. If Canada Customs and Revenue Agency already knows how much the employee has overpaid, it is a simple matter to calculate how much the employer has overpaid.
That $750 million is coming out of the pockets of business owners in Canada. It is the latest billion dollar boondoggle by the Liberal government and the finance minister. They are wasting money on questionable program spending but refuse to give back what clearly does not belong to them. The Liberals are picking the pockets of business owners who deserve to get their overpayment back so that it can be used for job creation and economic growth, the backbone of our economy.
The $750 million annual overpayment rightfully belongs to the business owners that paid it. They deserve to get it back in the same manner as their employees do. The finance minister should do the right thing and put an immediate end to the federal government's shameless cash grab of payroll deduction overpayments.
Sex Offender Information Registration Act April 8th, 2003
No, Mr. Speaker.
Automotive Pollution Reduction Act April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that socio-economic factors contribute to the disproportionate crime rate among Indians versus non-Indians.
There is no doubt that is true, so why would the government not resolve those socio-economic problems? Why does it continue to give special race based privileges to Indians, such as tax exemptions and special hiring quotas? Why does it racially segregate Indians and have a reserve system so that Indians themselves are prevented from becoming full and equal participants in society with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else? It should stop racially segregated and race based government policies. That would address some of the socio-economic conditions.
She also said that the government is committed to equality and fairness for all Canadians. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. It has even ingrained it in law so that the law would treat criminals different depending on their race. That is not equality. That is not fairness. That is an insult to victims of crime. That is entrenched, institutionalized racism.
In conclusion, I sent a brochure into my riding and other parts of Saskatchewan asking the following questions: Should Indians convicted of a criminal offence receive the same jail sentences as non-Indians? Should the Criminal Code be restored to one that ensures that all Canadians are treated equally regardless of race? The response to both questions was: 97% said yes. My constituents believe in equality, that everyone should be treated equally, and that we should have equality of opportunity. The government is completely out of step and out of touch with reality.
Automotive Pollution Reduction Act April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to address a matter that I brought up previously in a question directed to the justice minister.
Specifically, I want to know why the government is pursuing a two tier justice system. I am referring specifically to section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code which instructs judges to give lenient sentences to Indian criminals.
The question I asked of the minister indicated that Statistics Canada reveals that the crime rate for Indians compared to non-Indians in Saskatoon is ten and a half times to one and it is twelve times to one in Regina. There are three bills currently before Parliament under the purview of the Indian affairs department, none of which address this problem.
In response to my question as to why the minister would be opposed to restoring our justice system to one based on equality where all criminals are treated the same regardless of race or ethnicity, he really did not answer the question.
I would like to know why it is that the government is refusing to address the problem.
The minister in his response acknowledged that there is a problem and said that he was working with the province to resolve it.
My point is that surely to goodness the solution to the problem of a crime rate of one racial group versus all other racial groups combined being ten and a half to one in the city that I come from, giving Indian criminals lenient sentences is no way to address that problem.
I think that section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code should be repealed and that the Liberal government should take a different view of criminal justice reform. Instead of making excuses for why particular groups have different crime rates, we should simply take the view that we have a common law that applies to everyone, that one set of rules fits all and if one breaks the law, then one will suffer the consequences regardless.
I would like to point out as well to the hon. member who will be responding on behalf of the government that not only is it basically a racist government policy for the Criminal Code to treat people differently based on their race or to treat criminals differently, but it is a real insult to victims of crime that someone would get a get out of jail free card because of their race.
An editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 4, 2002 stated that Parliament should repeal differential sentencing, the Supreme Court should return to first principles, offenders should be sentenced in proportion to the severity of the offence, with a view to ensuring parity in punishment, and everyone should be equal before the law.
An editorial in the National Post on June 28, 1999 stated that criminals should not be sentenced on the basis of statistics or skin colour, nor is the criminal justice system biased against natives. It stated that natives may suffer a higher rate of incarceration but they also commit disproportionately more crime than all other ethnic groups. It also stated that dealing natives what are effectively get out of jail free cards merely lowers the cost of going to prison for native criminals.
I await the reply.