Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Saskatoon—Humboldt (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 2% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Right to Work Act February 5th, 2003

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (trade union membership to be optional).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to allow workers to decide whether they wish to join or be represented by a trade union and to provide that no union dues are to be deducted effective July 1, 2003, from the wages or salary of employees who are members of unions.

It also prevents discrimination by the Public Service Commission against any person applying for employment on the basis of whether they are or wish to be a member of a union.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Specific Claims Resolution Act February 4th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I vote no.

Aboriginal Affairs February 4th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently said that Indian lobbyists and their supporters have a hidden racist agenda. It turns out I was right.

David Ahenakew, a highly prominent Indian lobbyist, revealed his racist agenda by applauding Hitler, calling non-Indians immigrants, and saying that Indians should be the bosses of everyone else. Matthew Coon Come referred to non-Indian Canadians as a “white mob”.

The Canadian Alliance criticized me for exposing Ahenakew and other Indian supremacists who want race based privileges for Indians. In so doing the Alliance endorsed the racist policies of tax exemptions, handouts, gambling revenue, preferential hiring quotas, and lenient sentencing provisions for Indian criminals. That is why the Canadian Alliance only has 10% public support. It has abandoned the original integrity and common sense of the Reform Party.

There is only one true Reformer remaining in this Parliament who will tell it like it is and, Mr. Speaker, you are looking at him.

Privilege January 29th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, on that subject, I would like to inform you that when it was brought to my attention that the government's systems, which have not be upgraded since 1984, were unable to handle this, I instructed my assistant to work with the information technology people. They have worked out a system by which these e-mails can be sent in no disruptive manner, which was never my intent.

I am more than prepared to--

Privilege January 29th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48, and with regard to my prior notice, I rise on a question of privilege. The incident at issue, which had the effect of impeding and obstructing my duties as a parliamentarian, occurred during the parliamentary recess and resulted in a contempt of the House of Commons.

As a result of the recess, I am bringing this matter to your attention at the earliest possible opportunity, since the House only resumed this week.

In dealing with the charge of contempt I am bringing to your attention, it is essential for you, Mr. Speaker, and all members to understand that contempt as opposed to privilege cannot be enumerated or categorized.

It is on that very point that I refer to an October 29, 1980, ruling by Speaker Sauvé who stated:

--while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.

She also said:

When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

That sentiment was duly reiterated by Speakers Fraser and Parent in their rulings made respectively on October 10, 1989 and October 9, 1997. Those rulings concerned contempt of the House where no precedent existed and for proceedings that had not been envisioned.

Those rulings are significant because the contempt I am highlighting is similar in that it is somewhat unprecedented.

In Marleau and Montpetit, 2000 edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , it states, at page 50, that:

“Parliamentary privilege” refers more appropriately to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfil their functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members, and its procedures from undue interference, so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to inquire, to debate, and to legislate.

It is in respect of exercising my rights of inquiry as a parliamentarian that I was unduly interfered with by certain individuals within various government departments.

Specifically, on December 27, 2002, and from January 2 through January 6, 2003, I made inquiries with public servants about the discriminatory effects that the government's bilingualism scheme had on anglophones seeking employment and promotion within the federal public service. In both cases my parliamentary e-mail account was used to communicate proceedings of the House with public servants.

The information provided to civil servants on December 27, 2002, was taken directly from Hansard and contains my intervention and that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury Board Minister during the adjournment proceedings of December 4, 2002. This information was communicated as a public service, to provide information about government policy debated in Parliament.

From January 3 until January 6, 2003, and in the absence of any effort by the federal government or unions to consult public service workers, I inquired and surveyed public servants about the extent to which discriminatory bilingualism has impacted and obstructed their careers.

At this point, I would like to reiterate my reference to Marleau and Montpetit and their emphasis on what constitutes parliamentary privilege in respect of protecting members from undue interference in the course of their duties.

Further to this point, I also refer to a ruling on a question of privilege by Speaker Francis, February 20, 1984, which established that efforts by a public servant to withhold co-operation from a member constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.

In regard to the December 27, 2002 e-mail, on January 4, 2003, an employee of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Peter Paton, directed employees in the department to not reply and to delete the e-mail.

On January 16, 2003, and in respect of the survey sent out on my parliamentary account January 3 to 6, 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller of Canada, Jim Judd, sought to undermine the confidentiality of the survey and discourage public servants from responding to the survey.

On January 17, 2003, an employee with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Rob Wright, did the same when he advised employees in the department that my assurance of confidentiality could not be guaranteed, an effort to intimidate public servants from responding.

On January 14, 2003, Cathy McLaughlin, who is the Assistant Director of Diversity and Official Languages Program at Human Resources Development Canada, demanded that staff in the department not respond to the questionnaire.

On that same day, HRDC director Shirley Kimery instructed employees in the department to not respond to the questionnaire. Each of those unwarranted interferences breached my privilege as a member of this House as they relate to free speech, inquiry and the use of e-mail as an extension of the proceedings of Parliament. More important, if you find, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of these individuals did not breach a specific privilege, they nonetheless are a contempt of Parliament.

In that regard, I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, 2000 edition, at page 52, which points out that:

Contempt may be an act or omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

Over the years members have brought to the attention of the House instances in which attempts were made to impede, obstruct or interfere in members abilities to conduct their duties, but there are no hard and fast rules about the manner in which such obstruction occurs.

This is what Speaker Sauvé conveyed in her ruling of October 29, 1980, and the point Marleau and Montpetit are making on page 52. Pointedly, such instances ought not be solely viewed in the context of whether such obstruction was physical in nature, but whether the effect of the action was to impede a member's parliamentary privilege, the discharge of his or her duties or which offends the authority or dignity of the House.

In a similar vein, I refer to Erskine May's 21st edition which deals with contempt at page 115. It notes that it is not possible to list every act which might be considered to amount to contempt. Accordingly, such incidents need to be measured and weighed against the rights of members to perform their duties without undue interference.

The last point I want to make on the issue relates to the manner in which the contempt occurred. This is very significant because, as noted in Joseph Maingot's Proceedings in Parliament , at page 94:

One must not lose sight of the fact that “proceedings in Parliament” is not the only criterion or the only criterion for the House of Commons when determining whether it has jurisdiction in any matter. Contempt of Parliament rarely occurs during a “Proceeding of Parliament” but rather it emanates from outside the House...

This very point was at the heart of the issue, which Speaker Francis ruled on and to which I previously referred. In that precedent setting ruling of February 20, 1984, Speaker Francis found that the action of public servants to withhold cooperation, “would undoubtedly hinder that member in fulfilling his duties”.

By way of summary and conclusion, I am confident that a contempt of Parliament has occurred with regard to the actions of the individuals who undermined my effort to inquire and communicate with public servants.

I believe your review, Mr. Speaker, of this matter will find that I have established that the individuals named, through their actions, produced results that had the effect of impeding me as a member of Parliament in the discharge of my duties. Again I reiterate the point made in Maingot that:

Contempt of Parliament rarely occurs during a “Proceeding of Parliament” but rather it emanates from outide the House...

As such, Mr. Speaker, if you find that a contempt of the House has occurred, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Youth Criminal Justice Act January 28th, 2003

Madam Speaker, first, the member referred to section 15 of the constitution but in fact that section has two parts. The second part is what allows discriminatory hiring policies to be implemented and to be constitutional even though they discriminate against people on the basis of race; and we have Pierre Trudeau to thank for that.

She said that the RCMP wants its workforce to be representative of the community and that the majority of people support that. The majority of people do not support race based hiring programs. The majority of people, 86%, believe that our RCMP officers should be the most capable and most qualified people who are available to be hired for the job. The fact of the matter is that in the test to determine whether or not a person advances in the recruitment process of the RCMP, the target group recruits' average was 21 points lower than the non-target groups.

Therefore, racial discrimination is taking place in the hiring process of the RCMP--

Youth Criminal Justice Act January 28th, 2003

Madam Speaker, I previously raised this question with the Solicitor General but I did not receive a response. Well, I received a response, but his reply was that he rejected the premise of the question which was based on an access to information request. Therefore, he was in essence rejecting the RCMP's own numbers.

I will first repeat the question that I posed to the Solicitor General:

Despite public demands that equality of opportunity and merit replace race based hiring, Saskatoon Police Services is imposing a racist recruiting system. This mimics the RCMP.

Access to information reveals that in order to meet racial quotas, the RCMP pass mark for target group recruits is 21 points lower than the non-target groups.

How does the Solicitor General justify a racist hiring scheme to non-target group recruits, who are denied an RCMP career simply because they are the wrong skin colour?

That is a pretty simple, straightforward question to which I did not receive an adequate response from the Solicitor General, and is why I am now before the House again re-asking the question.

I realize the parliamentary secretary will be answering on behalf of the Solicitor General. I would like to point out for the parliamentary secretary that polls show that 86% of Canadians oppose race based quota hiring systems. They favour instead hiring people based on merit and a system that would respect their qualifications. The reason there is such high support for equal opportunity for everyone and racial discrimination against no one in the hiring process is because of a simple, fundamental, undeniable, and irrefutable fact. It is not possible to discriminate in favour of individuals because of their race without unfairly discriminating against somebody else because of their race or skin colour. To do so is racist.

The question could be posed in a slightly different way, so I will offer this to the parliamentary secretary for her consideration and response as well.

I would like to ask her what she proposes be said to the people whose careers, dreams and aspirations of being an RCMP officer are denied because they are the wrong skin colour, because they have been discriminated against by an artificial, arbitrary hiring policy that discriminates for and against people on the basis of skin colour.

What would she say to the people who are denied their dreams and aspirations of a career in the RCMP simply because they are the wrong skin colour? Conversely, I would also like to know what she proposes be said to the people who are discriminated in favour of and who have been granted an ability to have a career with the RCMP because of their skin colour, because it would seem to me that is very insulting and demeaning to the people who have been discriminated in favour of as well.

I realize she has probably been provided with a canned speech from the Solicitor General, but those are serious questions and they deserve a direct answer. I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that her response to this will be permanently recorded in Hansard .

I have repeatedly called for an end to racial inventories, racial quotas, racial profiling and race based hiring. I wonder if she would be prepared to take that same stand on the permanent record or if she wants to be permanently recorded as having supported racist hiring programs.

Aboriginal Affairs December 12th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the crime rate for Indians is 10 times that of non-Indians in Saskatoon and 12 times in Regina. This problem is exacerbated by a Criminal Code requirement instructing judges to give preferential treatment to Indian criminals.

There are three Indian affairs bills before Parliament, none of which address the chronic problem of Indian crime, nor the racist two tier sentencing provision.

Why is the justice minister opposed to restoring the Criminal Code to guarantee equality and fairness for all Canadians?

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act December 11th, 2002

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (work for welfare).

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require all provinces to implement a work for welfare program.

We must not forget that the money used to fund welfare programs comes from hardworking taxpayers and they deserve a guarantee that their generosity is not being abused. Welfare fosters a cycle of dependency among those who abuse it. People who are capable of working but choose not to should be denied entitlement to welfare.

The government should promote personal responsibility and end welfare dependency by people who are capable of working. We should give people on welfare a hand up, not a handout.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Question No. 33 December 6th, 2002

With respect to the years 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, and 2001, what has the government through Treasury Board determined to be: ( a ) the number of federal civil service jobs located in National Capital Region (NCR) expressed as a percentage of all federal civil service jobs in Canada; ( b ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; ( c ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Management” within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; ( d ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Administrative Support” within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; ( e ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Administrative and Foreign Service” within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; ( f ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Scientific and Professional” within the NCR, held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; ( g ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Technical” within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones; and ( h ) the percentage of all federal civil service jobs designated as “Operational” within the NCR held by i) anglophones ii) francophones?

Return tabled.