Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was terms.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as NDP MP for Regina—Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 32% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Customs Act November 18th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill before the House today and indicate, first of all, the support of the New Democratic Party for the bill.

It was a bill first introduced last March by the then government and died when the prime minister called the election for June 2. Now the bill is back before the House today. I hope it goes through the House, giving the customs officers the power to implement certain parts of the Criminal Code, mainly to detain or arrest until a police officer is able to come to the scene. This is something which is needed in this country. In other words, the customs officer becomes the first line of defence, when the customs officer obviously sees a drunken driver or someone else who is suspected of committing a criminal offence.

Today the customs officers do not have that power. In this country we have many border crossings and about 2,500 customs officers. There is really a gap in the law which has allowed over the last number of years a number of people who are suspected to be committing a criminal act to get into the country.

I want to give some information which is relevant to the debate this morning. According to Revenue Canada, in the last two and a half years or the last thirty months there have been about 8,500 suspected impaired drivers who have crossed Canadian borders. They have been allowed to cross because customs officers do not have the power to detain or to arrest the person suspected of being impaired. What a customs officer can do, under the law today, is call the local detachment of the RCMP or local police, which ever may be the nearest, and tell the police that there is a driver going through who is suspected of being impaired.

In many cases the driver is long gone before the police arrive. Revenue Canada believes that in the last 30 months about 8,500 impaired drivers have just simply driven away before police arrived or in some cases the police were not called because there was not point in doing so.

There have also been about 200 incidents of suspected child abductions allowed to cross the border because the border officials have no power whatsoever to arrest or detain these suspected kidnappers. Again I think that states very clearly why customs officers need additional powers.

There have also been over 2,000 individuals who were subject to arrest warrants who have crossed the border, again long gone before the police arrived. There have been more than 500 individuals suspected to be in possession of stolen property, mainly vehicles, who have also crossed the border before police arrived.

I think there is an obvious gap in the law that must be rectified by Parliament. It is because of those facts that I am pleased to offer support on behalf of our party to the very quick passage of Bill C-18. This is something which is long overdue. It should have been done a number of years ago.

I also want to add that I believe there is general support in the community for these kinds of powers. I know that police associations, customs officers, the customs excise union or the union des douanes et accises are all very supportive of passage of this legislation.

I also want to give an example of what happens because customs officers do not have this power. I have in my hand a letter which was written by a customs officer. I do not want to put any names on the record but just read into the record an incident that occurred very recently on the night of October 3, 1997. I believe this sums up the need for the legislation:

The night of October 3, 1997 at the customs port of Windygates, Manitoba was a prime example of the need for customs inspectors to have the authority to detain impaired drivers.

At approximately 2156 hours two Canadian males on motorcycles arrived at the port, returning from a nearby U.S. bar. One in particular displayed signs of impairment. I know from experience that this man cannot be dissuaded from driving, as driving while impaired has been a regular occurrence for him. Due to the distances involved, I also know that the suspect can be home before the RCMP are able to get on the road and apprehend him. Consequently, these motorcyclists were allowed to proceed.

Two minutes later, one kilometre north of the customs office, [one individual] age 30, is dead in a pool of blood in the middle of the road. A combination of high speed and alcohol caused him to lose control.

Minutes later, while administering CPR to a man that is clearly beyond help, I wonder what I could have done to prevent this tragedy. Shortly thereafter, family members of the deceased arrived on the scene and I also had the dubious honour of informing them of their loss.

Based upon previous encounters with [this gentleman], I am convinced that there is nothing I could have said, and nothing I could legally do to stop him from proceeding down the road that night. However, I am equally convinced that if customs inspectors had the authority to enforce the impaired driving laws, that this man would be alive today.

Then he goes on to say that in light of this incident and other incidents that have happened across this country, he hopes that Parliament will expedite the passage of this bill.

I think that letter sums up the need for this bill better than any speech we can make in this House. People have been killed because customs officers do not have the powers of arrest and detainment.

There are people who have actually killed others in traffic accidents because of the fact that they are driving impaired. We have in this country very strict drunk driving laws. They are enforced and here is a gap in the law.

Because of that, I hope this Parliament can pass as quickly as possible Bill C-18. With that, I offer our support and hope the House will do this expeditiously. I am sure that he will make sure that occurs this morning.

Canada Pension Plan November 7th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. The Deputy Prime Minister has gone to too many of those fat cat $500 dinners.

The only time the government's changes look good is in comparison to the Reform Party, which wants to abolish the CPP.

Why has this government not done an impact study on those changes and the effect of those changes on the income of future seniors, particularly women? No impact study has every been done. Why has it not been done and why will it not be done now and tabled before this house?

Canada Pension Plan November 7th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the deputy prime minister.

Yesterday the prime minister characterized the CPP fight as between those with a social conscience and social Darwinists, who he said believe in the survival of the fattest.

It is ironic that the prime minister made those statements yesterday in Toronto at a $500 a plate dinner to fat cat Liberals.

How can the government pretend to believe in a social conscience when the brunt of the premium hikes and the cutback in benefits under CPP will fall hardest on those with low income, elderly women and those with disabilities? How can he say that?

Seniors Benefits October 31st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, that was the weakest answer I have heard in this Parliament.

When will the government table legislation on the seniors benefit so we can deal with the whole package? The seniors benefit and the CPP are interlinked. The CPP provides about 25% of retirement income and is based on a universal old age pension.

The government wants to continue to try to abolish the universal old age pension. Is it afraid to table legislation because it is under pressure from senior citizens?

Seniors Benefits October 31st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The Canada pension plan is one important component of retirement income. Others are the old age pension and the GIS. They are both tied together and they are both scheduled for change.

In light of that, why has the government not tabled legislation on the seniors benefit which will replace the old age pension so that in fairness Canadians and Parliament can deal with the whole package at the same time? Or, is the minister simply saying to us that when seniors return from his house this Hallowe'en night they had better check their apples for razor blades?

Canada Pension Plan October 28th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's events have seen a serious downturn affecting stock markets around the world. The contraction of global investment has very clear policy ramifications for Canada, particularly with regard to the future of the Canada pension plan.

The government suggestion of investing CPP funds into the stock exchange roulette increases the risk to future retirees due to worldwide speculation and downturns. History shows and recent events suggest that there is a clear warning against gambling with Canadian savings.

While the Liberal government wants to put the nation's CPP fund at the mercy of the stock exchange roulette, the Reform Party suggests to Canadians that their fully indexed public savings should be moved completely out of CPP and invested into private speculative markets which could lose their entire value.

Canadian savings should not be handed over to the compulsive gamblers in the casino society. Canadians want safe money in safe havens.

Banking October 22nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

There is a letter in the Globe and Mail this morning from a concerned citizen quoting a statement by Allan Taylor, CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada.

Mr. Taylor referred to social spending in this country. He said that any assistance that might be considered useful should be willingly offered by the private sector.

In light of that, is the Minister of Finance willing to accept this offer of Mr. Taylor and commit himself to working with the banks to reduce service charges in this country that are such a regressive burden on ordinary people?

Supply October 21st, 1997

They are flying around in circles, Mr. Speaker. What we need to do is correct that imbalance. I hope we can do that by bringing us back to the left a little to give more balance to the Canadian economy and society.

I want to ask the member one specific question. He did not really mention interest rates. I am concerned that the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have already increased interest rates twice very recently and indications are that they are going to jack them up once more. They say inflation is becoming a problem. The inflation rate now is 1.8%. The Canadian dollar is still strong at about 73¢ American.

What advice does the member have for the Minister of Finance. Is he willing to say to us today in a spirit of independence that he thinks the Minister of Finance should persuade the Governor of the Bank of Canada not to increase interest rates? An increase in interest rates will slow the economy and throw more people out of work.

I know the member is independent minded. Is he willing to publicly advise the Minister of Finance that he not increase interest rates?

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg just said a bird needs a left wing and a right wing in order to fly. The problem with the Liberal bird is that the muscles in the right wing are too strong. There is not a proper balance between the two wings.

Supply October 21st, 1997

I think the member is having his cake and eating it as well. A few moments ago the Reform party member for Souris—Moose Mountain got up. He is a former Conservative MLA in Saskatchewan under the administration of premier Grant Devine which, according to one of his former speech writers, was the most corrupt government in the history of this country.

The member for Souris—Moose Mountain was complaining about the lack of money going into health care and highways. The Devine government in its nine short years ran up the biggest per capita deficit of any provincial government in this country and the second largest per capita debt, second only to Newfoundland, of any government in this country.

The Devine government was a soulmate of the Reform party. It spoke one way before an election about fiscal responsibility and after the election was the most irresponsible spender in the history of this country, almost bankrupting my province. That is one reason why we do not have the flexibility today we would want to have in terms of the programs the people of the province require.

I ask the member how he can get up in this House and talk about fiscal responsibility when his soulmate in Saskatchewan, Grant Devine, leader of the most corrupt government in the history of this country, was the biggest spender we have ever seen in terms of driving up the debt and deficit and burdening the people for generations to come. That is sheer hypocrisy.