House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was firearms.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Skeena.

It is clear to everyone but the Liberal government that its 30 years of social engineering experiments have failed and failed miserably. The main reason why social programs have become unaffordable and unsustainable is because they create greater and greater dependency on social programs. No matter how these programs are designed, the end result would always be the same. More and more people would use the system and eventually it becomes unsustainable. The government can no longer afford to pay the huge sums of money needed to satisfy everyone's so-called needs. This is why half of the people on welfare today are described as employable. That is why the unemployment insurance program actually creates unemployment.

I will give an example of some of the things that the auditor general has said in his 1994 report. He said: "Rising social program use and high repeated use suggests that social programs may be creating long term dependency among some users". Here is something else the auditor general said: "Disincentives to work are created when benefits from social programs compare favourably to earnings from jobs". He also said: "Employers and employees may be using unemployment insurance to support short term layoff strategies". "Interactions among social programs may result in programs working at cross purposes to each other". Finally, the auditor general said: "Unemployment insurance may be a factor in Canada's rising level of unemployment and in the lower level of outputs that result".

Today we are debating a motion which will authorize the government through the Department of Human Resources Development to spend over $1.3 billion. The same lack of thinking that the auditor general reported last year is evident today.

The government is proposing to spend $55.3 million on grants to improve employability and promote employment opportunities. It can provide no proof that the money it has spent on such grants in the past has improved employability and yet it continues with this program. It can provide no proof that the millions and millions of dollars have actually resulted in promoting employment opportunities and actually have resulted in real jobs.

If this motion passes, the government will spend over $1 billion on grants to the sectoral training fund and on payments to facilitate the efficient functioning of the labour market, whatever that is. Study after study shows that make work projects do not create jobs. Study after study shows the government's training programs fail to train people for real jobs that are needed by the private sector.

The government cannot predict where the job vacancies will be next year, let alone five or ten years from now. When will it realize it should leave the hard earned tax dollars in the taxpayers' pockets and let individuals pay for the training they think they need? When will it realize it should leave the hard earned tax dollars in the hands of employers so they can run their own on the job training programs which are far more effective than any other type of training?

The government wants to force people into institutions to take training for jobs that are downright scarce or non-existent. It pays for training and employment programs because it supports the status quo. These programs actually support a huge bureaucracy that could not survive if it were judged on effectiveness and results. These programs support government handouts to special interest groups that are also more interested in the survival of their own organizations than they are about the workers they purport to represent.

The vote on this $1.3 billion of taxpayers' hard earned money is an admission of failure by the government. It is an admission that it is committed to repeating the failed policies of the past 30 years. It is an admission that it has no new ideas about how to get people back to work.

The government knows the only way to create real jobs is to reduce spending, balance the budget, reduce taxes. Reducing taxes creates real jobs. Government programs like these create more government spending, which creates more debt, which

creates higher interest payments, which creates higher taxes which kills jobs.

While we were having this last exchange a few minutes ago one of my colleagues went out to get a book to actually show the members opposite what the budget is all about. They do not believe that when the government says it is making all these difficult cuts it is actually increasing spending. They do not understand by their own numbers that they are not doing what they claim they are doing.

Higher taxes kill jobs. George Orwell's doublespeak is alive and well in the Liberal government. They tax the people and employers, which kills jobs, and then spend the money on programs that they say will create jobs. More jobs could actually have been created by simply not taxing the workers and the employers in the first place.

When will the government learn? How many more billions will we have to waste? How long will it take for the Canadian people to realize the Liberals and Conservatives are the same? Those who came before them and those who are here presently have been running a shell game, which benefits mainly the bureaucrats and the politicians.

Even if these programs did work, and they do not, training and employment programs are areas of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution. It is not the job of the federal government to even be involved in that.

The federal government is proposing to spend $1,329,481,000 in an area that is the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government. If I were the premier of a province I would be demanding that the government quit taxing my people by the amount they are spending in my province and get off my turf.

If government members wanted to understand how to prepare a budget they should look at the Reform's taxpayers budget. It started with basic principles. The first principle is that we will get the federal government out of areas where they are intruding into provincial jurisdictions.

Questions On The Order Paper June 7th, 1995

I need the information by Thursday.

Questions On The Order Paper June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive an answer to Question No. 137 which has been on the Order Paper since February 6, 1995.

I requested an answer from the government within 45 days. As of today, 121 days have passed. I have been more than patient. I have asked for the number of staff involved and the total cost of administering the current firearms control legislation.

It is absolutely vital that we have this information before report stage debate in the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time making the connection between what I had to say previously on this question but I will offer some comments anyway.

We have clearly stated that a transition period should have taken place before the Crow rate was pulled out. This transition would have allowed much of what this member talked about to take place. If it is suddenly pulled out it is going to be much more difficult for people to adjust to the changes that will take place.

We had a plan to do this. We would have taken the Crow subsidy and rolled it into a farm program that would have helped farmers make the transition. That should have taken place. As it stands now farmers will probably have a very difficult time.

The changes that have been made probably eventually would have had to come but because of the way it was done by the government it is going to put farmers in a very difficult situation. I hope that is an appropriate answer to the member's question.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly conclude my answer.

The hon. member opposite continues to perpetuate the myth, the fairy tale, that there would be fewer poor people if we continued having more and more big government programs and big government bureaucracy.

If we borrow money year after year we will be driving our children into the poor house. Who does he think pays for big government? It is the poor people of Canada who right now are being driven into the poor house to pay for it. The government keeps saying that Canadians need to have fairer taxes. All that does is raise the taxes of everyone. The government has raised the taxes for the poor, for the hard working, for the labourers of Canada.

The people of Canada are not being fooled by all of this. This is simply a fairy tale, a myth, which the government is perpetuating, that it is kinder, gentler and more compassionate. In fact, the most cruel thing it can do is to continue to borrow more money so that Canadians have to pay more interest and continue to impoverish the people. We are borrowing from the poor to give to the rich. That is the point I want to make.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all morning to the same type of reasoning, the big flaw in what is happening in Canada today. We are trying to convince the people these big government programs, the borrowing of money to sustain all of this, are the answer to our problem. This absolutely is not the answer.

We have to run government in a businesslike manner. We have to be more responsible. We have to allow people to assume responsibility for their lives. If the member is suggesting that if we remove this from them and we have big government programs we are solving the problem, she should take a look around her. She should open her eyes.

The interest we are paying on our debt and the interest that continues to grow and multiply is doing more to destroy what we can do for the people than any other factor. You missed the entire point of the story I told. The time will come-

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Madam Speaker, today I would like to tell a story, the story of Nibor Dooh, a mythological character from history who landed on the shores of the great country of Adanac. Adanac was a peaceful, prosperous, and tolerant place when he arrived. The people had no complaints, other than those that are inevitable in life. Nibor Dooh went about the land telling the people of Adanac that their lives could be much better than they were. They could be richer, more tolerant, and more prosperous. If they followed his scheme they would be much better off.

The good people of Adanac scratched their heads in bewilderment. "We already work the land", they said, "and we look after our families and we look after the less fortunate in our communities. How can we all do so much better?"

"It is very good news", said Nibor Dooh. "You all remember that awful Xram, who said we have to steal from the rich to give to the poor. You were right not to listen to him. Stealing is wrong. I can make you all rich without any of that".

The people scratched their heads a bit harder. How could this work? "Well", said Nibor Dooh, "it is all a bit complicated. First we take from the rich to give to the poor and then the poor are rich, or they are richer. So we can take from them and give back to the rich. Then the rich have even more, so we can take more from them and give to the not poor any more, and so on".

The people of Adanac scratched their heads some more. They really did not understand how this all could work. "Look", said Nibor Dooh, "it is all in this wonderful book by the philosopher Sen Yek. It is called The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Free Money . I can't say I quite understand it myself'', said Nibor Dooh, ``and I am sure you wouldn't, but trust me. It will all work out''.

Nibor Dooh assembled the elitist class in the country to help him rule the land. He explained that this way it would not be so bad that initially he had to take from them. He was to hire a lot of them and they could all get together, look very clever and rule the ordinary people. They would have to adopt his ideas, some of which were actually very odd. After a few years, they would even claim that it was their culture and that it was what made their country great and gave it its identity.

Nibor Dooh was able to convince some of the tribe of Aidem to explain his scheme to everyone in the land. Aidem had a lot of influence and most of his tribe were part of the upper elite class.

At first the whole thing seemed to work to perfection. The elite class paid more, but not much more. They got to be rulers and talk in very clever and compassionate sounding ways. The tribe of Aidem praised them with great praise and Nibor Dooh went up and down the great land of Adanac taking small amounts of money from the people to give back to the rich but also giving them large amounts of money that he said he had got from the rich without taking much from them.

"Look how well it is working", he told them, and the Aidem echoed him. "I take a small amount of money from you and I increase it. I do more with it than if you keep it yourself. I provide free health care for you. I will pay you a pension when you get old. I take care of the poor among you better than you could. I provide work for those without jobs, and if I cannot provide work I pay them anyway. There is no need for any of you to concern yourself with your neighbour's well-being, for I, Nibor Dooh, take care of all those who have problems".

Every once in a while some village idiot would ask how he could defy the laws of economics, but Nibor Dooh would just smile patronizingly and wave copies of the works of Sen Yek and Htiarblag. Nibor Dooh was so clever and so urbane that the people just laughed at these idiots.

Other quite vicious people spread rumours that Nibor Dooh was actually borrowing from the rich and promising to pay them back with the money of the poor. No one listened, because if it were true he was making the poor richer and they would easily be able to pay for what they had consumed now.

No one worried about tomorrow. Adanac became known as one of the best countries to live in. As the years went by there was a gradual but marked change in society. People did not take as much responsibility for their own affairs. They did not save their money for when times were lean or when they got to be older. People did not take as much interest in helping their neighbour as they did previously. A saying became common in the land: "Don't worry, Nibor Dooh will take care of us", and Nibor Dooh became a very popular person in the land of Adanac.

Another gradual change began to occur. The poor people had to always pay a little more to Nibor Dooh every year for the services he provided. Every year there were more and more people who did not have jobs. Some of the people began to murmur and ask questions. It appeared as though they were paying more to Nibor Dooh than they were getting back in the services he provided. Some of the people from the Aidem tribe came to Nibor Dooh's rescue. They told the people Nibor Dooh was doing what was best for them. They told the people of Adanac they were becoming a more caring and compassionate society, kinder and gentler than they used to be.

Meanwhile, Nibor Dooh was looking more tired and worried than he once had and had less time for the common people. "See how he wears himself out for us", they said. They did not know he had to spend more and more time begging the rich to lend him more and more. They knew that Nibor Dooh kept saying the rich would have to pay more, but somehow it was always them who had to pay more.

They began to listen to people criticising the whole arrangement. Some were the old time village idiots like Reklaw and Namdeirf, and others were new voices like Notserp Gninnam. Notserp really annoyed Nibor Dooh with his impertinent questions like where is all this money coming from to provide all these services? Why are we paying almost half of our hard-earned money to Nibor Dooh? Why are the services declining but the amount we give Nibor Dooh keeps increasing?

Also about this time Notserp made the discovery that Nibor Dooh was actually taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Notserp discovered that Nibor Dooh had an agreement with the wealthy in the land whereby they would give Nibor Dooh money if he gave them a portion of what he collected from the poor every year. Aidem came to the rescue of Nibor Dooh again but the word got out to the people he was taking from the poor to give to the rich. Some of the poor people saw they were not rich enough to afford what he demanded of them and they began to demand that this stop.

Nibor Dooh began to accuse Notserp of being heartless and cruel for making such a suggestion, but Notserp contended that we must not keep giving more to the rich because it would enslave the poor. In return Nibor Dooh accused Notserp for wanting to slash and burn these wonderful programs. If we went back to allowing people more control over their lives the country would fall apart.

The Aidem tribe also contended that if Notserp had his way we would lose our identify as a nation. Nibor Dooh said the poor would be unable to defend themselves from the adversities of life. When people asked Notserp about this he explained that we are all becoming poorer because we were giving so much of our hard earned money to the rich. He said it was wrong to steal from the rich and that since we have borrowed from them we have to pay them back. He said going into debt to them had not made us richer and would not so we should stop borrowing and just pay them back.

Notserp became more and more popular with the poor people as they began to realise he was telling the truth. The trust the people had in Nibor Dooh began to disappear. The Aidem people tried valiantly to defend Nibor Dooh, but the stranger their explanations became and the wilder their attacks on Notserp the less convincing they became. People asked Notserp how he could keep attracting larger and larger audiences even though Aidem and Nibor Dooh called him such terrible names. You cannot fool all the people all the time, he told them.

Finally the people became so angry that they sent Nibor Dooh back to the land of Larebil and proclaimed Notserp their new leader. Notserp told them clearly he was not a magician, but neither was Nibor Dooh. He said: "There are simple answers to your problems, but they are not easy ones. Nibor Dooh has made us poor and we will have to go back to working hard to fix the damage he caused. It will take years but at the end you will feel better not because of what I have done but because of what you have done".

That is what happened. The people worked hard but they felt proud of the work and they learned a great lesson. They could take care of themselves better in the long run than Nibor Dooh could with his grand scheme of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

That is the end of my story. One observant person realized Nibor Dooh is Robin Hood spelled backwards. Just like Nibor Dooh was Robin Hood spelled backwards, what he did was backwards. All his great schemes that had the effect of stealing from the poor to give to the rich were backwards. We are doing the very same thing in Canada. The government, like Nibor Dooh in my story, has convinced the people it can do more for the people than they can do for themselves.

I listened to the arguments all morning and I heard them repeated over and over again. The government is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. We borrow from the rich and they get richer. Every year the situation deteriorates.

A parallel to this story can be found in the history of Canada for approximately the past 25 years and it is still unfolding. What is the answer? Get government less involved in the lives of people. Let them take care of themselves; stop interfering. Reduce the size of government and government programs and reduce taxes so people have more control over their lives.

Like the people of Adanac, Canadians are becoming increasingly cynical of government and politicians. They need to realize there is absolutely no compassion in doing what we are doing, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They need to realize there is nothing noble about being told they cannot take care of themselves, their families and the less fortunate without the help of a wise, all seeing government. That is the great lesson of this story.

Like the people of Adanac, we have the will, the imagination and the energy to live well and to share generously all by ourselves and that is what we need to do.

What are the key points in this story I created? Governments have created the impression that by borrowing money, by going into debt, we are being compassionate and caring. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are enslaving our people, especially our children. We are taking the money from the hardworking, ordinary, not wealthy people of Canada and we are giving it to the rich by our schemes.

People pay over one-half of their money to the government. What tactics does the government use to transfer this money from the poor to the rich? It convinces the people it can take care of them better than they could if they were allowed to keep their hard earned money, which is a myth. Many people in Canada are beginning to realize this myth. Another tactic government uses is to keep telling the people: "Trust us, even if you do not understand it all. The government is doing what is best for the country". This too is a great myth.

All the names in this story are spelled backwards. For example, the tribe of Aidem that helped Nibor Dooh and the elites to spread their lies across the land is the media. Aidem, like Nibor Dooh, was able to get some of the elite tribe to help him convince everyone that being left wing is more compassionate than being right wing, but it proved to be a myth. Before these left wing Liberal ideas were spread across the land of Adanac, Canada spelled backwards, we had strong families and communities to give support to those in society who were less fortunate. When these ideas of Senyek were spread across that land it began to erode the strength of our families and charitable institutions.

Notserp, whose name I will let others decipher, began to tell the people these ideas of Nibor Dooh would not work. The agreement Nibor Dooh had with the rich to borrow money was to destroy the land. That is happening in Canada today. By borrowing money we are destroying our country.

The grand experiment this country has undergone for the last 25 years or so has not worked. Hard work, strong families, community organizations, values that emphasize responsibility, these have made our country great, not this idea that big government programs have made our country great and make us a great society. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is a myth. The government still creates the impression it can take better care of us than we can take care of ourselves if we were allowed to keep our hard earned money.

Nibor Dooh created the impression that he could multiply the money he took from the people but in the end it was a myth. The opposite actually happened. He impoverished the people. This is happening in Canada. My hope is that we can learn a lesson from the story I have told. We cannot keep taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully this morning and this afternoon to the arguments presented by my Liberal colleagues across the way. I am surprised that they continue to argue we are not in a serious situation, that they are somehow being more compassionate than we are in what they are doing, that they are not seriously addressing the debt and deficit situation.

Is balancing the budget not the most compassionate thing we could ever do to preserve our social programs? Is it not the fact that we must stop borrowing more money, that we must immediately come to a situation where we stop increasing the interest payments? Are these interest payments not the most serious threat to our social programs?

If they are the most serious threat, is not the most compassionate thing we can do to get our house in order to balance the budget as quickly as possible, decide on what is important and get there as quickly as possible?

Petitions May 31st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise today to present 343 petitions signed by 9,144 concerned Canadians primarily from the province of Saskatchewan.

The petitioners protest the following provisions of Bill C-68: the universal registration of long guns; the replacement of the firearms acquisition certificate by a firearms possession certificate; restrictions and controls on the purchase of ammunition; provisions to ban the purchase and use of .25 and .32 calibre handguns and handguns with a barrel length of under 4.14 inches; and regulation by orders in council.

These petitioners call on Parliament to refrain from passing Bill C-68 as it presently stands with the above mentioned provisions.

I will not go through all of these petitions because of the great number of them.

Gun Control May 30th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the legislative measures proposed in Bill C-68 imply that gun owners are a risk to both themselves and to others and thereby a threat to public safety.

The Minister of Justice is unable or unwilling to provide empirical evidence to prove that gun owners present a greater risk to themselves, to the people they live with or to their neighbours.

The Library of Parliament has been in contact with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Insur-

ance Bureau of Canada and has learned that insurance companies do not ask their applicants if they own a gun because they are not an identifiable risk group.

If gun ownership represented any risk or liability, insurance companies would charge gun owners a higher premium for life, health, disability, liability and property insurance. They do not.

How can the justice minister say gun owners are an identifiable risk when insurance companies disagree? Unlike the minister who makes his arguments based solely on emotion, insurance companies make their decisions based on empirical evidence because they make their living assessing real risk.