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

Firearms Act February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago the Minister of Justice was quoted in a number of newspapers as saying that he believed that only the police and military should have guns.

We have been through Bill C-68 and it is clear to me and will soon be clear to all Canadians that the minister has taken the first step toward achieving this personal objective.

After reading this legislation it is also clear that the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues have confused gun control with crime control. Anyone who studies this issue for more than a couple of hours will realize that there is no connection between controlling the legal use of guns by law-abiding gun owners and reducing crime.

The Minister of Justice cannot tell us specifically how controlling guns and registering guns will reduce crime, and the Bloc has made that similar observation.

The minister keeps saying that chiefs of police have asked for it. The minister cannot hide behind that answer forever. Sooner or later he has to be responsible for answering his own questions. He has to defend his legislation with reasoned arguments and not expect others outside this House to come to his rescue.

If I start to sound angry during my remarks it is because not only am I expressing my own dissatisfaction, disappointment and disgust with the Liberal government's costly, intrusive, bureaucratic and ineffective legislation, but I am also expressing the outrage I read in the more than 1,000 letters I have received and the outrage that I hear in the hundreds of phone calls we receive, and the outrage I hear when I walk the streets of the communities in my constituency, and the absolute outrage I hear when I attend rally after rally of responsible, law-abiding citizens, whether in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Alberta or Nova Scotia. The outrage that these people express to me wherever I go is something this government must consider.

I support some of the provisions in the government's proposals calling for tougher sanctions for violent criminals and its proposed attempts to control the smuggling of firearms. I support some of these measures because they will really help control crime. Laws do not make people good but they do help to restrain evil.

On the other hand, because there is no evidence or convincing argument to show that public safety will be improved I will oppose ineffective proposals to register rifles and shotguns and the banning of firearms or any measures which would further restrict the ownership of handguns, scary looking guns, semi-automatic rifles, crossbows, and the banning of firearms or any measures which would further restrict the ownership of these, even replica toy guns.

If the Liberal Party can demonstrate how registration of all firearms is the most cost effective way of improving public safety, reducing violent crime and saving the most lives I and most Canadians will support the minister's proposals if he can show that they are the most cost effective method. This he has not done. He fails to answer this challenge and therefore we must oppose this legislation.

I repeat my personal position. I support cost effective gun controls which improve public safety and reduce the criminal use of firearms and if elected I will work to repeal ineffective gun controls which do not meet these objectives.

Another Reform principle from our party constitution says that it is the duty of all members of Parliament to their constituents that should supersede their obligation to their political parties. Reform MPs are duty bound to represent their constituents' wishes on this issue. I only hope that the Liberal government has the courage to let their members of Parliament do the same.

If the Liberal Party would allow a free vote on this bill I think we would really see whether there is broad public support for this. We would see whether that is true, as the minister claims.

I think it would prove that the Liberal Party believes in true democracy between elections as well as during them. I wish it would come clean on this issue and allow that free vote to take place.

Whether a Canadian is a gun owner or not here are some principles on which this legislation should be judged. I encourage every voter to inform themselves, to judge this legislation against their own personal beliefs, not what the government, not what the media, not what the politicians are telling them. This is one nasty piece of legislation. It will affect not only our lives but also the lives of our children and our grandchildren.

The Minister of Justice is right, the legislation is about the kind of country we want to live in. Canadians owe it to themselves and the next generation to get it right. Their safety, the safety of their families, their friends, their homes and their properties is at stake.

If Canadians believe in less government and less bureaucracy then they will not support this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in less government spending then they will not support this bill. If Canadians believe in lower taxes, they will not support this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, then they will not support this gun control legislation. If Canadians believe in every citizen's right to private property, then they will definitely not support this gun control legislation.

If Canadians believe in true equality and that the law should be applied equally regardless of their race or where they live, then they will not like what they read in this gun control bill. If Canadians believe in every citizen's constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person, then they will oppose this gun control bill with every ounce of energy they have.

If Canadians believe in everyone's right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family, their property and their home, as described in the Criminal Code of Canada, then they will not like what they read in this gun control bill. If Canadians believe the federal government should not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, then they will not support this gun control bill.

A recent survey conducted by Simon Fraser University learned that support for the Liberal Party's firearm registration system drops significantly as the respondents' knowledge of existing gun control laws increases and the full cost of the measures is understood.

In his attempts to confuse the issue of gun control with the issue of crime control, the minister has included some things in his legislation which I support. I maintain that if the Minister of Justice is really interested in public safety he will divide this bill into two parts. Part one would be crime control and part two would be gun control. Even though there are some monumental flaws with the crime control provisions of the bill, I think we could fix those and ensure easy passage through the House so that the police could use these tools to put real criminals behind bars where they should be.

Here is a list of measures in the bill which I think could be modified and amended and which I could support because they truly concern crime. I would support the four-year mandatory minimum sentence for the 10 violent offences committed with a firearm as long as the word firearm was replaced with the word weapon. More people are murdered with knives and other weapons than with guns. I think any criminal who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime should be subject to the same mandatory jail term.

I support using section 85 of the Criminal Code effectively, but again this mandatory sentencing provision should be extended to any weapon used in a crime, not just firearms.

I support the lifetime prohibition from possessing a restricted weapon for the conviction of violent crimes. I also support the inclusion of replica or imitation firearms under section 85 of the Criminal Code. I support the new offences for large scale smuggling and trafficking of firearms. I support the new offences for possessing stolen or smuggled firearms of a one-year minimum jail sentence. I support adding firearms trafficking to the list of enterprise crime offences.

I oppose the banning of 553,000 handguns. I oppose the banning of 19,000 restricted firearms. However, I support the proposed firearms possession certificate, in principle anyway. I support the offence for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. I support the 10-year prohibition on possession of firearms to those convicted of serious firearms offences. I support the prohibition on possession of firearms for those convicted of stalking and drug offences. I support the tighter border controls, the inspection procedures by Canada customs. Also, I support the forfeiture of vehicles used in smuggling contraband and the proceeds of smuggling activities. I support the requirement for import-export permits for firearms moving across the border for commercial use.

I also support the requirement to record the entry or exit of firearms to or from Canada by tourists and outfitters. I add that these people bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our country, creating thousands of jobs and tourists should not be needlessly harassed at our borders.

I support the provision of minor's permits for persons between 12 and 18 to acquire firearms. I support the extension of authority to approve firearm safety courses to the provinces.

I also support the creation of a separate safety course for handgun users and I support the use of valuable police time and scarce tax revenues on cost effective crime control.

This is a list of the things I support. Because gun control measures will do next to nothing to deter real criminals from obtaining or using firearms, and because these measures are not a cost effective way of improving public safety, I will vote against the bill unless they are changed.

Here is a list of reasons why I am opposed to the gun control legislation. I oppose the mandatory registration of all rifles and shotguns and the provision that would make failing to register them a criminal offence. This will do nothing but make criminals out of law-abiding people.

Here are a few reasons why I oppose mandatory registration of all rifles and shotguns. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not a cost effective way of improving public safety or saving lives. It will not help police investigate and prosecute violent criminals. It will not alter police procedures for dealing with domestic disputes. It will not reduce the use of firearms in violent crime.

It will keep the police off the street and in the office, not where they should be. It will require more government bureaucracy, not less. It will require an increase in taxes in the form of registration fees. It will also require other members of society to pay those taxes because the initial registration fees will be waived. It will target law-abiding responsible gun owners, not real criminals. It will help trace firearms but tracing will serve no real useful purpose.

Gun smugglers can already be identified without a registration system. Handgun registration has been in effect since 1934 and has not reduced handgun crime. Registration has been tried and failed in Australia and New Zealand. Hundreds of millions could save more lives if spent elsewhere.

It will have a negative effect on a billion dollar economy. It will undermine respect for the law. I cannot emphasize this more. There are jokes going around. There are ads in the newspapers in my province showing people how to hide their guns. They openly advocate that this law will not be complied with.

We have a huge problem when we put in place a law that everyone regards as being useless. It undermines respect for the law, and we must take that into consideration. We need to maintain that respect. People know this will do nothing to make society safer. In fact it will do the exact opposite. I do not have time today to go into them but there are very valid reasons for opposing the legislation because it will actually increase the risk for most people.

I am particularly opposed to the extreme penalties for persons failing to register their rifles and shotguns: a one-year mandatory jail term and up to 10 years in jail if one fails to fill out that little card the minister says is so easy. Denis Lortie killed three people and only spent 10 years in jail. Where is the justice in this legislation? It defies common sense.

I also oppose the added tax burden on law-abiding citizens, the responsible gun owners, through registration fees, permit fees, and renewal fees. Like I said before, I oppose the banning of legally owned handguns, scary looking semi-automatic rifles and so on, and the banning of all replica toy guns. I oppose those kinds of measures.

I oppose the restrictions on crossbows, the banning of one-hand crossbows and the additional restrictions on air guns. I oppose the prohibition and confiscation of guns without fair, just and timely compensation. I oppose the confiscation of thousands of firearms without compensation when the owner dies.

I oppose the use it or lose it provision which requires law-abiding handgun owners to re-establish their reason for owning a handgun every five years. I oppose the proposed controls on the purchase of ammunition and the additional and unnecessary controls on legitimate gun collectors. I oppose the prohibition of entire households from having firearms because of the actions of a single resident.

I oppose the exemption of certain Canadian citizens from firearms prohibition orders. All Canadians should be treated equally under the law and in this case under this law. I oppose the requirement of an import-export permit for bringing a personal use firearm into Canada.

I oppose the expanded use of orders in council to restrict or prohibit firearms. I oppose the different application of the firearms laws for remote and aboriginal communities. Canadians should be treated equally regardless of where they live, regardless of their race, and regardless of their occupation. I oppose the waste of valuable police time and scarce tax revenue on useless, ineffective gun controls.

I have 28 amendments here. At this time I will not read them all out. I have gone through a lot of things already. I think we need to have a debate because there are many things that need to be addressed. I will hold this up at a later date.

In closing, I make five recommendations to the government. I recommend holding separate votes for crime control provisions and gun control provisions. We should separate those.

I recommend early passage of crime control provisions with consideration of Reform amendments to really get tough on violent criminals.

I recommend a free vote on all gun control provisions in the bill, especially the sections relating to implementation of the universal registration system.

I recommend a delay in implementation of universal registration systems to see if increased sanctions and new criminal offences, that is the crime controls proposed by the Liberal government and Reform, are effective in reducing violent crime.

I recommend the inclusion of a sunset clause amendment that would automatically repeal any gun control provision that is not effective in reducing violent crime or approving public safety.

Finally, I have a message for seven million gun owners in Canada. They should not give up. The fight for the kind of Canada we all want to live in has begun in earnest. I encourage them to write letters to both federal and provincial politicians. They should send petitions to their MPs, write letters to the editor, phone in to hotline radio and television shows, get involved in a political party that best represents their views and help to organize and attend rallies. Whatever you do-

Firearms Act February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the procedure in which we were going to complete the questions that occurred before question period, before debate ceased. Are we going to continue with debate?

Firearms Act February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I thought they were going to continue with questions from before question period. Is that correct?

Petitions February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that are identical. The petitioners ask that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime.

Second, the petitioners support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.

Last, the petitioners support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have not proven to be cost effective or have

proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

I concur with and support these petitioners.

Canada Pension Plan February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am not a minister yet.

The Liberal Party looks after its own pensions. I wish it would do this with as much enthusiasm for the rest of Canadians. Not only will this rate increase force an increase in payroll taxes that will kill jobs, but younger Canadians will also question whether CPP is even a good investment.

MPs will be given a choice to opt out of the MPs pension plan. Will younger Canadians be given the same opportunity to opt out of this bankrupt pension plan?

Canada Pension Plan February 27th, 1995

My apologies. Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us why his review of social security programs did not deal with this looming crisis?

Canada Pension Plan February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I was asking my question.

Canada Pension Plan February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a good job. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions reported that the Canada pension plan fund would be broke in 20 years and the projected premiums paid by workers and employers would have to more than double to keep the fund afloat. The contingent liability in the plan is estimated at $500 billion, about as big as our whole government debt.

I did not give you a compliment, Mr. Speaker, just so that I could ask a long one. Could the Minister of Human Resources Development-

Property Rights February 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to find champions of property rights who are active in politics.

A lot of people reacted to the Reform Party with surprise and with a sense that we did not belong in federal politics. There is a real sense in which they were right, though not for the reason that they believed. We are not typical politicians. It is that we really do not like big government. That is why we are here. We think we have to be here. It is not just because we want to be.

I have been trying to understand why Canadians are in such a bad mood these days and why government seems to be at the centre of all their complaints. I believe it is because of the issue before us today.

The right to own property means the right to live unmolested by government. I listened very carefully to the arguments of the member from Windsor, but the objections are those that are typical of the Liberal Party that believes in more big government. I listened carefully to the argument the Bloc presented, that this was a provincial matter.

Who will protect the people of Canada from more big federal government? Will it be the provinces? I think there is a real contradiction in what Bloc members are saying about their own policies and their own beliefs. In a democracy government is not them; it is us. It is not the government molesting us. It is one another through government.

We have decided we can vote ourselves free money and we can. The more we try to beat wealth out of one another and tolerance and all other virtues, the more angry we get not just with government but with one another. Democracy is the practice of voting for public authorities. That is a way of keeping government under control, not a way of legitimizing any action it may take.

The right to own and use private property means the right to live unmolested by government. It really is not the government taking our hard earned tax dollars, our property; it is all of us molesting and taking property from each other through government.

Government is not benevolent. Government is force. The more wealth we try to get from each other through government, the more angry we get not just with government but with each other. We have trouble seeing what the lack of property rights has caused us and society. Too many of us believe that democracy gives the government the ultimate authority to take away our fundamental rights and our property. However this is just using democracy as an excuse. What we have in Canada is not a true democracy. We vote every four or five years to elect another bunch of tax and spend specialists who disregard our fundamental right to own and use our own property.

That is not what democracy is. Democracy is supposed to be a way of keeping government under control, not a way of legitimizing the confiscation of private property without due process of law and without fair and timely compensation. Voting should be a way of preventing government from taking our property. Instead we have become addicted to using it as a tool to take one another's wealth. That is socialism.

This is what I think is wrong with Canada and no amount of voting can fix it. For example, if private property rights were in our Constitution, the justice minister could not implement his gun control laws and we would all be better off. Unless we hold a referendum to include the right of private property in the Constitution we have little hope of getting true democracy in Canada. We need true democracy in our country and we need it desperately.

We in the House need to amend the Constitution or hold a referendum on the subject of putting the right to own property into the Constitution.

The member for Skeena has asked me to read a statement into the record in support of the motion. The principle and policy is our blue book policy and that would therefore include all

Reform MPs. Hopefully the government will consider carefully what we have presented in our reasoned argument.

Gun Control February 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the buck stops with the justice minister. Last week when asked how a national gun registry would reduce crime he could not or would not answer. Instead he listed off a group of bureaucrats and organizations which he claims support his measures.

Is it not his responsibility to explain how a national gun registry will improve public safety and reduce violent crime? Does the buck not stop with him?