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

Question No. 53 January 31st, 2005

With regard to the DNA cases in process at the RCMP forensic laboratories and the DNA data bank, for each of the last three years: ( a ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were received; ( b ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were processed; ( c ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were left unprocessed at the end of each year; ( d ) what was the average time to process urgent and routine DNA cases; ( e ) based on the success rate of matching DNA cases to offenders in the DNA Data Bank, for urgent and routine cases what was the average number of repeat offenders that were on the loose and the average time they remained on the loose waiting for DNA cases to be processed; and ( f ) how does the performance of our DNA analysis compare with other countries in areas such as case backlogs, average processing time for urgent and routine DNA cases, differences in definition of urgent and routine, and success rates for matches with repeat offenders in their DNA data banks?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 52 January 31st, 2005

With regard to Firearms Act cases, Criminal Code cases related to firearms, and court and Charter challenges of firearms legislation and regulations, each as a category of litigation, and for each province and territory since December 1, 1995: ( a ) in how many litigation cases has the Deparment of Justice been involved; ( b ) in how many litigation cases is the department currently involved; ( c ) are any of these cases considered “high impact legislation” cases and if so, how many and what impact are they likely to have on government expenditures and legislation; and ( d ) how much time and money has the government expended on the litigation of these cases?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 54 January 31st, 2005

With regard to the “load leveling” exercise recently completed by the Canada Firearms Centre that involved the mailing of renewal notices to some 770,000 holders of Possession Only Licences, for each province and territory: ( a ) how many envelopes were sent out; and ( b ) how many envelopes were returned for each reason noted on the envelope such as “unclaimed”, “no such address”, “address incomplete”, “moved address unknown”, “no such post office”, “refused by addressee”, “deceased” and “unknown”?

Question No. 51 January 31st, 2005

With regard to the following statement made on the Canada Firearms Centre's website update dated October 30, 2004, “3.4 million CFRO queries have been made by police and other law enforcement officials since December 1, 1998”: ( a ) how many of these queries were successful in finding the information being requested by the police; ( b ) how many of these queries were made by police personnel; ( c ) how many queries were made by other law enforcement personnel and who are they; ( d ) how many queries were made by non-law enforcement personnel such as Canada Firearms Centre employees; ( e ) how many queries were made by bureaucrats in other federal departments, in other provincial governments and in other regional and municipal governments; ( f ) how many queries were made as a result of some automatic search feature on the Canadian Police Information Centre's website; and ( g ) how long did the average successful query take to return results to the police officer making the request?

Private Member's Motion No. 70 December 13th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, after much discussion and deliberation, I have decided to amend my private member's Motion No. 70. The amended Motion No. 204 was placed on notice last Thursday, December 9 . Therefore, I request the consent of the House to change the number of my motion from Motion No. 204 to Motion No. 70. I thank the House for its consideration of this request.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could go into some depth. That was a very good question and I appreciate the member raising it. I wish he would raise this issue within his own party and start talking it up.

Yes, I am in favour of punishing people who use a weapon in the commission of a crime. More and more knives and all kinds of other things are being used in the commission of crimes. It is not just guns with which we have a problem.

As far as consecutive sentences, I think that is an excellent suggestion. I wish we would start talking more about these kinds of solutions to crime problems in this country, and not just with firearms. We should be talking about consecutive sentences in many other areas. It becomes a deterrent and we should be looking for deterrents. We should be looking for ways that substantially improve public safety. The gun registry does not. It is a bureaucratic exercise.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I wish the person who asked the question had been here from the beginning. I have already refuted a lot of what he said.

I want to pick up on the issue of the 2,000 inquiries at the firearms registry every day. I have put in numerous access to information requests. I have tried to find out if they are made by bureaucrats in the justice department or front line police officers. I have talked to front line police officers. They have no use for the registry. They have told me that any self-respecting police officer who trusts any of the information in that registry would be taking his life in his hands.

In fact, the Auditor General herself said that over 90% of the registration certificates contain errors. Over five million registrations have never been verified.

I know the minister is not listening to what I am saying but if the Liberals would listen to some of the arguments in regard to this, and some of the research that has been done, they could not support the registry. It is riddled with errors. The 2,000 hits per day are not being done by policemen who are interested in public safety or finding out where the firearms are.

We cannot find out from the government who is accessing the registry.

Main Estimates, 2004-05 December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Nova.

We just heard the phrase “value for money”, and that is exactly what I will be zeroing in on as I make some remarks about one of the biggest areas of misspending that the Liberal government has ever endeavoured upon. It is an area in which we would like to have a modest reduction of about $20 million, or $24 million if we take in both motions, that we would like to see in the vote that will take place later today.

The issue I am talking about is the gun registry. The government wants to portray this as gun control but it has gone 500 times over budget at this point and it could even be more than that. It is unbelievable that we would have the government portray this as wise spending and a good investment.

I want to begin with a statement that was made by the Auditor General in December 2002 when she brought down her report on the gun registry. She said, “Parliament is being kept in the dark”. I assert today and I want to impress upon the members of the House of Commons that Parliament is still being kept in the dark. I believe that the minister and the bureaucrats are still deceiving MPs and Parliament.

I have put in over 500 access to information requests on this issue trying to find out what this government is doing. It hides the information, not just from me, but by extension Parliament and all Canadians. It is one of the hugest boondoggles ever and we as Conservatives would like to reduce the spending in this area a little bit.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety sent out an e-mail a couple of days ago. In that e-mail he made 17 claims that I am going to point out are blatantly false. They are at variance with the truth and I will take them one by one and go through them.

Twenty minutes ago a Liberal, who has since disappeared, came in here and said that she wants to hear some rational arguments. I am going to give some and I wish she would be listening because I do not think they can vote to support the ridiculous spending that is still going on with the gun registry.

The following is the first claim that was made by the parliamentary secretary. He said, “important client service and public safety results are being achieved by the gun registry”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire premise of the gun registry defies all logic. Let us think about this. We have a firearm and beside it is a registration certificate. How can laying this piece of paper beside this gun prevent anyone from pulling the trigger or doing something with that firearm? It defies logic that it would ever work and yet that is the entire premise of the gun control measure that the government has portrayed as being an important client service and public safety results being achieved. That is why we do not see anything being accomplished by this.

The following is the second claim the parliamentary secretary makes. He says, “An Environics survey taken in January 2003 found that 74% of Canadians support the current gun control legislation”. The questions that were asked in that survey were: Do you support gun registration? Do you support safe storage of firearms? Do you support background checks before people buy a firearm? Do you support safety courses being taken by firearms owners? If they had asked me those questions I would have forgotten they were even talking about gun registry by the time they went through the whole list and I probably would have said that I support those things, which I do, but the registry is the biggest boondoggle. Therefore to say that 74% of Canadians support the registry is misleading at best.

I want to tell members about another survey that was taken in April, 2004 by JMCK. The question it asked was whether we would want the gun registry scrapped and put that money into fighting violent crime and devoting it to other areas such as frontline policing. The results, which I think were a very accurate indication of where Canadians were at, were that 76.7% of the people said to scrap the registry and put the money into places like frontline policing where it will do some good. That is what we are asking.

It is very misleading for the Liberals to say that the public is on side. They are not.

Another claim that the Liberals make is that the Canadian firearms program is much more than gun registry. It comprises safe storage, handling and transportation of firearms, safety, training and education, effective border controls, in addition to the licensing of firearms owners.

Before the government passed Bill C-68 we had all of those things and it was done for approximately $10 million a year. Now the government is saying it will try to get the costs down to $85 million per year. It has been way above that at the present time.

We had all of those things prior to 1995. Now the Liberals are starting to make the claim, “Oh, this is what it is all about”. That is extremely misleading and Canadians had better take a closer look when they begin to support the Liberals on this because it is not true.

Let me talk about another Liberal claim. The government says that there are about two million firearms licence holders and about seven million firearms registered, a true success story in just over five years.

I gasp when I hear the Liberals make this kind of a claim. They know and I have revealed to them the information that I have garnered through my access to information request. The government says five years. The Liberals cannot even count. The bill was passed in 1995. They cannot count years.

The Liberals claim it was a success, when according to academic studies that have been done on this, more than 400,000 firearms owners are still unlicensed. Some 400,000 are unlicensed. According to the government's own import and export records, there are still at least eight million guns in this country that are unregistered.

The government claims this is a success story. If there are less than half of the firearms registered, how can that be a success?

That begs the question, even if the firearms were registered, how does that piece of paper affect what the criminal does with his firearm? It does not. He is probably not even in the registry.

Here is another Liberal claim. Approximately 12,000 individual firearms licences have been refused or revoked to date by the chief firearms officers across Canada. What does that amount to? It is a 0.6% success rate. Canada had a 20 year licensing program previous to this which had over twice that rate and we did not have to spend over $100 million per year.

What does that $2 billion firearms centre do with the 12,000 newly identified criminals, the 12,000 who have not been approved to buy a licence? They are taken off the list and they are never checked again.

In fact, there are 176,000 people in this country who have been prohibited by the courts from owning firearms. There are 176,000 people who do not have to report their change of address, but if they are licensed firearms owners they do.

If a person does not report their change of address within one month, that person could end up in prison for up to two years. However, if a person does not have a licence and the person is one of those 176,000 that should not own a firearm, that person does not have to report a change of address and no one will check.

If I were cynical I would say that if a person wanted the government to stop hassling him, he should apply for a licence and be rejected and then he would not have to worry any more. Then he would not be hassled by the government.

I have counted 17 claims that the parliamentary secretary made that are blatantly false. I would like to deal with more of them, but my time is running out.

I will read something that was said in reply to the Liberal claim that there are 6,000 firearms that have been traced in gun crimes and firearms trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. Here is what the police chief of the largest police force in Canada said:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety.

That sums it up.

Question No. 19 November 29th, 2004

Since 1995, what have been the actual public safety improvements achieved as a direct result of the Canadian Firearms Program and Firearms Registry including: ( a ) the number of violent crimes solved; ( b ) the number and type of violent and non-violent charges laid; ( c ) the number and type of convictions obtained; ( d ) the number and type of firearms seized from criminals; ( e ) the reduction in the total number of homicides; ( f ) the reduction in the total number of domestic homicides; ( g ) the reduction in the total number of suicides; ( h ) the number of lives saved; ( i ) the respective reduction in violent crime; and ( j ) the number of firearms returned to their rightful owners?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 16 November 29th, 2004

How much has it cost so far to transfer the Canadian Firearms Centre from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General (now the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) and how much has it cost so far to transfer the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team from the Department of Justice to the RCMP?

(Return tabled)