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

Questions On The Order Paper February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, back in 1998, I placed Question No. 284 on the order paper asking how many violent crimes have been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms.

In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have now been waiting 335 days. The commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to his answer to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 218 days ago.

I raised this matter in a point of order on October 28, on December 7, and again on February 9. The parliamentary secretary said the question was being finalized. Question No. 84 is the oldest unanswered question on the Order Paper. For the fourth time, when is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question?

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider this. By not giving an answer to this question, my work as a parliamentarian is being restricted.

Petitions February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have the privilege of presenting is one containing some 730 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who are calling on parliament to strengthen property rights in federal law.

These petitioners support Bill C-452 which would strengthen the protection of property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights and guarantee that every person has the right of enjoyment of their property.

These citizens are calling on parliament to guarantee that this most fundamental right and freedom is protected.

Petitions February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing the signature of 560 constituents from the riding of Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan who express rejection of the recommendations of the MacKay task force pertaining to entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.

These constituents affirm that independent insurance brokers account for approximately 60,000 jobs across rural and urban Canada and that banks' ability to retail property and casualty insurance will have a negative impact on this industry and the many thousands of employees it represents.

Petitions February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing 176 signatures from Canadians concerned about the protection of the institution of marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada and that this institution be preserved and protected.

My petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.

Petitions February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, my next petition contains 25 signatures which supports Motion No. 33, parental rights and responsibilities which I introduced in 1997.

Petitioners call on the government to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that the convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of parents as unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted. These citizens recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of the children and that it should be protected.

I have two petitions containing 353 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who support Motion No. 478 which I reintroduced on October 7, 1998. It proposes to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberty to the charter of rights and freedoms.

The petitioners call on the government to amend section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state.

Petitions February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I again have quite a number of petitions so I beg your indulgence as I present them.

I am pleased to present two petitions containing the signatures of 100 Canadians from Ontario and Nova Scotia who are concerned about the rights of the unborn. They request that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal funding for abortions on demand.

I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in this procedure.

Privilege February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to end this with a brief quotation from Joseph Maingot. I cannot serve my constituents without my staff and restricting my staff interferes with my work as an MP. My staff are an extension of me.

My constituents and the media tried to contact me for approximately four hours this morning. They could not get through. It was one of the busiest days we have had in our office today, right after the budget as members can imagine. The picketers would not allow my staff to enter. I tried personally to get them. I explained to them what this was all about and how it was important to me. I could not get my staff through. I would be shocked if on one of the busiest days, Mr. Speaker, you did not feel that this was an infringement of my privileges.

I would like to read a quotation from Joseph Maingot's

Parliamentary Privilege in Canada

, second edition, chapter 2, page 13:

If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament—i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament—in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege. An offence against the authority of the House constitutes contempt.

This would clearly include restricting staff to do its work for a member of parliament.

Again, I was unable to go about my work because my staff was denied access to my office. Not allowing my staff to accompany me is a very serious infringement on my privileges.

Privilege February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yes. I just wanted to give a personal illustration.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act February 10th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to these amendments today.

It is always a pleasure to remind the ruling party that the government's primary duty to the citizens of Canada is to defend their fundamental and natural rights and not to strip them of these rights by misguided legislation such as Bill C-55.

I have a little aside before I go any further. The same government that pretends to protect Canadian culture would not allow Canadians to indicate on their census forms that they were Canadian. Figure that one out.

Bill C-55 violates fundamental and natural rights including freedom of expression, freedom of contract and property rights. Bill C-55 also violates the charter of rights and freedoms and the Canadian bill of rights. Additionally, Bill C-55 has violated at least two international treaties including the 50-year old Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the North American free trade agreement.

Why were amendments not introduced to deal with these colossal oversights? It is because of politics.

When the government can run roughshod over individual rights and freedoms on the false premise of protecting our culture there is something sick with our system of government. I have said more than a dozen times in this House that if we do not change the system we will not change much else.

Bill C-55 should be scrapped, which is what the amendments of my colleague intend to do. It should not be just amended, it should be completely done away with. Bill C-55 makes it unlawful for Canadians and Canadian businesses, small and large, to advertise in foreign magazines sold in Canada, especially those magazines published in the United States.

How is this legislative sledgehammer supposed to protect Canadian culture? By prohibiting Canadians from advertising in American magazines. The bill actually guarantees that Canadians will only see American ads in American magazines, not Canadian ads.

Even a foreign magazine that has published only articles about Canada could not sell ads to Canadians. That is a long leap of Liberal logic that is bound to make everyone shake their heads in amazement.

Farmers cannot sell the grain they have grown with their own hands on their own land because of a government enforced monopoly. Now the government is taking away the freedom of Canadians to advertise where they think it will do the most good for them, for their companies, their employees and their shareholders.

Section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Professor Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall Law School says that this fundamental freedom includes advertising. The charter states that everyone has these fundamental freedoms; everyone it seems but Canadians who want to advertise in the magazines of their choice.

Through Bill C-55 the government takes away these fundamental freedoms for Canadian citizens. This will undoubtedly be the subject of a charter challenge. Has the government factored this into its cost of implementation for this bill? Has it considered what will happen when this unconstitutional law is struck down? How much will it cost us?

Violation of the freedom of expression is the first reason this bill should be scrapped rather than amended.

Last December 10 was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, which included ratification by the Government of Canada. Article 19 of the universal declaration states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Bill C-55 prohibits the imparting of information and ideas through any media. There it is for the world to see. Canada chastises other countries for violating fundamental human rights but it is prepared to violate article 19 of this international treaty which it signed 50 years ago. Violating such a fundamental freedom guaranteed in an international agreement will diminish respect for Canada and Canadians, and this is the second reason that Bill C-55 should be withdrawn rather than amended.

Bill C-55 violates another international agreement, namely the NAFTA. I would think that the minister of heritage and her cabinet colleagues would have learned their lesson when they lost the fight and millions of dollars when they arbitrarily tried to ban MMT in 1997.

Members of the House will recall that the Ethyl Corporation of the United States took the government to court because Canada had breached its obligations under the NAFTA. The NAFTA established a compensation process for investors harmed by a government failure to meet its NAFTA obligations.

Just like Ethyl Corporation, American magazine publishers will claim compensation for the advertising dollars they will lose as a direct result of the Canadian government's arbitrary prohibition of advertising from their Canadian customers. It is estimated that the loss to American magazine publishers will be in the neighbourhood of $250 million. This is money that the Canadian taxpayer cannot afford and that the government should not put at risk. That is the third reason Bill C-55 should be abolished and not amended.

Property rights protect the freedom of individuals because they allow people to make their own decisions about how to make the best use of their existing possessions, including their labour and the fruits of their labour. In the long run the right to make one's own decisions about one's life, one's work and one's business is the foundation of dignity and freedom.

In order to have property rights individuals must have freedom of contract, or economic liberty as it is called. Bill C-55 takes away Canadians' freedom to enter into contracts with whomever they choose. Bill C-55 takes away everyone's fundamental freedom of contract and, as a consequence, violates the property rights guaranteed in the Canadian bill of rights. That is the fourth reason Bill C-55 should be killed rather than amended.

None of these four reasons have been addressed by the government or any of the other parties that are criticizing us for our stand on this. I wish they would address these four concerns.

Let me summarize why Bill C-55 should be killed, scrapped and abolished. First, it violates the charter of rights and freedoms. Second, it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Third, it violates the North American Free Trade Agreement. Fourth, it violates the Canadian bill of rights.

Throughout Canadian history it has been taken for granted that we have freedom of speech and property rights, including freedom of contract. In fact people have come to this country because Canada is known for protecting these fundamental freedoms.

These freedoms have provided a foundation for the culture that has developed on this continent, especially in Canada. Canadians value their property rights and their freedom of speech. They see them as being part of their heritage. For the government to use protection of culture as an excuse for this bill is ridiculous. Any thinking person would realize that this bill does the very opposite. This bill flies in the face of what Canadians value most. It does not protect their culture, it undermines it. The speech I have just given makes that absolutely clear.

Question On The Order Paper February 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, 1998 I placed Question No. Q-84 on the order paper, asking how many violent crimes had been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms. In accordance with Standing Order 39 I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have been waiting 335 days.

The commissioner of the RCMP wrote to me on July 6, 1998 referring to his answer to Question No. Q-84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 218 days ago.

I raised this point on October 28 and again on December 7. The parliamentary secretary said that the response was being finalized.

Question No. Q-84 is the oldest unanswered question on the order paper. For the third time, when is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question?