House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 65% of the vote.
National Defence February 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, access to information documents reveal that the air force is no longer able to adequately patrol Canada's coastline. These documents state “There are currently insufficient resources to meet the total patrol requirement”.
I have a question for the defence minister. Who is guarding Canada's coastline?
National Defence December 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the military, the House and the country have to wait a few more months and they will see what the Liberal government will do to the military. It will gut it to the point where it will not even be effective anymore.
The chief of defence staff said in committee yesterday: “All options are open and of course we have to look at this”, referring to troop cutbacks.
How long will the minister keep his hidden agenda the way it has been?
National Defence December 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked the Minister of National Defence whether his department was to be cutting back on the number of troops to deal with the cash crunch the military is facing. The reply at that time was no, they had no plans to do such a thing.
Yesterday, however, I asked the chief of defence staff in committee the same question. He confirmed what other troops of all ranks have been saying for some time, that there are planned cutbacks.
Why did the defence minister tell the House that there would be no further cuts when in fact his department was planning that very thing?
Criminal Code December 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-219. I commend the member for Wild Rose for submitting this private member's bill. I believe it is required in our society to send a message to those who have a tendency or an intent to commit crimes, and in this case to do so with stolen vehicles. Therefore, I commend him for bringing it forward.
As a former police officer, I have to say that I can see a great deal of merit in this bill. I have had experience dealing with young offenders who are intent on breaking the law, stealing motor vehicles, taunting the police and recklessly driving without being chased just to get the attention of the police.
In the early part of my career I saw a number of minor motor vehicle thefts increase to up to a thousand a month in the city of Calgary alone. That was experienced in every city across this country. There was no deterrent sentencing. The young offender would laugh at the thought of even being caught in a stolen motor vehicle. They would deliberately commit some infraction and look for the police so they could taunt them into chasing them. That is a very harsh way of dealing with the freedoms of this country and the young offenders are not being treated accordingly by the courts to deter such criminal activity. There needs to be a deterrent. Bill C-219 is a step in the right direction.
Approximately 80% of the vehicles are recovered. Eighty per cent of vehicles are used for joy riding or crime and then they are dumped. In other words, they are recovered, but there is still a cost to the insurance company.
The other 20% are often used for things other than crime. They are often sent overseas. They are dismantled for parts. Or they become part of some other country's economy. It is unbelievable the number of stolen vehicles that leave this country to become part of another country's economy. All we have to do is go to either one of the coasts where there is a port and look at the container traffic. In those containers there may be two or three stolen vehicles. It is something that the police cannot get a handle on. They know it is happening in a substantial way, but they cannot get a handle on it because it requires extra resources.
I think anyone caught in a stolen vehicle, let alone committing another criminal offence, should have another year added to their sentence.
The member who spoke just before me mentioned sentencing for a break and enter. If a person was caught in a stolen vehicle and had just broken into a shop, that would certainly bring a sentence of 10 years. I do not know of anyone who received 10 years for breaking into a shop. I do not even know of anyone who got 10 years for breaking into a house, let alone breaking into a shop.
The judges already have the latitude to hit an offender with a substantial sentence, but they do not take that opportunity. It is like politicians. They have to be forced to do something. Most of the time they are forced to do something after their constituents get fed up with the way things have been going. In my respectful submission, this also applies to judges. They say they have to go back to case law where it tells them that they have to do this or do that.
Where on earth does case law come in when a person is charged with half a dozen car thefts and a few cases of break and enter? The court then decides it is not going to sentence the person for the six cases of break and enter or the six auto thefts, but that it will apply global sentencing which may amount to what they would get if they had stolen one car and broken into one shop. That is what is happening in our courts.
Provisions for minimum sentencing must be brought into law. If an offender is responsible for car theft, then he should get a minimum of one year.
In that regard, I believe this bill is suitable.
I remember a recent jailbreak from the Drumheller penitentiary where five inmates went on the lam. One inmate was responsible for killing a police officer. Another one was charged and convicted of manslaughter. Two others had been charged with robbery and the last one had been charged with break and enter.
They stole a car to get away from the prison. They drove it as far as Cochrane, which is about 100 miles outside of Drumheller, dumped it and stole another car. They then drove the second stolen car to Coquitlam in British Columbia where they decided to commit one armed robbery and one robbery.
They stole another car which they drove throughout southern British Columbia and then committed another armed robbery in the central part of British Columbia. Here are five inmates on the lam. What happens to them?
They should receive a one year sentence for every car they stole, not some global sentencing that throws it all together into one, which amounts to a few months more in prison. That is not what should happen, but that is what is happening in our courts and that is the way the authorities have handled it. I think it is time for change.
We have to put a screeching halt to what is going on right now by introducing minimum sentencing in our legislation that will change the minds of judges who think they have so much discretion or that they have to do what their predecessors have done, with maybe only one other ruling, and put an end to this whole aspect of global concurrent sentencing.
I believe the meeting in 1996 which involved the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would welcome such a bill. They would now feel that they are finally getting some support from this House when they stand to speak. The police are charged with a very serious responsibility which is to protect society.
This is not the John Howard Society.
The John Howard Society plays a role but not for the rights of prisoners. Prisoners rights have gone far beyond what they should have gone. The chiefs of police have been shuffled off to the side. They are coming out and saying more and more loudly that they have a problem on our streets and they want some help. It is only the politicians that can actually correct this problem. They can bring in laws which will be much more demanding and place the responsibility on the shoulders of those who commit crime.
I urge members of the House to consider the merits of Bill C-219. I am confident that if they do so they will see the bill is a step in the right direction.
Petitions December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have 53 signatures on the last petition.
These petitioners request that parliament exempt all physical and sexual offenders from the provision of section 742 of the Criminal Code.
Petitions December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 25 signatures.
The petitioners say that in the opinion of the House the government should authorize a proclamation to be issued to the governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies to do likewise in the provinces.
Petitions December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first bears 831 signatures.
The petitioners call on parliament to enact two strike legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor to be sentenced to life without eligibility for parole or early release whatsoever.
The second group of petitions bears 736 signatures. The petitioners call on parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This would thereby ensure the protection and safety of the victims and the community of such a convicted offender.
National Defence Act December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I find it an opportune time to rise to address Bill C-25 and the amendment proposed by the Senate.
As hon. members know, this is the first time the National Defence Act has been amended since 1950.
It is an opportunity for the government to put forward important changes which would allow the Department of National Defence to shore up its solid foundation as one of Canada's most important institutions. The Canadian forces, after all, when all is said and done, are charged with protecting Canada's sovereignty and, by extension, Canadians' freedom. Unfortunately, the government is about to squander yet another opportunity to do good by the Department of National Defence.
Bill C-25 is largely a housekeeping bill. It does nothing to address the systemic problems in the military justice system. It does nothing to address the larger concerns of the Somalia inquiry. There will be no inspector general. There will be little independent oversight of the operations of the Canadian forces.
The Canadian forces have been subjected to decades of neglect at the hands of this Liberal government and former Liberal governments. Chronic underfunding, equipment shortages, excessive bureaucratization, political correctness and a decaying military justice system have all played a role in undermining this proud institution.
I will not go into detail on these matters today, but I would like to urge the members of the House or anyone listening to this debate to read the official opposition's minority report in response to the SCONDVA report on the quality of life in the military. Our position on these matters is outlined there.
The official opposition is opposed to Bill C-25 because it does not deal with any substantive problems that the Canadian forces face.
Bill C-25 is an unfortunate waste of opportunity to set an agenda for renewal for the Canadian forces. The amendment sent from the other place is fine. The trouble is that the bill as a whole is flawed.
National Defence December 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is that the same guns used in that robbery were seized from other military members in that commando unit.
Darnell Bass unexpectedly used his preliminary hearing Monday to plead guilty to a lesser charge of conspiracy to commit robbery. He was immediately sentenced to seven years in prison; no presentence report and no disclosure of evidence.
Bass quietly goes his way and the other JTF2 accomplices are never charged. What deal did the military make with Bass, the prosecutors and his accomplices?
National Defence December 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Darnell Bass was associated with the Canadian forces secret commando unit called JTF2. He was sentenced Monday to seven years in prison for his role in a Calgary armoured car heist.
In the meantime police have seized guns used in that Calgary robbery from homes of other commando members living just outside Ottawa.
My question to the defence minister is what on earth were commandos doing with prohibited machine guns and why were no charges laid even though police discovered that they were the same guns used in the Calgary robbery?