Myron Thompson

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the last few speeches we have heard in the House indicate pretty much how nice it is to be a Liberal and an NDP because they have this touchy-feely air about criminals and their activities. We keep hearing that crime is going down but I am not so sure that is true. We hear all kinds of statistics and I would suggest that we need to consider one other thing.

Even if crime is going down and I am not sure it is, in fact I am convinced it is not necessarily true. However, the one thing that is increasing is the amount of guns arriving in this country illegally and the amount of guns available to criminals. Gangs are smuggling in these guns. We know there is a hoard of guns out there and they will not be used for anything but criminal activity.

It seems to me that we are in for some serious problems ahead, probably not from the past but we had better start preparing for the future. This bill is a step in that direction. There are many things we could do besides this bill and we are going to do those things, but in the meantime we have to take this seriously. What we need to do is stop this nonsense of saying, for example, that long guns are not covered by the bill.

If someone uses a gun in a crime, it does not matter if it is a shotgun, a 30-30 rifle or whatever. If individuals use a gun in the commission of a crime, this bill says they are guilty and will be punished. I wish the opposition members would start speaking the truth about the bill and either read it or put it aside, but keep their mouths shut if they are not going to speak about facts and the idea that it does not apply.

Second, I would like to know why we do not get the bill to committee? We are hearing now all this touchy-feely wonderful stuff that we are going to do but nobody over there really knows what we are going do. Let us get this to committee. Let us get this thing closed down and let us get some real study on it because I know that the victims of crime strongly support this bill. Police forces across the country strongly support the bill and all we are hearing right now is this fuzzy stuff.

I am tired of it. I want the bill to be studied in committee. Let us get it right because guns are going to be a very serious problem in the future because of the number of them that exist out there and, by the way, are not registered.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of 75 residents of the great town of Cochrane in my riding of Wild Rose. The petitioners are calling for support for “welcome a stranger in need”, to significantly increase the number of refugees in Canada, to substantially lift the barriers that prevent refugees from reaching Canada, to provide international leadership to address the causes that force people from their homes and prevent them from returning, to reform Canada's refugee and immigration program to ensure full access to due process and fundamental justice, to speed up the immigration process for reuniting refugees and their families, and to take further measures for newcomers integrating into our society.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada in regard to the use of handguns, handgun homicides have increased by 25% since the late 1990s. The increasing use of handguns is also reported by police in robberies, extortions and miscellaneous violent crimes, so there is an increase, as reported by Statistics Canada.

It is also well known that gang related homicides have gone sky high compared to 10 years ago. This is known through the homicide survey part of Canadian crime statistics. Also, the proportion of handguns used as firearms has increased in the last 25 years from 27% to 65% in 2004. This is all Statistics Canada information.

Is the member prepared to acknowledge, regardless of what statistics show, that handguns and guns that would never be registered by criminals are now in surplus in huge amounts of numbers in the cities across this country and that there are more guns available that these people can get their hands on through black market and underground methods?

Is he aware of the increased numbers of gang members and of gangs themselves? If he is, let me note that we live in a country where severity of punishment in the last few years has never been a problem, where we have not seen severity in our punishment. We have seen a lot of house arrests, community service, et cetera. How can the member be sure that the severity of punishment would not have an effect when we have never really experienced it? He may comment on anything or all of what I said.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this short, as I see that other questions need to come from our group. I found one comment in the member's speech really interesting. He talked about “those guys from the west” who are really weird thinkers in terms of dealing so harshly with criminals. I thought that was a really interesting comment.

The other thing I keep hearing all the time is that we are seeking a balance. I would like his definition of a balance. I will give him mine. It would about 5% for the criminal who attacks our innocent people, which would include all the basic rights that he is entitled to under the Constitution, and about 95% to protect our society from people like that, who continually make dangerous situations.

That is my definition of balance. Would the member agree with my definition or is that just another western version of being off balance?

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question regarding a comment which it seems I have heard 100 times from the opposite side of the House.

If long guns are used in the commission of a crime, people will be charged and it will come under the auspices of Bill C-10. I would like to know why the member and others of his party continually say that if a long gun is used, it will not come under Bill C-10. Why do they say that? It is not true.

[Justice, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just recently the Minister of Justice made an excellent presentation to our justice committee. He spoke of the generational changes that have taken place in our society. Today, we lock our doors, we are more watchful over our children, and we have to recognize new dangers such as swarmings, drugs and gangs.

Some of the Liberal members on the committee mocked this. They claimed we were practising the “politics of fear”, saying that if we simply maintained a balanced approach to justice, society would be just fine. No sooner were these comments made when, later that week, we all listened closely to the TV as it was revealed that an 11-year-old girl from Armstrong, B.C. was abducted by a transient.

Fortunately, due to the excellent police work of the local RCMP and the community, she was found alive. This story of an innocent child riding her scooter to the store to rent a video and being grabbed is not the “politics of fear”. This is reality today.

The only ray of hope is that our justice system is about to change significantly under this Conservative government. We have vowed to restore safety and security to our communities across the country. I know that Canadians are eagerly waiting for us to succeed.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member was not present in the justice committee during the debate on the gun registry back in the 1990s. I do not think he was here yet. I would like him to know that we heard comments in the justice committee at that time regarding the gun registry and that is exactly what this bill was about.

That bill, Bill C-68, was a crime bill according to the Liberals. It was to fight crime and it was said that it would be successful in reducing crime, et cetera. The member said that is not the case. I can assure him that was the case. The minister at that time was Allan Rock and I can guarantee we heard that not only in the committee but in the House of Commons in a number of speeches. I want to correct him on that.

I agree with a number of things that he mentioned in regard to other programs that are required in order to curb crime. This has been the problem all along. During the years of my serving on the justice committee, we would constantly get omnibus bills from the Liberal government with all kinds of different things in it. Some things could be supported and some could not. I do not know what kind of legislation the Liberals thought they could pass when some of it was okay and some of it was not. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my mother used to put sugar in the medicine to make it go down.

As far as I am concerned and as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, we think we need to stick to the issue, which is: what are we going to do about those who are convicted of gun crimes? I applaud the justice minister in keeping it to that point. We will move in the direction of all these other issues as time progresses.

The member also said that the penalty should match the crime. This is my main point, that the penalty should match the crime. That is what the charter of rights says, according to the member. That is what it says it must do. I would like to know from the member, who should determine that? Should it be the Liberal lawyers, judges, or maybe it should be the House of Commons, the representatives of the people of Canada?

That is where the Liberal government always fell down. It wanted to throw it into the hands of lawyers and the courts, the decisions of what penalty should match a crime. The Canadian citizens should decide what that penalty should be. Does the member agree with that statement and if not, why not?

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this bill which was introduced in the last Parliament and which had broad support. It would provide peace officers and police the power to arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of a probation order or binding a person who has breached their condition of parole.

Many times the police notice people who are breaking the law, their probation and parole, but are unable to make an arrest. This would enable them to do so to better protect the public. The police have requested this for a long time and I am happy to table the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. Perhaps we will get some more questions. The member talked about the Kelowna accord. The member never talked about the fact that during the 1990s there was money in Liberal budgets every year to deal with the squalor, unemployment, addictions, and terrible conditions that existed on many reserves across the country, and how the Liberals would fix that.

That party had 13 years to fix these problems. Now it is no different; nothing has changed. Why did the Liberal government not deliver on its promises to help these natives and aboriginals on their reserves over those 13 years? The Liberals failed dismally, and I would like to know why?

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way started his speech by talking about 1993, so I would like to do the same for a moment.

When the Liberal government came to power in 1993, it announced that one million children were living in poverty and that its budgets would take care of the problem. In 2005 1.5 million children were living in those conditions.

When the Liberal government came to power in 1993, it talked about scrapping the GST. Sheila Copps resigned because it did not keep its promise. John Nunziata voted against the budget and was sent across the way because it did not keep its promise. In 2005 it was the Liberal GST policy.

In 1995 the gun registry was created for $2 million, which would take care of the weapons problem. Nearly $2 billion has been spent.

During the 1990s, $1 billion was lost in HRDC somewhere. It was an absolute boondoggle. Where did the money go? No one knows.

In the 1990s there was poverty on the reserves. There were third world conditions. All the budgets promised to take care of that. In 2005 the conditions were the same or worse. In fact, bad water has increased to a great degree.

The Kyoto agreement was established in the 1990s and the government spent billions of dollars. In 2005 emissions were up 36%.

There was the culture of entitlement. Mr. Dingwall made off with a big haul. There are $1.7 million for which Mr. Ouellet does not have to account. There are no receipts for expenses.

All of this was on the Liberal record. Well done, Liberal guys, because in 2006 Canadians voted and said they wanted change. I do not blame them. I certainly want change.

Today Canadians are cheering our budget and our policies. I am afraid the member is completely out of whack when he talks about the great job the Liberals have done.