Randy White

[Salinas Mendoza, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to ask the minister of immigration whose interests come first in a refugee hearing in this country, those of the taxpaying, law abiding citizen or those of the refugee criminal applicant?

[Salinas Mendoza, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Immigration to come into this House and brag about getting involved with Salinas Mendoza is despicable.

Salinas Mendoza has had 12 criminal convictions in Canada since 1989. A young woman in my riding agreed to a stay of sexual assault charges against Mendoza on the condition that he be deported to El Salvador and he was. Now he is back claiming refugee status.

I have been involved in numerous hearings and trials on this fellow costing over $250,000 since he has come back.

My question to the minister is whose interests come first in a refugee hearing in this country, Mr. Minister, those of the taxpaying-

[1-900 Numbers, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is refreshing. Nevertheless it is being done. This example of spending money is so typical of the government. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

The case I am referring to is taking place in a federal prison. I might as well ask the Solicitor General about it. Is it government policy to allow only prison officials to phone same sex dating services at taxpayers' expense or are the prisoners also allowed to reach out and touch someone?

[1-900 Numbers, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister criticized us for using 1-900 numbers to solicit the opinions of Canadian people. I heard that a little while ago.

Now what I find is that the Liberals are paying for 1-900 numbers on the backs of the taxpayers and they do not even know it. An internal document from a federal institution, of course, shows mostly unauthorized long distance charges of 111 hours in one month alone in this institution.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since some of the calls were to 1-900 numbers, is it not a double standard for the Liberals, for the whole government, to criticize Canadian citizens for taking part in an exercise in democracy when their own people are dialling the latest fishing news and the latest dating services to 1-900 numbers at taxpayers' expense?

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. At this late date the Minister of Justice is saying he will be happy to take it up with the minister of immigration. He should have already taken it up.

There is another such individual according to immigration intelligence or lack thereof. He is an international black marketer in weapons. Does the minister of immigration understand the link between criminal refugees marketing weapons and crime and gun control, or is this just one big fog?

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been given a list of refugees allowed into this country by the immigration department. According to the report one such individual who is believed to reside in Toronto is reported to be trafficking in munitions.

Has the Minister of Justice considered talking to the minister of immigration about removing such individuals as a means of real effective gun control, rather than concentrating on our law-abiding citizens?

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide a petition to the House today from constituents in Fraser Valley West and Langley, Aldergrove and Matsqui.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human right code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am a lot less worried about accommodating prisoners than I am with letting them out.

Let me repeat the quote. It will tell us the philosophy of where the government is coming from. It says we should provide a glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals.

What is a terrible penalty? Why is life such a terrible penalty to a person who has bludgeoned a young lady who would have been a contributing member of society? Why is that such a terrible penalty? Keep him in, keep him in. That is the answer.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Life means life. What part of that does the government not understand?

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about Wayne Perkins. I already said that he was let out on parole. He had bound a young lady, sexually assaulted her and injected her with cocaine. After he was let out he stabbed another young lady, Angela Richards, Corinne's sister, 12 times.

I am not talking about letting this fellow out. They have it all wrong. I am talking about keeping him there and leaving him there. I am asked how long. I am saying to leave him there, period, to close the door. Enough people have suffered.

In that courtroom 50 people were crying. All of them are affected, from her mother, Lorna, to her sister, her brother-in-law and so on. I am saying to leave him there. If he gets out we are into the same problem again. It was already tried it once and it failed.