Darrel Stinson

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest. A major part of his speech was with regard to raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. I strongly agree. What has happened here in Canada is that we are known worldwide as a shopping network for children, basically, those aged 14 and 15, because people around the world prey upon children of this age and know they cannot be charged here in Canada with a sexual crime.

A ring was broken in Toronto a little while ago. I also heard about a case in Vancouver. Maybe the hon. member could address this. The men in these cases were picked up. One was a 52 year old man who was with a 14 year old child in a hotel room, yet that person could not be charged. He happened to be an American, but these people come from all over the world.

I know that Australia now has a force which goes into the Asian countries where this happens too. The force is now photographing and reporting any Australian citizen who goes into these countries for this activity.

Could the hon. member address that? Does he think that would be a good idea here in Canada?

[Firearms Registry, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the gun registry simply does not work. It has already cost Canadian taxpayers well in excess of $1 billion, with another eight years to register all firearms and another billion dollars to fix this registry mess. When will the government finally admit that the system is a failure and just scrap it?

[Firearms Registry, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the gun registry is a billion dollar garbage collection system. Two years ago, documents from the minister's own department predicted that it was going to take 8.8 years to register all the firearms accurately.

Last August, documents from the minister's own department showed that three-quarters of the firearms registration certificates had blanks and unknown entries. More than 800,000 had been issued without any serial numbers.

How long is it going to take to go back and correct all these mistakes and how much is that going to cost the Canadian taxpayer?

[Carrie's Guardian Angel Law, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we were sent here by the public. We were always taught that one of our foremost responsibilities was to protect those who needed protection at all costs. Nobody needs protection any more than our children. That is a given. As politicians we see every day abuses against the children of Canada. We read about it every day. In some instances we get to meet the parents and also the children. Yet what have we done? I have been here since 1993. In 10 years the same problem crops up year after year, day after day and nothing has been done.

The government members use all kinds of nice soft, kind words. We hear them every time there is a throne speech. One of their foremost priorities is the children of Canada. I have heard it in the House time after time. I hear it every time members on the other side of the House stand to speak. They say that they have these concerns. They tell us they have these concerns. They ask how we can say that they do not have these concerns and that they are parents and grandparents. Then we start to believe that maybe they do have these concerns.

However every time legislation comes before the House in regard to the safety of the children and in regard to giving them the protection they need, where is the government side? It runs, it hides and it disappears. All the good words that government members like to say, all the things that are said in the throne speeches and all the things that it says it is, the great sharing, caring Liberal Government of Canada, disappear. They all go out the window because the government has a conflict within itself. It has a conflict on what are the rights of individuals of Canada.

The Liberals cannot seem to get this straight. If these rights are in conflict with one another, they always take what they think is a safe road. They will go with the rights of the person who has to be incarcerated, instead of the victim. It is so sad, because time after time they say these people can be rehabilitated, but what about the victims? The suffering is with them for their lives and the Liberals do nothing to address that. Instead, they leave our children, those whom the they were sent here to protect, out there on their own.

It is time for members in the House finally to stand up for those who have to be protected the most, our children. They have an opportunity to do that with this bill.

[Firearms Registry, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the firearms program involves the use of highly sensitive personal information, yet the privacy commissioner states that bags containing personal information collected by the gun registry were found in a dumpster. These documents originated with a private company, BDP, hired by the government.

When the system is breached by police personnel they are either charged, fired or disciplined in some way. Therefore what is this justice minister going to do to BDP for breaching our privacy rights?

[Petitions, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents calling upon Parliament to support rural route letter couriers.

Letter couriers on rural routes are calling upon Parliament to repeal one paragraph of the Canada Post Corporation Act, section 13(5), which prevents them from bargaining collectively to improve their pay and working conditions. The petitioners believe that this denial of a fundamental right allows Canada Post Corporation to maintain salaries and working conditions at a level that is unfair and that this constitutes discrimination against rural workers.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to members from all parties debate Bill C-20. I have the same concerns as the hon. member who just spoke. I have listened to members on the government side and members of the Conservative Party say that they have many great concerns with regard to this legislation. However they are willing to support the legislation in order to get it into committee to try to make some amendments. I have heard this excuse used time and time again in the House, yet legislation comes out of committee basically the same way it goes into committee and it has been a waste of time.

Does the member feel that by supporting this piece of legislation now, as some members have stated, then try to amend it in committee sends the wrong type of information to the public, which is paying close attention to this?

[Petitions, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from the citizens of Okanagan—Shuswap. Both petitions call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

My constituents feel that the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada can be effective in preventing true threats against individuals or groups without changes to sections 318 and 319 of the code.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech in regard to child pornography, but I have the same concerns as the hon. member for Wild Rose. I have been here since 1993 and one of the reasons why I ran was with the understanding that as senior politicians it was our job to protect those who needed protection, the law-abiding citizens of this country, our women and children, and particularly those most vulnerable.

However, with regard to child pornography, we have seen this go on for a number of years. This is not new for the House, but it gets pushed back all the time. If we are supposed to be the lawmakers is it not time for us to take that responsibility? We do not need grey areas, such as for the public good, put into pieces of legislation and law.

I would like to ask the hon. member, if the bill is not amended will he stand here today and say that he will vote against it?

[Canada Elections Act, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals scoffed at the rights of western Canadian farmers who were jailed because of the government's flawed legislation.

They scoff at the rights of law abiding firearms owners who are facing jail time for being unable to apply to register their guns.

The rights of prisoners, however, are of great importance to the Liberals.

An amendment to repeal prisoner voting has been introduced by the Alliance. Will the government commit to restoring the integrity of democracy by supporting the motion?