Darrel Stinson

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few things clear for the hon. member across the way. The motion calls for:

the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada;

It also calls for:

the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences;

It is difficult to understand on this side of the House, after talking with people in Canada since the act took place in the United States, why we would hesitate to deport known terrorists from the country after they have inflicted this type of damage on the citizens of other nations.

I hear cries for the protection of human rights. What about the protection of our citizens and the citizens of other nations? When it comes down to the crunch, will we choose human rights or human lives? I would much rather see police in Canada rounding up and deporting known terrorists than rounding up the families of the victims they have killed and taking them to the morgue. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech on the root causes of terrorism and how we need to address it. Let us look at some of the causes of terrorism.

How about countries that freely allow money to be raised to support terrorist activities? How about countries that refuse to deport known terrorists because they might face the death penalty in the country where they are to be deported? How about countries like that? I believe Canada falls into that example, and to me that is one of the root causes of terrorism.

We have allowed these organizations to exist in Canada. It is a known fact. There are reports of organizations that raise money here. Every organization from the northern Irish to the Kurds has fundraising organizations in Canada, but the current government and politicians and governments before it have been too afraid to enact legislation to stop it.

Would the hon. member support extradition of a known terrorist to another country to face charges?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member with regard to his comments. I too have been lucky on the order of the draw, but I also know the frustrations of having just five minutes to go before a committee to justify why my bill should be deemed votable.

I have had the opportunity to work on both sides. I sat on the committee on private members' business. I know full well the frustration of seeing people come to the committee who have spent months putting their private members' bills together. Then we drew five or six bills which should have been made votable, but we only had a time slot for one. Therefore we had to say that five would be non-votable.

I strongly feel the motion we will be voting on today will answer all of these problems. Does the member concur that these problems can be addressed through the simple measure we put forward today?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House and say how insightful it is to hear from what we like to classify in the House as a rookie.

It is my third term and sometimes we lose sight of why we are here. When the member mentioned that his seat belonged to his constituents, all 100,000 of them and not just those who voted for his party, it brings back the reason all of us from all parties of the House came here.

Why is it necessary to make private members' business votable? It is in many cases the only opportunity backbenchers ever get to put forward their ideas. We know that. The member asked why it has not been done before. He asked what happened and why it had taken so long. He mentioned that the government might be fearful it would be unable to take some of the ideas.

Unfortunately, I think he was right. That is one of the reasons. I can honestly say that I hope the government takes all the ideas. I do not think there is any such thing as stealing, borrowing or anything else in this Chamber. I know we joke about sending brown envelopes over. I would gladly send the government brown envelopes every night if it would adopt the ideas.

My big fear is that private members' bills would not truly be independently voted on but would be guided by partisan interests. Could the member say whether that is a fear of his too?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak in regard to private members' bills and I have to agree 100%. I also agree with my colleague who brought forward the motion.

I too had the misfortune of sitting on the private members' committee. I sat there and saw good bills from all parties in the House brought forward. I watched the committee members bargaining away and heard them saying that bills could not come forward because they were too controversial. I myself had the same frustrations with some of my own bills. As a matter of fact I sat there in front of the committee on a bill regarding separation and had the committee tell me that the bill was too political to bring forward in the House of Commons. The committee said it was too political. This is supposed to be the most political House in the land and yet my bill was too political to be brought forward for debate in the House of Commons.

I have to agree with the hon. member when he says that if this comes forward tonight—and it should pass—finally we will have a House that will truly represent the people, the constituents and the wishes of all parties in the House to see some good legislation come forward.

Why does the hon. member think it has taken so long for the frustration level to build up in members from all sides of the House? This is the hon. member's second term and my third term. Why has it has taken so long for this to come forward in the House? Does the hon. member have any answer for that?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague speaking about the Young Offenders Act and I cannot agree more.

The member probably has run into situations as many times as I have in going around to schools and talking to young people. The young people I have spoken to have pushed me to try to have something addressed in the Young Offenders Act. They have spoken time and again about the fear they have of their own peers in many cases. They absolutely point to the Young Offenders Act as one of the causes of their fear because they know young offenders will have no penalty handed to them by the courts. That is one thing I want to ask the member about.

I want to step out of the Youth Offenders Act for a moment. There are those of us who like to point our fingers at the Young Offenders Act, and I am one. As far as I am concerned the Young Offenders Act is a disgrace to our young people and to the judicial system.

One of the big problems with our young offenders has been the direct result of not only this government but the governments before it. I point this out because today parents are no longer able to stay at home to tend to their children. Parents have been forced out into the workplace over the heavy taxation and heavy costs of living in Canada. Therefore, I would like to point the finger that way too, if I could, and maybe ask the hon. member to comment on that.

Maybe another way for us to look at this is to hold the government accountable for forcing both parents out of the home leaving no parent to look after the children when they come home from school. The children are now learning all kinds of things at the parks, everything that goes on in the Young Offenders Act.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Now I know for sure that you cannot read.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

You lie.

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, John Martin is not an isolated case. We know there are hundreds of other cases such as John Martin's.

I have a question for the government. It is bending over backward and its institutions are bending over backward to help convicted criminals that are in prison. Yet it has given no service to a war veteran. Is it because it knows which way each one of them voted?

[Correctional Service Canada, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago John Martin, whose many convictions include assault and weapons charges, told prison officials that if released he would not go to a halfway house.

Despite his high risk status and his own warning, Correctional Service Canada released him from Joyceville and told him to go to a halfway house. Now he is unlawfully at large and police cannot find him. They say he is on the run with no money and likely to start robbing to support himself.

Will the solicitor general explain why a serious offender who explicitly said he would not follow the terms of his parole was allowed out of prison?