Darrel Stinson

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Wild Rose. He raised a very interesting point with regard to what happens in the House when the government decides to bring in a piece of legislation.

It has the habit of introducing a part of the bill, which really has nothing to do with the rest of the bill, for the House to vote upon. When we try to separate a bill it absolutely refuses to do it. This bill is another example of what happens. I would like the hon. member to comment on that if he could.

This piece of legislation deals with cruelty to animals. Another part of the same bill deals with disarming peace officers. In no way can I make sense of this at all. It seems that we are trying to lump the disarming of a peace officer with cruelty to animals. It makes no sense to me or to a number of people with whom I have talked. If the hon. member could comment on that I would appreciate it.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech. He addressed many concerns that many of us feel and that many of us of us have heard about from a number of organizations.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask the hon. member.

I have concerns about how far this is going to go. We know that we use mice and rats in experiments in regard to health issues. Should that be looked at with regard to this bill? That is of some concern to me.

Also of great concern to me is the fact that there are two parts to this bill, one with regard to cruelty to animals and the other with regard to the disarming of a peace officer. Why would the government bring in legislation that mixes those two together? That has created a lot of concern. If someone were to disagree with part of the bill, the opportunity is there for somebody else to say that they disagreed with the legislation on the penalty for disarming a peace officer. It worries me. I do not know if we can call it cagey or crafty that a government would try to introduce a bill that has to do with cruelty to animals and throw the disarming of peace officers into the same piece of legislation. I can see no sense in this.

Could the hon. member address this as to whether or not he has heard any of these same concerns?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

The member from Quebec asks, “Where?”. That is a good question. Where does it work, as members are sitting around their tables? I have to wonder.

Let us take a quick look at what is happening today. We hear government members saying that 15 and 16 year olds are not adults and that 10 and 11 year olds do not know right from wrong. We all know full well that 14, 15 and 16 year olds know exactly what they are doing when they commit a violent act. We know that and yet we want to keep going down the same old road of doing nothing and studying the situation.

I want to speak to a personal experience I had before entering politics. My mother had the unfortunate experience of being stabbed and left for dead by a 14 year old and his 15 year old sister. They were caught and had to go before the court. The court asked them what had motivated them since there was no robbery and no intent. Their answer to the court was “Who cares?” That is the attitude that is out there. We have a very small minority of young offenders saying “Who cares and even if I do care what are you going to do about it because the laws protect me and not the victim”.

I began my speech today saying that the government's first and foremost responsibility was for the safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens. Who needs our help and protection more than the young people of Canada? Who needs our help more than those 6, 7, 8 or 9 year olds who want to walk to school in safety and are afraid of children their own age or just a little bit older because our system does not have the penalties which those predators of our children deserve.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again we are in the House talking about the Young Offenders Act.

When we first arrived here in 1993, I remember the hon. member for Wild Rose mentioning that one of the big reasons we came here was to see what the government was doing in regard to young offenders. It seems to go on forever.

We can throw blame and shift it around all we want. I just listened to the member from Quebec state that all we believe in is the whipping post. He said that Quebec instituted legislation that that works really well. Well, according to 77% of Quebecers, particularly those who have been victims of the Young Offenders Act, they want the act toughened up a whole bunch. I would bet, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is at least 77% in the rest of Canada.

We have heard the government, time after time, stand in the House and say that its number one priority is for the safety and well-being of law-abiding citizens but time after time it has failed the law-abiding citizens. The Young Offenders Act is just the tip of an example of what is going on.

There are many reasons for this. One of the significant causes for the failure of the Young Offenders Act and youth criminal justice is the lack of significant funding to properly deal with young offenders. There is a federal-provincial agreement to split the costs 50:50 for youth justice. Under the Constitution Act, 1867 the federal government is responsible for the criminal law through section 91. Through section 92 the provinces are responsible for the administration of the criminal law. Much like this government's shenanigans with health care, it has been playing games with young offenders funding. Rather than maintaining its 50% responsibility, the federal government has been slowly allowing its participation to erode to the extent that recent estimates of its contribution places it closer to 20% to 30%.

The government will argue that it recently allotted an additional $206 million toward youth justice. However, as is typical of the government, particularly the present finance minister, figures are always used to make larger numbers. Let us take a look. The $206 million is over three years. That is less than $70 million a year. Those funds do not cover the present shortfall in funding to the provinces and they will not cover the additional cost of this new piece of legislation. Again the government comes out with numbers that do not match reality.

We have a government, as we have had governments before, saying “We will be the parent. We will look after your children”. How it did this was by forcing both parents out to work. When that happened the children had nobody at home to look after them when they came home from school. The name that was used for them, and I think is still used, was “latchkey kids”. Where have our young people been learning while their parents were working? Was it in the parks? Yes, they have learned very well how to shoot dope, how to pull break and enters and, in some cases, assault, and they have learned how to rob. When the parents decided to crack down and put some law and order and discipline into their lives the government stepped down on the parents. The government has has taken the rights of parents through something called the charter of rights for children.

There is an old saying “You reap what you sow”. This is what we get. We have young offenders now who know they will get away with just about anything. They will serve soft time if they serve time at all. The most they will probably get is probation and, in many cases, not abide by it. I say this because I have talked to students at various schools.

Young people in grades 7, 8 and 9 have said to me “Mr. Stinson, we are afraid to go to school, afraid to go out at night and afraid to hang around with our friends because of the gangs that intimidate us. They take our clothes when we go to school and our lunches because they know nothing will happen to them”. There will be no severe penalty and probably no penalty at all. We have case after case of repeat young offenders going into different communities. Why? Because the public is not allowed to know their names. They are protected. Our neighbours do not even know what their children are up to.

The hon. member for Wild Rose quoted letters from victims who classified themselves as insignificant little people. When they came as witnesses before the committee they felt abused by their own politicians.

Members have to wonder exactly what we were put in this place to do when we have people going out of committee feeling that way. Something has to be done. We have tried study after study. We have listened to what I like to call the bleeding hearts of Canada tell us that soft love works and yet violent offences by youth are up 365%. Same on the government members who sit on the other side and say that their programs work when we have a 365% increase in violent offences by young offenders.

[Correctional Service Canada, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, young Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French cannot celebrate their birthdays anymore. They were only 14 and 15 years of age when Karla Homolka helped torture and murder them. The newspapers are now showing Homolka celebrating her birthday in formal attire while serving time with other violent sex offenders.

My question is for the solicitor general. Where is the justice in all this?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member very well. I have travelled with him to a number of prisons. I know the hon. member was contacted by the Metis Association with regard to gang controlled child prostitution in Winnipeg. I would like him to comment a little bit on that.

We heard a comment a few minutes ago from the other side about judges interpreting the charter. If judges are allowed to interpret the charter is there not something weak in the charter? Should it not be up to us as parliamentarians, particularly the government, to close any loopholes in interpreting the charter? Why should the charter be open to interpretation?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for a clarification with regard to the subcommittee. I heard and was led to believe that the subcommittee report was under a gag order. I heard the member from the other side say that this was no longer the case. Is it my understanding that the member is now free to speak to us and the public about what went on in that subcommittee?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I must say you are far more knowledgeable and far better looking than the member on the other side, so I will keep that in mind.

The ports authority has been disbanded. The Liberals know that full well, but they will go on and on and on about it.

As for my making allegations, I think it is the Vancouver Province newspaper and the RCMP that the hon. member had better take this up with. It was the RCMP that made these allegations, not me. I am just reading about it. I could read some more if the hon. member would like.

I thought I would be nice and gentle on him today because it was the first day of parliament. I know how upset the member gets when his shoes are too tight or his shirts do not fit, but that is just the way he is, and I accept that as one of his downfalls or one of his pitfalls. I do not mind that he has that type of temperament. I understand that. I do not think the people in the rest of Canada understand where he is coming from, but I am sure that his family and his one friend do, so I will just say goodnight on that one.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

My, my, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member ever an upset little Liberal.

Let us look at what he said. The Liberals expanded upon the ports authority? They disbanded it. What are you talking about?

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It has gone through everything. People are desperately looking for answers particularly from a government such that we have now.

An article in the Vancouver Province confirms that the RCMP have listed Stanley Ho as the leader of the Kung Lok triad, an organized crime group since 1991. But despite this, Ho has received multiple visitors visas, has extensive holdings in Canada, is a donor personally and co-operatively to the Liberal Party and actually hosted a cocktail reception for the PM during the Vancouver APEC conference. This certainly has to raise lots of concerns for the people of Canada. The list goes on.

RCMP Corporal Reid revealed a massive penetration of the immigration computer system in Hong Kong by triads which resulted in the loss of thousands of visas as well as widespread improper issuance of visas to triad linked individuals.

There has to be lots of questions and fear about how far this really goes. Even the members over there all of a sudden have stopped. What is going on is well known. It is not a small little group. This has been reported in the papers. Do we not think this brings fear into the hearts of average Canadians when they hear things like this, that this is where some of these party funds are coming from? You bet it does.