James Lunney

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all want to take that admonition to heart.

With all due respect to my hon. colleague opposite, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I am a little disappointed at some of the rhetoric he has thrown into his response to the Speech from the Throne with regard to two particular issues: first, he called the Conservative child care approach misguided; and second, his comments on the gun registry.

First, with regard to the child care plan, I am surprised that the member continues to tout what Canadians themselves, parents of young children, have said when asked what type of child care they prefer for their children. He continues to endorse and promote what Canadians rate as the fifth choice. Canadian parents prefer to manage their children as much as possible by themselves, or with a close family relative, or a neighbourhood day care, or a workplace-oriented day care. I am surprised the member would continue to ignore what statistics show us, which is Canadians prefer to have control of their child care.

Second, with regard the gun registry, the member referred to the great number of hits that the police have on the gun registry and how useful it is to them. Frankly, that information is so misused. We know that to get hits, every time officers stop cars for speeding, or for going through a stop sign or a red light, or for any check at all, they punch in the licence place number and it automatically accesses the gun registry, which officers at the side of the road completely ignore. However, they get great numbers according to the hits on the registry. It is totally useless and misguided. How could they possibly have spent $159 million on computers for a registry that has produced so little value to actual policing or reducing crime or violent gun crime in the country?

We have elderly citizens who are concerned. I had a man In my community approach me just this week on this subject. He has guns he inherited from a family member. He does not hunt himself, but they are family heirlooms. He is being told that if he does not register so far ahead of his birthday, not only will he lose his registry, he will have to go through the whole application again, and it will cost him another $60 to register, if he can get the registry in on time.

Why would the member continue to endorse a program that everyone recognizes as a complete and utter failure?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, of course prevention is on our minds. We want to do everything we can to prevent youth from moving into a life of crime. However, these programs alone are not sufficient. If we do not demonstrate consequences, all the programs in the world will fail, in essence, as far as I am concerned. Frankly, this is just not working.

We have restorative justice in our community, but frankly, once people have opted for restorative justice, which avoids the court system, they cannot be brought back to court. According to police officers who speak to me, when the kids in our community are offered restorative justice, as soon as the decision is made they just blow it off, laugh about it and do not follow through because they cannot be brought back to court.

It is a very serious problem with youth crime. We have to bring in consequences for repeat and violent offenders, not for every kid. We have to do everything we can to prevent crime, but we also must have consequences.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that whenever Canadians are asked about their priorities in child care and who they would like to have raise their children, they say they would prefer to be able to do it themselves, with their spouse.

The type of institutional child care that was proposed by the previous government was actually the fifth choice of most parents. While some provinces did indeed sign on to a program to provide institutional care, most parents would prefer that one or the other of them look after their children. They work hard trying to juggle one family member or another to look after the children. Sometimes they rely on older kids to help with the young ones. Sometimes they rely on grandparents or a maiden aunt or someone else. That is who they prefer to have doing it.

Parents struggle for their children. They invest in their children. I believe that what we are doing in supporting parents with their own choice is a better option than institutional care for young children.

Furthermore, my wife is a counsellor in the school system and is reading a book right now that I find very interesting. It is written by a psychologist and a medical doctor who talk about how important the early years are for children in bonding with their parents. This is a time when young children should be bonding with their own parents so that when the parents impose their will on them, they respect it and obey their parents. If this bonding does not take place, frankly, the children are at a much higher risk of rebelling and having what psychologists call “counter-will”, which causes all kinds of problems later on with delinquency.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment and the Speaker himself on his election. We look forward to working with you, with him and with the other Chair occupants to see this House progress for the time that it exists.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the electors of Nanaimo--Alberni for returning me. I was first elected in 2000. It is hard to believe we have had three elections in five years, but it seems to be the nature of our existence lately that we repeatedly and at short terms have to go back to our supporters and ask for our jobs to be extended. However, that is the nature of democracy in our country. We are hoping that we will make this House last a substantial time, so we can get some work done. I look forward to working with all colleagues.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the voters of Nanaimo--Alberni. During the campaign, the Conservative Party presented five priorities and now we have a throne speech which focuses on those five priorities.

I know there has been criticism of the fact that this throne speech did not address 147 or 187 priorities, that everything we could imagine in this country might be listed in the throne speech as a priority, but we have heard that kind of throne speech before. I have been here and have sat through several of them and frankly, what Canadians have heard in this throne speech is a focused message.

It is focused on our first five priorities that we campaigned on and priorities that we intend to deliver on with this new Conservative government. We look for the cooperation of all members in helping us move in this direction.

The first priority of course is the federal accountability act and I am pleased to stand today, April 11, on the day that this act has been tabled. It is a comprehensive act. It is a thick, weighty issue, as members realized today when this document of about 200 pages arrived for us to examine in detail. I know all members will be digging into it over these next few days, so when we return after the break, we will be able to debate the minute details of this very important act.

This act will change the culture in Ottawa for a long time to come. It will change it in a manner that we believe will help to restore the confidence of the Canadian people in their parliamentary democracy.

I am very pleased to stand on this day and talk about this. We have had a lot of discussion already about the elements of the act. I personally am glad that we will see some very strong whistleblower protection. It is something we have advocated for a long time.

I am glad there will be a limitation of government members and ministers coming back to lobby their own departments and senior officials. That has been a culture in this place that obviously has led to problems and we want to see that curtailed. It will be curtailed.

The reduction of money into political campaigns and big money playing an influence is going to change the dynamics of federal politics. This called the House of Commons, and the act will give the common people a chance to express the views from their communities and to participate in a democratic manner more effectively in the future.

We will be moving on safe communities. We have heard some discussion. Just briefly, I know the member for Hochelaga talked about the criminal justice changes that are advocated as part of our agenda in the throne speech. I had a short intervention with him because I am concerned about crime in our country.

I am concerned that we still have criminal organizations existing such as Hell's Angels and the other motorcycle gangs that run organized crime. I am concerned about grow ops that are devaluing property and endangering our neighbourhoods. They tamper with electricity. They steal hydro from our communities. They put firemen and police officers at risk and the profits go to organized crime. I am concerned that we have not taken action. It is time that this House took action to make our communities safe.

I am concerned about my own community. Nanaimo is a town of 82,000 people and I represent the larger half of that community. I am concerned when a 92 year old man is beaten in a home invasion, trying to protect his 85 year old wife. She called 911 when she saw the face in the window of a fellow who used to live next door, but before the police could arrive, this 37 year old kicked in the door and beat a 92 year old constituent until he was hardly recognizable and threatened to cut off his wife's fingers for her rings.

I am concerned about seniors in our community being able to live. Many of them have earned the right to live independently and I think it is wrong that we are not protecting them, encouraging them and giving them the opportunity to live out their years in their own homes as long as possible.

I was concerned when another man, who was 82, came to see me during the election at my campaign office. His window had been broken twice in a few weeks and he was wondering what he had to do to protect his home from young people throwing rocks at it. Sometimes he sits up at night in the dark, looking out the window to see if he can catch them. He was wondering if he needs to get a baseball bat, wondering what he needs to do to protect his home.

I am concerned for elderly people in our communities. There are a lot of elderly people in the residential communities on Vancouver Island. It is a choice place for seniors to retire to, but crime and violence are threatening our seniors.

I am concerned about young people who are beaten in swarmings. During the election, a woman ran up to my car as I was backing out of my favourite morning stop at Tim Hortons, that national Canadian institution. While I was backing out and trying to phone my campaign manager, there was a lady knocking on the window of my car. She had in her hand a picture of her son, 20 years old, a student at Simon Fraser University.

It was not her favourite picture. It was a picture of the young man with his head shaved. He has a steel plate in his head because he and a few friends were swarmed by a large group of 15 year olds and 16 year olds while walking down the street in Vancouver. It was an unprovoked attack over a minor exchange of words. It was simply over some little thing they do that I think is called “cripping”, where they knock their knuckles, I guess. These kids did not have time to participate, so they were attacked. He was hit in the head with a rock and has a steel plate in his head. This one, I think, is going to be okay and I thank God. I am glad he is going to be okay, but this is not right.

I take exception to the member for Hochelaga and others who say that crime is coming down, because that is not what we see. We see home invasions and car thefts in Vancouver. Breaking and entering is the leading crime in North America, and I think Surrey is second to Miami for car theft.

The statistics have changed because many of the crimes are not being reported. I mentioned earlier that only one in 10 sexual assaults is even being reported and only one in three property crimes is reported. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this indicates that Canadians' confidence in their justice system is at an all time low and criminals' confidence is at an all time high. It is time that changed.

The measures we are introducing will not alone be sufficient, but we will deal seriously with mandatory sentences for repeat and violent offenders and also for predators, which is something I would push for. I hope there are aggravated offences clauses for offenders who involve young people and seniors in their crimes. We will want to scrutinize that act and I hope there will be measures for those who attack our most vulnerable and put their lives and their existence in this country at peril.

I am concerned. I am concerned about youth violence in Parksville and Qualicum. I have already mentioned some of the other things such as organized crime in Surrey. We will be debating these issues and mandatory sentences in due course.

We will also be delivering on our child care agenda. That will put $1,200 per year, or $100 per month for every child under age six, into the hands of those who are charged with the responsibility of raising children. We will create about 125,000 day care spaces. That is more than the previous administration delivered in years. I would say that there has probably been more than a decade of the Liberals promising child care, but they actually did not produce any.

For all of the Liberals' protests about the type of child care being offered, I want to say this. We will be delivering on our promises to give Canadians choice in child care.

We will be moving to reduce wait times. I am hoping that the government will take into consideration on the health care file not only a wait times guarantee but will also begin to move, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned just moments ago, toward disease prevention and wellness promotion strategies. We cannot afford to miss opportunities to advance the treatment of disease. Every stone needs to be overturned.

I have some concerns about mental illness, which was alluded to earlier. It is an increasing problem. I have concerns with the way Health Canada has obstructed advances in that realm. Members who have been here previously will know that we fought for a company producing a vitamin mineral product in Alberta that was helping people with mental illness. It was obstructed by Health Canada on technicalities. That is going forward, thank goodness. There is hope for people with mental illness. It is based on very simple treatment strategies.

I am also hopeful that for cancer we will advance everything, including intravenous vitamin C, which is being researched right now at McGill University, I am glad to say. It is a low cost intervention that shows great promise.

I welcome questions from my colleagues.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I will try to defer to the Chair.

In terms of what is going on in our country, we are very concerned about crime in my community, and indeed across the country. We have grow ops in our major cities. We have drugs such as crystal meth, which is damaging our young people. We have home invasions and auto theft in Surrey. Vancouver leads all of Canada in property crimes.

In a major study just released, Statistics Canada has indicated that only one in ten sexual assaults is being reported. Only one in three property crimes is being reported. That tells me two things: first, the public's confidence in the criminal justice system is at an all time low; second, the confidence of criminals is at an all time high. It is time we took action.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting presentation, but I have a few questions.

First, I heard him brag about la ville de Montréal et la représentation du Bloc à Montréal. It is a beautiful city and we all love it. What about the la ville de Québec? I did not hear him mention the city of Quebec, the oldest city in North America, and boast about Bloc representation for that city.

Furthermore, he made a comment about the white house north. For the information of members, my hon. colleague and I sat together in health committee. I have a lot of respect for the member. However, we already have a white house north. I live in it on Vancouver Island. It is a nice big white summer place. Please come and visit me some time.

I want to comment on the remarks made about statistics on crime. The hon. member said that crime had gone down in Canada. I wonder where he has been. We just had eight people murdered in Ontario. Just a short time ago articles appeared in the newspapers about the biker wars in Montreal. I believe 130 were people murdered in this war between Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine. It was in Montreal. Where were you? Did you forget that, my friend?

What about what is going on--

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 23rd, 2005]

Yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yes to the motion.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I come from an area that is a mixture of both urban and rural communities. I have had animals most of my life. I have a small hobby farm in a rural community on Vancouver Island with hobby farms on all sides of me. People are concerned about animal cruelty. We have had some nasty incidents of people neglecting animals or doing horrendous things to them. People want our existing laws enforced or at least toughened up.

I do not believe it is true when the member says that all the groups requesting this legislation understand the objection our party is putting forward and which he is overlooking. It was very clearly brought forward by the member from St. Albert who said that it was the very sloppy and loose clauses that say that one is guilty of an offence if one kills an animal brutally or viciously regardless of whether it dies quickly. Clauses like that without exemptions for slaughter houses, for hunters and for fishermen will be tested in the courts. I am sure there are members opposite who would like their friends in the courts, the judges and the lawyers to have lots of work testing these cases and prosecuting duck hunters and fishermen. I am sure it hurts a fish to have a hook in its lip. It is not nice but people do fish and we eat those fish.

Our objection with this legislation is the hidden language. It is the clauses that most people have not read. Members opposite know full well that those clauses were put in the bill to make lots of work for lawyers and the courts and to give room to people with another agenda to persecute these people and try to condemn practices that have been around for a long time. We do eat fish and animals whether the member opposite likes it or not.

From our point of view, it is not fair to obstruct good legislation with clauses that will be misused and thereby create all kinds of legal tangles, when it could be simplified very easily by making it very clear that there are exemptions for those who have legitimate animal practices for human food consumption.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

It's sloppy legislation, Don.