James Lunney

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was here for the member's speech about an hour ago, before we went to private members' business. During private members' hour he accused the Conservatives of speaking with passion on this issue. He himself had a rather impassioned speech in his support of same sex marriage.

However, the member is a lawyer. Does he not share the concern that many of my constituents do? Are people in his own riding not expressing the concerns about protection of religious freedom, which is very much under attack through this bill?

For example, is the member aware of the case of Chris Kempling, a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C? A judgment was passed on June 13 by the appeal court of British Columbia. Mr. Kempling wrote a letter to the editor objecting to Bill C-38 based on his religious convictions. He was suspended without pay for three months. He is not expounding this in the classroom. He is simply entering a public debate about the social policy change that those folks are abrogating, the members opposite in the coalition, to change the definition of marriage. What about his section 2 charter rights, which our charter calls fundamental rights?

The party the member represents and the members opposite purport to be defenders of the charter. Are those members not concerned that the courts are not protecting rights, which are clearly defined charter rights, of others who object to this bill?

[Criminal Code, June 28th, 2005]

So there are no minimum sentences, but the government has put in maximums that are never used.

That is nice language, but it gives Canadians a false sense that we are taking action when in fact we are not. That is what we object to on this side of the House.

We are concerned. I have had petitions come in from concerned citizens in my community who want to see the age of sexual consent raised. This is not about close-in-age relationships. It is not about grabbing those teenagers and throwing them in jail. That is not what it is about. It is about difference in age. It is about the adults who exploit our teenagers. This is a very significant concern in our communities.

We have gangs that are targeting our young girls. They are not even out of middle school yet. They are just at the age of puberty. Some of them are maturing early these days, but they have not had much life experience. We have gangs that are there, older young men with their fast cars, with their drugs, and they are trying to lure those young girls. They will buy them clothes; they will take them out for dinner and treat them like a queen. The same happens with young boys too, as a matter of fact. They will take them and seduce them. Once they have compromised their person and their sexuality, they will then use them.

We have heard examples of that. I will give an example from my own community. A man called who was really upset. He found out his 14-year-old daughter was in a motel room in one of the communities I serve. She was with a 21-year-old man from a neighbouring community, and they met on a chat line. Here is this 21-year old-who has this 14-year-old in the motel room. The man goes down madder than a hatter. His daughter is in there. His young girl was 13 and now she is 14. These are very young girls who are being exploited. The dad is pounding on the door of the motel office wanting to know what room they are in, and they call the police and the dad gets arrested.

Canadians are concerned about this, and my constituents are concerned about it. This man was very concerned. He could not believe this. No one in the community could believe that the man's 14-year-old daughter could be lured in there by someone who she met on an Internet chat line and the dad is the one who is in trouble with the law.

So our communities are concerned. As I said, I have had hundreds of signatures on petitions in my office that I have presented in the House on this issue and banners that have come in from others in other forms trying to get their concern expressed.

In Conservative Party policy we call it the age of protection. It is about protecting our young people from sexual predators.

I have already made the point about Bill C-2, which the member has said has all these maximums. Frankly, it becomes meaningless because maximums are simply not used.

There are many examples. There are exceptions made under the current law for children as young as 12 years old, as long as the person who abuses them is under the impression that they are at least 14 years old. There are so many loopholes in the law that it makes the lawyers happy, but it gets people off without any significant consequences.

My hon. colleague mentioned a 31-year-old man who travelled from the United States to Ottawa for the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy. Again, it was an Internet relationship.

There are protections in the United States against crossing state borders and against crossing international borders for exploiting young people, but we do not have those protections here.

I know my time is short, but I want to commend my colleagues, the member for Lethbridge, the member for Wild Rose who spoke and had passion about this issue, and the member from Calgary.

We are concerned about this. It is surprising that the member from the NDP would accuse our members of using emotion in this debate. It is an emotional issue. Our young people are being abused by adults who target them for sexual exploitation and we need to take action to stop it.

[Criminal Code, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to see the member leaving, because I wanted to address her remarks.

She will hear them from inside, she says.

What is disturbing on this side is that the hon. member comes forward to extoll the virtues of Bill C-2, which has just passed, which does not deal with the age of sexual consent that this private member's bill, Bill C-313, addresses, raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

Members on the opposite side simply do not want to deal with that issue. The member makes a great point of talking about how the government has raised these maximum penalties, and she gave a list of all the things it has raised the maximums on. It is hard to find a single case in the last five years where maximum penalties have ever been used for anything. It makes good rhetoric, but there is no substance.

I asked what are the minimums--

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments for that member. I am sure a lot of members would like to interact with him.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member hit the nail on the head. We have the NDP fudge-it budget, which is about an illusion. The member for Sarnia--Lambton talked about legal fiction, the use of the word “deemed” in the motion, about making something seem to be something it is not, creating an illusion.

The NDP will not receive any of that money. We know it is contingent spending. It is about creating an illusion and talking about all these things. It will not see any of that money before an election. It is the same thing with Bill C-38. The members cannot answer the protections for religious rights in there.

The member earlier said that there were 28 hours of debate in the House on changing an institution that has served this nation and others for thousands of years. What is the rush?

Could the member comment on how tax cuts, to which members over there are objecting, stimulate the economy, create productivity and competition, which makes our economy competitive worldwide, and allows us to have the jobs that keep their members happy?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no shortage of posturing on these issues and, as the member said, it is on their side in abundance.

The member says that Bill C-48 is important legislation. I call it the cobbled together NDP sell out bill as it came on board to prop up Liberal corruption. When the public had an opportunity to hold the Liberals to account, the NDP decided it had an opportunity to advance some of its political ideology that would give it a chance to survive but it basically made the NDP members accomplices.

The members of the NDP keep saying that the money in Bill C-48 will flow, as soon as it passes, to students, to the environment and to other areas of concern, but they seem to forget that the money is contingent on a surplus of some $2 billion. What confidence do the NDP members have that the Liberals will deliver any of that money considering that they are holding up the main budget bill, Bill C-43, in an agreement to pass the main budget? Again, it is political posturing.

The second question comes from the member saying that we have had a lot of debate on Bill C-38. She talked about the justice committee and about the consultations it had with Canadians. Where is the report from that justice committee? The member knows that the committee was shut down before a report on what it had actually heard from Canadians could be tabled in this House.

The members opposite know that Canadians are not in agreement with the change in the definition of traditional marriage. By and large, a majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage, with other accommodations for same sex couples, whether we call it a civil union or some other arrangement that is recognized.

She says that there is no evidence of a religious infringement. She says that it is not just about celebrating a marriage. I want to challenge the member. She is from British Columbia. Surely she has heard of the case of Chris Kempling, a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was suspended from his job without pay simply because he wrote a letter to the editor expressing his view based on a Christian world view. What about his section 2 charter rights of freedom of conscience and religion?

If members opposite want to wrap themselves in the charter and defend the charter then maybe they should be defending the rights of people like Chris Kempling to express their views on this issue. If they did that maybe we could have some confidence in expanding and understanding the charter. However when they do not respect clearly written charter rights, how can Canadians have confidence that this agenda will stop with this motion?

[Petitions, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition containing about 30 signatures of petitioners who are concerned with helping people with autism spectrum disorder.

The petitioners are calling for support for applied behaviour analysis and for intensive behavioural intervention to help parents dealing with children with the very severe disability of autism.

[Petitions, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second series of petitions contain 2,500 signatures from people across the country who are concerned about Bill C-420. Most of the petitions are from British Columbia but there are others from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec on the subject of Bill C-420, the motion by the hon. member for Oshawa that was just denied.

Bill C-420 refers to natural health products and the way in which we regulate them. The petitioners call on the government to ensure that natural health products are regulated as food and not drugs and remain available as low cost and low risk options for Canadians to protect their own health.

[Petitions, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions dealing with different subjects. The first three deal with the subject of marriage, a matter that is of great concern to constituents in my riding. The petitions come from Nanaimo and other areas in British Columbia, such as Lantzville, Parksville and Qualicum.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to recognize that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, that the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman is being challenged, and that the House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

They are calling on Parliament to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we certainly do have the same issues in my riding and softwood lumber is a major concern. The pine beetle is a big concern to anyone in British Columbia, certainly in the forestry sector with the lodgepole pine. It is more of an interior problem right now but it is spreading into Alberta. These are things that need strategic investments to move ahead. We need to harvest the lumber while it is still harvestable or we will lose it.

With regard to BSE, our farmers have been left out to dry. They are still in big trouble there. We have not increased the production to allow them to cull their herds.

There is also a big problem on funding for coastal surveillance. We are worried about Chinese spies in our country with migrant ships coming in. We have no radar, no interception and no money for the Auroras to patrol our coast. When we do see ghost ships going by, as we have seen recently, there is no response, no jet scramble and no intercept out there to check it out. They just go by without any response from the government. It is not acceptable.