Kevin Sorenson

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently as the member spoke. He mentioned that he was born in the Middle East. Obviously he is concerned about what is happening there.

My question emanates from a number of speeches from the government side today. The members have said that Iraq is not the main threat. Some members have talked about North Korea and some have talked about other countries. The government would say Iraq is not the main threat.

I am at the point now where I am not sure if the weapons inspectors are there necessarily because they see Iraq as the main threat or if they are there because Iraq for the last 12 years has totally disregarded United Nations resolutions.

We are talking about the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has. It is up to Iraq to clearly show that those weapons have been disarmed or eliminated. It is not the responsibility of the United Nations to go on a scavenger hunt or a search and rescue for these weapons.

The responsibility of the United Nations is to see the evidence that these weapons that everyone knows Iraq has have been destroyed. We are not there because Iraq is the greatest threat in the world. We are there because for 12 years we have not had the resolve from the United Nations to stand up to the resolutions it has put in place. The threat here is that the United Nations will end up becoming an old senior citizens debating club and lose its relevance.

I do not want Parliament to lose its relevance. We want Parliament to debate the issue of sending our people to war. We are not saying that once our soldiers are over there we will take a vote. We are saying when the government decides that we will side with our allies, if it does, then members will have the opportunity to stand up in the House and vote yes or no.

The New Democratic Party has said that regardless of what happens we should never go to war. The Canadian Alliance believes that we give the United Nations the opportunity for time. If the United Nations decides that the resolutions are not being upheld and that Iraq has not complied, then we believe we must side with our allies.

Let us all have the courage to stand up in the House and vote. Why is it a double standard now when the government argued so much in favour of a vote in 1991 or 1992 in the gulf war? Why has the government said that it was good then but it is not good now? Why is this member so adamantly opposed to standing up and being counted?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and his party for bringing forward their position.

For some individuals the debate today is about Iraq and the fact that Iraq must be disarmed. Others believe the debate today has more to do with the United States and its role in achieving the things it would like to achieve.

Personally, and from another perspective, I think the debate is more about the United Nations and the relevance of the United Nations after almost a decade of failing to bring forward, in a meaningful way, the directives that it has given in the past.

However the motion today is more about the leadership of Canada and its role, but more specifically, it is about Parliament's role.

I would question the member as to why, when he was in opposition, our current Prime Minister would stand in debate so solidly and so strongly for a vote in Parliament and now, when he is in a position of power, he almost pushes away Parliament and is fearful of what members may bring forward in a vote.

Would the member care to comment on that?

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 6th, 2003]

You are standing in it.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by some 6,970 petitioners who are completely in support of Project Guardian, which is the project designed to help protect the children of Canada.

The petitioners call on Parliament to pass legislation to prevent the release from lawful custody of anyone convicted for a second time of a sexual offence against any other minor person. This would enact two strike legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for a second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor person to be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

It is my pleasure to present this petition with close to 7,000 names on it.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House two petitions signed by concerned constituents of Crowfoot.

The first petition calls upon the government to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Correctional Service Canada, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to numerous media reports, it would seem that everything a person can get outside prison can now be obtained inside. Just ask killer Karla Homolka who allegedly has been having sex with another inmate.

I ask the Solicitor General, is an investigation underway to determine whether or not Canada's most notorious sex offender was in fact engaged in a sexual relationship with a male inmate?

[Correctional Service Canada, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Correctional Service Canada has absolutely no problem confirming that sex offenders in Warkworth and Kingston penitentiaries have complete access to channels that play movies with explicit sexual content.

In fact, a Correctional Service Canada spokesmen readily and adamantly defended the commissioner's directive that inmates were entitled to the same cable access as all other Canadians.

Does the Solicitor General agree and support inmates, including some of Canada's most dangerous sex offenders, having access to sexually explicit movies?

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her submission today in regard to Bill C-20. I think all sides of the House recognize that we need to protect our children and take measures that will be strong enough, that they indeed will be protection and not simply lip service paid to a problem that is recognized by most people across the country.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does she believe that conditional sentencing is appropriate for someone who is convicted of sexual interference with a child or of producing or spreading around child pornography?

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very quick questions for the hon. member.

First, does she believe that it is right for someone who has been convicted of exploiting children for pornography or for sexual interference with children to be given a conditional sentence and never serve a day in prison?

The second question is along that line. On April 24, 2002, the Canadian Alliance brought forward a motion that reads as follows:

That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including measures that raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, and measures that prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity.

What rationale can the member give that would explain her government's position on that motion and how will the members explain their own position in voting against it?

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member amazes me in that if she is suggesting that a doctor's office examination room displays pictures dealing with circumcision or other things it may be deemed pornographic, but if those pictures are circulated in a way that would incite someone using it as pornography, then it is wrong. If those pictures are taken in a doctor's office, that may not be pornographic. It is common sense.

Let me tell a little story. A young guy ran into the house with a pop bottle lid and said, “Mom, can you fill this pop bottle lid with water?” She did and he went out. She asked, “Why do you need the water?” He said, “I need to put out a fire”. She looked outside and saw the whole barn going up in smoke. He had a little pop bottle lid of water that he was going to put on the fire.

That is what the bill does. There is a tidbit of good, but the bill does not go far enough. We need to protect our children. We do not need small measures that are not going to adequately do it and that is what the justice minister has brought forward.