Art Hanger

[Petitions, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have numerous petitions pertaining to the matter of a legal definition of marriage. The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage, reaffirming, as it did in 1999, that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Veterans Affairs, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs is obviously dragging its feet on the issue. Here we are at the 11th hour and it has still made no decision.

D-Day veteran Joe Galombos in my constituency received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling him to pay his own way to the Normandy ceremony. His question for the minister is, “I was good enough to fight for this country 60 years ago and the government supported my way over there then. Why now am I told to pay my own way to Normandy if I want to participate?”

[Veterans Affairs, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Veterans Affairs spokeswoman Janice Summerby was asked about the government's refusal to fund the war veterans' trip to D-Day ceremonies in Normandy. She was quoted as saying, “They can enjoy the overseas ceremony on television”.

My question for the minister is, why should World War II veterans watch from the sidelines today when they fought on the front lines 60 years ago?

[Australia and New Zealand Air Crew Memorial, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on April 25 the Australia and New Zealand Air Crew Memorial was unveiled in Calgary. This memorial honours the heroism of the Australians and New Zealanders who came to Canada during World War II to participate in the British Commonwealth air training plan designed to train air crew members for the Allied war efforts.

During the early days of the war, citizens of the British Commonwealth knew the threat they faced would take all the bravery and valour they could summon to defeat it. When the British government asked Canada to host this new training scheme, thousands of Canadians, British, Australians and New Zealanders answered the call.

During the course of the training however many lost their lives or were seriously injured. Among those who died were 146 Australians and 83 New Zealanders, all of whom were buried in Canada.

I wish to congratulate Chairman Derek Appleford and the Australia and New Zealand Air Crew Memorial Committee for advancing the idea of this memorial, for raising the funds necessary to make it a reality, and for a job well done.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2004]

Very soon, Madam Speaker.

The accountability factor is coming into play right now, and it will be hitting those on that side square in the eyes. I hope and pray that we will soon have an opportunity to be able to change some of the injustices that have been handed down by that side.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, all of us in the House have a responsibility. We were elected to represent our communities. We were also elected to ensure that there was good order in general in the country. As members of Parliament, we must advocate for those in the community who have been victimized. We have a responsibility to do that.

I know we on this side of the House are not the government, but there will come a day when we will be.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2004]

I thank my colleague for the question because it does go to the heart of the matter. For those who have been victimized, for those families who have been left behind, whether they are police officers' families or other citizens who have encountered violent criminals, when the life of a loved one taken away, there is more than grief. There is rage. There is guilt. There is blame. There is hate and there is anger. There is grief. Some have gone into the position of just being a recluse and living alone.

I can speak of my colleague's family. Mrs. Shelever has a room all set up in her house with her husband's things in there. She had such a hard time in dealing with his death. He was taken away before their daughter was even born. Her daughter never knew her dad. Mrs. Shelever collected his items and put them in a room in her house. In her eyes, that room is dedicated to her husband. It is a very difficult having to relive this every time Glaremin comes up for a parole hearing. It is a tortured way to live, in a way, because it is brought up every time. Yes, some people have to get by all of that and move on, but it is easy to say and very difficult to do.

My colleague mentioned the young mother in Maple Ridge. There will be a tremendous upheaval in that family. That victimized family will go through every emotion I have described. The state does not help. Unfortunately, in fact, the state perpetuates it because of the laws and because of the inconsistency in looking for what is right, that is, there are more rights for the prisoner than there are for the victims.

I grieve along with that family and every family that goes through this. I know what they are going to go through and, with them, I have experienced some of that pain as a police officer.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2004]

moved that Bill C-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole when imprisoned for life), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I am pleased to stand today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-221.

I have to think back to 1995 when I first introduced the bill into the House. At that time I was the party's critic for the solicitor general and certainly was fed up with the way the parole system was working, just as I am now. Very little has changed. There are still many murderers being released out onto our streets. Many have only served 15 years of their life sentences, some even less if they were convicted of second degree murder.

The purpose of the bill is to amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code that relate to life imprisonment. In effect the bill would eliminate the provisions for parole eligibility for any criminal sentenced to life in prison. In other words, criminals sentenced to life in prison would not serve 15 or 25 years but the remainder of their natural life behind bars. A life sentence would indeed mean life.

We hear the murmurs and complaints from those on the other side of the House when this issue comes forward, the serving of life sentences or penalties that they deem to be harsh.

Murder is a heinous crime. I think more and more people are beginning to share the view that these individuals who commit such crimes should be staying in prison for longer periods, in fact for life.

Interestingly, in 2002 the Winnipeg Sun reported that in Manitoba:

--the Doer government is asking Ottawa to get tougher on killers by making life sentences real life sentences.

Twenty-five years, in my view, is not sufficient protection for the public, particularly with people who are convicted of shooting police officers,

That comes from the mouth of Premier Gary Doer and was in response to a rash of police shootings in that city.

[Manitoba] Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh said a new provision should be created under the federal Criminal Code allowing a judge to sentence a cop killer to a jail cell for the rest of his days.

I do not believe “life means life” should just apply to police officers alone. I believe it should be extended to all murderers who receive a life sentence.

Having served more than 20 years on the Calgary police department, I have seen my fair share of crimes. I have seen the anguished faces of loved ones. I have felt their pain when they learn that someone dear to them has been murdered. I am not talking about dying in an automobile accident, in a fire or in a sporting accident. We are talking about cold-blooded murder.

This leads to unspeakable pain for the victims' families. I have heard people second guess themselves by wondering whether, if they had done something different, they could perhaps have spared him or her that fate. In some cases members of victims' families have come to seek help to deal with their grief. Why is that? For one reason, often there is no closure once a killer is convicted. The victim's pain is so deep, it is often unbearable.

The first thing the state should do is to send a clear message to criminals and to those contemplating the taking of another person's life, the message being that they will never be able to walk the streets of the country a free man or woman. They will be locked away for the remainder of their natural lives.

Our laws should be designed to restrain the violent and the rebellious. Good people do not need to engage the law; it is those who have turned against authority, turned against society and committed these acts who should have the law applied to them. There should be a clear message that there will be severe consequences for their actions. Yes, it is true that there are those who will forge right ahead anyway and commit an act without even thinking about the consequences; however, we hope that the punishment meted out to such individuals will serve as a deterrent to others.

I am hearing more about deterrents now in our law than at any time in the past 20 years, and even from those who have crafted our very liberal laws in relation to punishment. Many members in the House will recall that once upon a time in this country capital punishment was the punishment of choice for those convicted of murder, but back in 1976 the government of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau introduced Bill C-84, which abolished capital punishment and replaced it with life imprisonment. Two new categories of murder were created, first and second degree, both of which carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment.

It did not stop there. A life sentence does not mean that a criminal will spend the rest of his or her natural life in prison. This was the intent of their legislation. It simply meant that a killer could not apply for parole until he or she had served 25 years in jail. This applied to those convicted of first degree murder. Those convicted of second degree murder would have to serve 10 years. The sentencing judge could set a longer period of anywhere from 10 to 25 years.

It was in 1976 that the Liberals crafted this legislation. They then added the infamous section 745. In the present Criminal Code, it is section 745.6, which is also known as the faint hope clause. This section allows an offender to have his or her parole ineligibility period reduced after serving 15 years of a sentence.

Stories abound about lifers who used the faint hope clause to get out of prison early. I have a few examples and will relate a couple of them. One deals with a police officer I worked with in the Calgary city police department. In 1977, a colleague of mine, Constable William Shelever, was shot in the back of the head. His assailant, Roy Glaremin, also shot and injured another constable that night. Glaremin applied for a judicial review under the faint hope clause in 1993. He was denied and again reapplied, and so on and so forth goes his application for early release.

I am going to point to some statistics on this from the time period between 1987 and June 2000. There were 103 applications heard across Canada in those 13 years, with 84 of the 103 applicants getting reductions in their parole ineligibility period. In other words, 81.6% of those applicants actually had their sentences reduced and were out on the street early. That is quite phenomenal when we are talking about cold-blooded killers. It is something that should not be happening. There should be truth in our sentencing.

It is no secret that we on this side of the House have long advocated repealing section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. This has raised the ire of many criminal rights activists who have argued that locking away a murderer for 25 years is a waste of a person's life. They forget about the trauma that is created in a community when another murder takes place, and I do not care if the murderer is an adult who is 50 or 70 years old or a young offender who is 15 or 16.

I can relate to members a situation from Maple Ridge, B.C., about which many in the House may very well know. Colleen Findlay, an outstanding community activist, mother and wife, was brutally assaulted and murdered by a young offender. It was on the front page of every paper and has been for the last week. It was a horrible crime. Citizens are outraged.

What brings about a lot of that outrage is the seven years' sentence eligibility for parole because the individual is a young offender. The punishment does not fit the crime. Life should mean life regardless of the age of the offender, yet our Criminal Code clearly points to the fact that even for this crime the offender will not do much time because he is a young offender. He is 15 years old. He may not have been alone. It was a terrible offence that rocked the community and rocks a province and in fact an entire country.

The murderer who committed this crime ends up doing the time, in part. The murderer is still alive, at least, while the victims and the family in Maple Ridge will suffer and suffer because this case will not go away with the present law. The murderer can go back into his prison cell. The state looks after him. He can communicate with whomever he wants to on the outside. He gets his colour TV. He will even have his computers.

Some murderers have even gotten married in prison. Roy Glaremin was one. He shot a police officer and killed him. They will have their conjugal visits. They will get whatever education course they need. We are talking about murderers who should be doing time for life, forever. They will be allowed their visitors. Also, they get to eat very well, much better than many hard-working, taxpaying Canadians. But the relatives of the victims can only visit the graves of those who were killed.

These arguments have been put forward in the House before. The Liberals have been joined by other special interest groups who say that we have to give these murderers some hope, that we have to allow them some chance to look at the future and say, “In 15 years I am going to be out”. That is the thinking on that side of the House, but on the side of the victim they do not seem to want to address the pain that goes on in the lives of so many when these issues come to the forefront.

The only way the criminal can pay for his crime is if he and the community know for sure that he will never, ever walk away. We have heard the arguments from the Liberals. We also have heard the arguments from many victims' groups across this country. In this party on this side of the House, we stand for those who are suffering and for those potential victims out there because of laws that will not deal with violent people. We want to make sure that the criminals are behind bars, not only for the benefit of those who are victimized but for those potential members of our society who know that they will struggle if it comes their way in the future.

In closing, let me say that this private member's bill reflects the view that justice will be served when murderers sentenced to life in prison serve a full, court ordered life sentence. For families of victims, a true life sentence is an issue of closure. It is also a matter of fairness. Let us send a message that if an individual takes the life of another, that offender will spend the rest of his or her natural life locked away, with no parole. Life will indeed mean life.

[Criminal Code, March 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I find it very positive to rise today to speak about this issue, an issue that I have followed since I came to Parliament 10 years ago. It is also an issue that I had a lot to do with when I was a police officer on the streets of Calgary.

In regard to the exploitation of children, I have experienced the pain of parents who have had children exploited in one form or another. When we talk about pornographic images, let us get down to where the rubber hits the road, that is, every time a child's pornographic picture is shown as an image it is again victimizing that child, time and time again. I think that many in the House forget this fact.

Where is the line drawn when it comes to collecting pornography? That is another issue that we have not defined very clearly in the House.

Let us get to the point. We have a new government on the other side, or that is what they keep telling us anyway. One would think that at least the new government would use this Parliament to make some legitimate changes in legislation over and above this bill, because it was actually developed by the old government. What is the difference between the old and the new? I think it is obvious to all that there is no difference.

I had hoped that a new government would put some teeth into the bill and would put the protection of children ahead of the so-called public good argument or artistic merit argument of pedophiles. It did not. I guess I was only dreaming. It turns out that this is the same bill with the same faults, which will lead to the same problems for police, for judges and ultimately for Canada's children as well as those who most want to protect children, that is, parents.

The government made a reference to the protection of children in the throne speech. I think we can all remember that. Obviously all that reference merits is this ineffective bill. In fact, the bill is a distraction so that Canadians will not think about the failure of the government to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Over the past three years, the government has had an opportunity to respond to the threats to our children. John Robin Sharpe was found in possession of pornographic photos of children. He challenged his charges. In 2001, a B.C. court dropped a bomb on parents, police and concerned citizens across the country when it said that in some cases even violent child pornography was legal, citing artistic merit at that time. Since that time, this has been thrown into this public good argument.

Organizations like the Canadian Justice Foundation and Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles, with our party, waited for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause if necessary. It was called on. We demanded not only the protection of children from sexual predators, but it would trump kiddie porn. We had a glimmer of hope when the government announced the new bill in the last session. When the so-called new government, which is really a warmed over old government, put the protection of children in the throne speech, there was a possible breath of fresh air in the thinking that something would change.

As it turns out, our hopes were false hopes. The bill does not protect children. The bill will at best maintain the status quo and at worst it will mean that child porn and sex with minors are issues that will become fixtures in the Canadian agenda.

The bill was designed by someone who either does not understand the courts and does not understand law enforcement or who does understand both and does not intend to protect our children at all.

For years now we have been calling on the government to raise the age of sexual consent. In fact, today in the House I reintroduced my private member's bill, which seeks to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. Every time the issue comes up, the government uses the lame excuse that if it raises the age of consent that might criminalize the sexual activity of young people close in age. Everyone knows this is nonsense.

As my colleague from Provencher has argued in the House, all the government needs to do is establish a peer exemption for sexually active younger teens. In fact, that is precedent in our courts today: peer exemption. The government chose instead to create a category of sexual exploitation aimed at protecting children between the ages of 14 and 18.

That is an interesting category. Our party's senior justice critic has comments about that. I have a lot of respect for our senior justice critic, unlike those in the NDP, because this man sat in the courtrooms of our country handling cases like this time and again. He knows and understands where things go in the courts. He has watched those who have been victimized. He has seen the broken families as a result of the issues we are speaking of that are in our courts today.

This is what our senior justice critic has recorded:

Bill C-12 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead, the bill creates the category of “exploitative relationships” aimed at protecting people between the ages of 14 and 18. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, a judge must consider--

Here again he is drawing on his knowledge of the court.

--the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

That is what the court has to decide. That is what the prosecutor has to argue. That is what the defence and the accused will be about in the courts of the land.

I will continue the quote:

This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will not serve as a real deterrent and will simply result in longer trials and more litigation.

As a former police officer, I fully agree with our senior justice critic in understanding the courts, the defence and the arguments that will be presented. In other words, our courts are going to become a platform for the abuser, the accused, to get his message out. He has a doctrine that he wants to put out to the people of this country and now he will have the courts to argue his case. The relationship of the abuser or so-called abuser and the victimized child will be placed in the public domain. I think that is criminal in itself.

It will be up to the court to determine whether or not a relationship is exploitive. Clearly, in making a determination, a judge must take into consideration the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. This will ultimately tie up our courts, and regrettably, will not guarantee our children the protection they desperately need.

I am talking about our present court system. It is already against the law for someone in a position of trust or authority, or in a relationship of dependency, to be sexually involved with a young person between the ages of 14 and 18. I do not see how this provision is going to help a lot, apart from providing more opportunities, because it would be in the legislation, for the accused and the defence to argue more about the relationship. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

The bill could have dealt with the age of sexual consent, but rather than simply raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the bill would allow adults to have sex with 14 and 15 year olds unless the adult was in a position of authority. That is the intent of the government.

Parents of 14 year olds, whom I spoke to, shook their heads over that particular clause. Police forces across Canada shudder at what it means. They are already having a difficult time processing what they have under the present legislation.

Child pornography has skyrocketed. It has exploded since the use of the Internet has been employed by pedophiles and pornographers. Police departments across the nation are developing specialized units that just handle this kind of an offence.

In fact, they cannot keep up because the Internet knows no boundaries and no particular country. It is broadly global and these images float about everywhere. It does not matter in what part of the world one is in, one can tap in to them.

The strategies, even for police to sit down and analyze the issue of child pornography, and that is what we are talking about here, are becoming difficult for enforcement agencies worldwide. They need resources to do it.

There is so much in the proposed legislation and the court precedents over pornography that it is difficult for enforcement agencies to wade through it all to prepare a case for court. The present legislation just convolutes the matter even more. It makes it even more difficult.

I have not heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government has a plan regarding resources, or is developing a program or initiative that would deal with the issue of pornography.

Everybody has the opportunity to just go out and do it, do what they see through their own eyes as the way they want to portray pornography. At the same time, enforcement agencies are crying for assistance. That is where we are at.

This clause is not only of no use to the police but will have the perverse effect of dissuading police from even investigating cases of sex with 14 year olds or following up on pornographic images of such. Why? Because proving a position of power is vague, almost meaningless and requires all kinds of legal interpretation. It is totally open to challenge, not to mention that it is senseless.

The fact is that some 40 year old can exploit a 14 year old. Images can be taken of that and distributed under what basis? Artistic thought and merit or public good. The argument will go on and on. It will go on in our courtrooms and those will be the platforms from which the pornographers will operate. They will make their gains in the courts because they would be given that opportunity through the legislation that is offered here.

Instead of going to the public, the moms and dads and the grandmas and grandpas out there, this matter has been turned over, unfortunately, to the lawyers and the courts. The same courts that ruled that John Robin Sharpe was an artist. Under this law, an old man will have every right to have sex with a 14 year old he finds on the street. The images can be collected and distributed on the Internet. The courts will have a tough time trying to track that down in order to deal with it.

Believe me, just like John Robin Sharpe, all the pornographers and perverts will study the law. I sat in on a court case in British Columbia watching another notorious exploiter of children, Mr. Toft. He sat by his lawyer, and between the two of them they argued the case in court like they were both coming from the legal side of things to have his charges worked through the court. He was not in the docket as an accused but sat right beside his lawyer. Go figure.

This law would actually create an enormous opportunity for child pornographers. It would allow an exception to the ban on child porn where pornographers could demonstrate some public good. As we have seen with John Robin Sharpe and his buddies at the Civil Liberties Association, there is no shortage of people to challenge the law. It will be a heyday for them.

Today we should be prepared that challenges will thrust the most hateful child porn out into the public arena and make celebrities of its authors. That is what is on the road here. We are not talking about artistic views held by the member for Palliser, but the manipulators in our society who will go after our children. There are lots of them out there.

The Liberals could have used the notwithstanding clause to send John Robin Sharpe to prison and be done with it. Instead, they made him a poster boy for legalized pedophilia. This law is all shaped around what he has stated in public. The Liberals had a choice.

It is up to concerned Canadian parents and parliamentarians in the House to guard our children more carefully than ever. We cannot depend on the government across the way because this legislation is, in its viewpoint, its offer to help protect our children. Unfortunately, it has failed miserably.

[Criminal Code, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Palliser. I know he has drawn a line in his conversation and his presentation in saying that there should be strong action taken against child pornographers and that he would like to see longer sentences for those who sexually exploit children, which is well and good. I think we as members of Parliament should be making that very clear, and that children should be at the top of our list.

He also has sort of shaped the Conservative Party as wanting to paint a broad brush and throwing out the net to catch everybody who even thinks or believes that there is a child molester or pornographer around every corner and that every artist is in that category. I want to correct the member because I believe our party does not stand for those things, as he attempted to portray two or three times during his presentation. I believe we have led the charge on this right from the very beginning, that we want to protect our children. We want to protect them from exploitation of every kind, including pornography.

As I mentioned before, and I asked the member from the Bloc this very question, there are people out there who will want to push the envelope at every turn. They will want to look for those who are vulnerable. They will want to create images to satisfy their own desires and the desires of others. There has to be a line drawn somewhere that will prohibit those who want to abuse others, like Mr. Sharpe.

The member for Palliser says that he supported Mr. Sharpe's comments. I do not know if he supports the reputation, background and convictions that Mr. Sharpe has faced. He is truly a porn collector.

Where does the member stand when it comes to this line, because there is indeed a line? I do not think we should be casting aspersions on the Conservative Party, which really wants to protect our children and which stands in the face of opposition looking at the government and its legislation, and the legislation is not truly that way.

Does the member support Mr. Sharpe in all that he does? He has quoted him. Where does he stand?