Art Hanger

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to address this private member's bill tabled in the House by my colleague from the adjoining riding of Calgary East. I too share many of the member's sentiments when it comes to sentencing for a crime which really has proliferated in many of our communities. I can say that over the last 30 or 35 years its impact on so many of our areas and communities and on the lives of the people has increased exponentially.

I can recall my early years as a police officer in the city of Calgary, where a crime such as break and enter in a dwelling was a serious crime and the investigators had to be called out, if members can feature that, to come and investigate that crime. Today the numbers of break and enters that fill the police ledger are so numerous that the constable on the street has become a paper-shuffler. He will answer the call. He will take the information from the victim. Most of that is for the purposes of insurance so that there is a report on file. That constable then goes on his way without really having had the opportunity or the time to go and investigate the crime. That is how much things have changed over the last 35 years. Then it was a serious crime and an investigator was assigned to it but now it is just like taking a report on a theft. That is how prevalent the crime is today.

I can appreciate any piece of legislation that would offer some sort of a deterrent. I think it is high time we started looking at deterrent legislation. Unfortunately things are going the opposite way. There is not the deterrent legislation that there used to be.

I do not know if anyone in the House has had a break-in at their own place. I wonder if everyone has experienced that. I have too, as a police officer. Culprits that were in the neighbourhood decided to break into my place. They stole a number of items. They ransacked the entire house. They got into every drawer, turned clothes upside down and took clothes out. They took some of my police equipment. An investigation was conducted that involved several police officers over a long period of time. There was a known group of people in the community that was breaking into the houses in the region, which is no different from what is happening today, yet those people were never charged.

The impact that it had and has left on my family was quite significant. My wife was very upset because someone had touched every piece of clothing in the house. That was a violation right there. That is a lasting anxiety. It takes a long time to disappear. It happened when we were out of the house and I would hate to say what the feelings of the victims would be if they were in the house when a culprit entered uninvited.

It is a crime and although it is considered a property crime it does have this very personal nature to it. It is an abuse and a violation of privacy. Courts used to take those matters into consideration years ago. When I joined the police department years ago, the sentence was seven years for a house break-in. That was what it was when I left the police department in 1993 and now the sentence can be as low as six months.

The other unsettling feature to the court side of it is that the courts look at the offences of one offender which could number as high as 150 housebreakings as one offence. The courts sentence that culprit in a global fashion. It is called a global sentencing. Culprits could go out and break into 100 houses, and I have arrested people that have committed 100 break-ins, 150 break-ins and they would still be sentenced globally and it would be considered one offence in the eyes of a court.

There is something wrong with that kind of viewpoint. There is something wrong when offenders, whether they are young offenders or adults, get six months, a year or two years for committing 150 break-ins. I have talked to the victims. Unfortunately the courts have never had that opportunity to personally talk to them. I have seen heirlooms stolen from a housebreaking where the culprit is caught. The maximum sentence I have ever seen as a police officer testifying in court was four years and that was for 150 housebreakings. There was even suspected violence in one, but it was never proven.

I believe there is a need to visit not only the minimum sentences offered in court, but a complete review of the court sentencing practice of global sentencing.

If I were to look at this potential legislation and consider who is a repeat offender, I would ask the government side of the House that if a second offence was committed by the same culprit, and I do not care if it was prior to sentencing, the individual would be a repeat offender. The individual has now committed more than one crime. Unfortunately the courts do not look at it that way. A culprit can commit 150 such crimes, but the court sentences the individual to one sentence.

I have never, and I do not think anyone here can testify to the contrary, seen a culprit obtain a life sentence for housebreaking. I looked at the statistics. There are nearly 300,000 housebreakings in this country each year. That is a lot of insurance claims. That is a lot of victimization. The statistics undoubtedly reflect not only dwellings, but it would appear that they also reflect shopbreakings. Even if half of those numbers were on housebreakings those are major violations.

A housebreaker, and I am going to say he because as far as I know there have been few females charged with this offence, although there are more now, but they generally go from the very minor theft of jewellery items all the way up to the total destruction of a residence. Even with the total destruction of a residence, I have never seen a sentence go beyond four years. When I say total destruction I mean ransacking the entire premises and doing significant damage inside.

I will reflect on Bill C-386 which my colleague from Calgary East has presented to the House. I encourage Liberal members to pay attention to the bill. I believe there is a safety factor issue for our communities. I encourage Liberal members to support the bill.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to address the bill one more time but I am not at all happy, of course. Many members on the opposition side, and I would not doubt on the government side too if they would stand up and say it, agree that to put closure on this piece of legislation is not a wise thing to do. There is much more to be discussed yet. Given that, I am going to spend my time addressing some more points on the bill, which I think need to be addressed on the issue of resources.

For the last eight years in the House issues of security have always been of high interest to me, having come from a police background. Resources have always been a key point in getting any job done. The more thoroughly one wants the job to be done, the more boots on the ground are required to do it. Whether that is in intelligence gathering or investigation itself or even in the prosecution courts system, those are the areas where people are required to make things happen.

What concerns me not so much with the legislation but with the posturing on the government side is that the real issue has still not been addressed. We could have the best policies in the world. I for the most part do not disagree with much of what is here; there are some exceptions and my colleagues have addressed them quite adequately previously. We can have the best policy which looks really good on the books and even reads well but if we do not have the resources to make things happen, then that policy is all for naught.

Back in 1994 the issue for just about every enforcement agency, and here we are talking about enforcement again but I will throw defence into the mix, was the need for more manpower, resources and up to date equipment so the agencies could effectively do their jobs. That was the call in 1993 and 1994.

In the last four months I have taken trips not only to the border crossings in the country but also to an immigration office overseas. In speaking with some of my police colleagues and immigration enforcement officers, the message was far more urgent to resource the enforcement agencies than it was back in 1994. I cannot understand concentrating on this piece of legislation when it is resources that are going to make things work. In other words, let us put some money into it. Let us tighten up in the areas where it is not working.

If those two issues alone were looked after, if they alone were addressed by the government, I wonder how much legislation we would really need. What does it take to do intelligence gathering? If we have policy that restricts the use of the intelligence we have gathered, it is necessary to address that restriction. One example is shared information with our neighbours to the south. What are the inhibitors on this side of sharing information with them and what are their inhibitors that would prevent them from sharing information with us? To me, legislation for the most part does not come into play here. Or does it? If it does, it should be changed accordingly.

We can have these policies that address certain issues on terrorism and try to make an impact and make our country more secure, but for the most part the government has fallen far short of resourcing those particular agencies that need help. I am going to address some of those agencies, including the immigration offices.

When I was last in Vancouver, the immigration officers spoke of the need for 140 or 150 people right there at that time just to deal with the issues of increased security and processing of immigrants and refugees who came to those ports of entry in British Columbia. Maybe 140 or 150 does not sound like too many, but that is only one district. The minister has declared openly that she would supply 100 officers for the entire country, but technically that does not even fill the bill for the British Columbia district.

What will happen now? There is no question that with Bill C-36, Bill C-11, with the add-on of Bill C-42, which also has to do with immigration, the pressure will be on those frontline officers to deal with it. If they do not deal with it effectively, there will be a slipshod, haphazard job of security checks done on people coming into the country. Again, it is not because of the legislation per se, all of it, but because it is not being resourced. We are not bolstering up the manpower where it counts.

I will give one example. The immigration department alone, in the words of the immigration minister, presently has 27,000 applications that need security checks and security analysis. These cannot be done overnight. Immediately that puts a burden on immigration, on CSIS and so it should. The burden is undue given that both of those agencies are under-resourced. It also puts a burden on immigration enforcement. The enforcement section is already under-resourced.

There are 27,000 applicants now. On top of all of that, throw in another 20,000 claimants who have abandoned all claims. They have abandoned all claims of attempting to go through the refugee process. Where are those individuals? Who are those individuals? No one knows. No one has a clear indication of where or who those people are or if they belong to a questionable organization. It is an unknown factor.

There is much that can be done in dealing with issues such as these. This is a security issue and should be a priority for the government and for parliament. This gives me the opportunity to address those concerns which the government side is not addressing.

Having talked about immigration, I now turn to customs. The frontline officers are the first contact for individuals coming into Canada. They are the first contact, the front line. Their emphasis has always been on goods and services and the revenue generated as a result. It has not necessarily been on immigration. Although some of those officers do a fine job, their training is outside that whole realm. There is not a piece of legislation necessarily that could change that process and put the emphasis where it should be, again to further protect our country, to further protect those who have come here and those making their home in Canada. That is the situation.

The next agency that needs assistance is the RCMP. I am going to name CSIS as well. There is no question that between those two agencies right now the pressure is on our national police force, the RCMP, as well as CSIS, the intelligence gatherer, the analyzing agency that will disseminate much of what is found to other points and agencies in Canada.

The list could go on and on. It all comes back to the whole issue of resources. It is not so much the legislation, not so much the matter that we have another bill we can throw on the shelf and say that we did our job again. It is not that. It is where is the money and the resources to fund what we now claim to be the best piece of legislation going? That is my question to the government.

[The Grey Cup, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all proud Calgarians I am honoured to rise in the House in recognition of this year's Grey Cup champions, the Calgary Stampeders.

Before the second largest crowd in Grey Cup history the Stampeders, written off as huge underdogs going in, clinched the 89th Canadian Football League championship with an exciting 27 to 19 victory.

Its fifth Grey Cup championship did not come easy as the Winnipeg Blue Bombers fought our Stampeders tooth and nail, keeping the game within five points for much of the fourth quarter and keeping most fans and viewers on the edge of their seats.

On the final play of the game with Winnipeg needing a touchdown and a two point convert, Joe Fleming put the final nail in the coffin by sacking Blue Bomber's quarterback Khari Jones to clinch the victory for the Stamps.

Not only is this an early Christmas present for all Calgarians. It is a huge civic boost that all Albertans can be proud of. I congratulate the players and coaches of this year's Grey Cup champions, the Calgary Stampeders, on a job well done.

[Poppy Campaign, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 27, I will be participating in the Calgary remembrance walk and parade to help kick off this year's poppy campaign.

The poppy campaign is perhaps one of the Royal Canadian Legion's most important fundraising events. The money raised from the sale of poppies helps to provide direct assistance to ex-service people who are in need as well as to fund medical appliances and research, and numerous other purposes.

The poppy is our symbol of remembrance for those who were killed during the wars. Let us not forget that these men and women paid the supreme price for the freedoms we enjoy today.

It was from the field of war that Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae penned the words of that famous poem: “In Flanders fields the poppies blow”. These words take on a special meaning of significance on Remembrance Day when we pause to honour our war dead.

It is not enough for us to pay respects on Remembrance Day alone. I appeal to all Canadians to give generously to the poppy campaign so that our struggling veterans can live out the final years of their lives with respect and dignity.

[Don McDermid, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Assistant Commissioner Don McDermid of RCMP K Division who retired on October 19, 2001. His last act of duty was to transfer command to Assistant Commissioner Sweeney.

A fitting ceremony was held for a man who dedicated over 36 years of his life to the service of his country and to the legacy and legend of the RCMP. Hundreds of family members, friends, acquaintances and business contacts gathered to pay tribute to the assistant commissioner. The true measure of this man's accomplishments was expressed through the relationships he had developed with others over his years as a lawman.

Too often men strive just to gain the praise of others. Not so for Assistant Commissioner McDermid. He was praised by many though he did not seek it. His dedication, loyalty and integrity brought true success and his leadership inspired confidence in the community he served.

Assistant Commissioner McDermid's daughter graciously spoke the words that said it all: “You can't get any more Canadian than to be part of a family whose father is a Mountie”. We are all part of that Canadian family.

I thank Don McDermid and his wife Pat for their years of service and love of Canada.

[Immigration, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, now I will quote what Sergeant Lapierre had to say. He said:

Some people are sent here with a mission and some people come on their own and are recruited. But once here they all have the same modus operandi.

They apply for refugee status, they apply for welfare and health cards. They get involved in theft and then they try to launder the money.

How is the minister going to stop foreign criminals from entering the country and abusing our generosity?

[Immigration, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continually hides behind Bill C-11 as the panacea to fix this problem. Yet the problem time and time again centres around the administration of what is in the present act and the enforcement of such. That is the problem.

Two days ago Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's counterterrorism section said at a conference on money laundering in Ottawa that terrorists in Canada follow a similar pattern. Here is an authority who says--

[Immigration, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, too often this minister has hidden behind rhetoric as to what she is doing and not doing in this House and in her portfolio. She has never offered assurances to the people of this country about security matters and how she is going to handle them in her department.

Again I will ask the minister specifically, will she give assurances to the people and the House that Sabir will not be released and that his status will be revoked?

[Immigration, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday night an individual by the name of Muhammad Sabir arrived at the Calgary airport. In his possession he had phony passports and travel documents in different names other than his own. Investigations revealed that his name was actually Hussein Shafquat, who was granted refugee status in 1999.

My question is for the minister of immigration. Since Sabir, or Shafquat, whatever his name is, has landed immigrant status in the country, will the minister assure this House and the people of the country that he--

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to participate in this important take note debate. I know some of my colleagues in the House never expressed a need to feel positive about this debate. There are some very positive issues that need to be addressed and certainly there is a substantial amount of unified, shared common concern on all sides of the House that brings us together. Whatever can be done by the government, with the support of the opposition, now is the time for the government to do it. I do believe it has a substantial amount of support on this side.

I recall not too long ago, in 1999 to be exact, we in the House debated sending our troops to Yugoslavia to force an end to the human tragedy that was unfolding in Kosovo. Now two years later we are engaged in another take note debate, this time on international action against terrorism. What this indicates to me is that the cold war may be over but conflicts around the world continue. The enemy in this new conflict is a group of fanatics who in this case use religion to carry out their horrific deeds.

There is hardly anyone in the world who is not familiar with the events that have led to this war on terrorism. On September 11 we all watched in horror the tragic events in the United States when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Thousands of innocent lives were lost including those of many Canadians. We all grieve with the families of those victims, along with our American friends and neighbours over these barbaric acts.

Canadians expect us as parliamentarians to put partisanship aside and develop a united front in the war against terrorism. This is an issue that involves first and foremost life and death, war and peace, freedom and security. The object of this war is clear: Terrorism and those who engage in such evil acts must be defeated. I believe Canadians support this moral objective, however, we know there are those who oppose the means by which we will achieve this end.

War is not something that any of us take lightly. Wars are often harshly fought. Wars produce victims and victors, and certainly those who will lose. Moreover, wars can be, from a civilian point of view, outright scary. However, in this war on terrorism, we cannot be afraid because to be afraid is to succumb to the enemy. We must be watchful and we must be mindful because we know not when the enemy will strike. If they strike before they are caught we must be prepared to deal with them effectively.

I had words with many of the retired military officers over that very issue. We need a unified effort to come together because if such a horrible incident were to take place in this country where we would personally suffer, we would be hard pressed to effectively deal with it without the help of our allies.

I would like to state here in the House that I fully support the government's decision to join with our American allies in this war against terrorism. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the brave men and women of our armed forces who have been called to duty to assist the American and British forces located in the Middle East in defence of peace, freedom and security. I join with Canadians in offering the armed forces my prayers and good wishes as they embark on this mission. I ask that God grant them His peace and guidance for a safe return to this country and to their families.

During this crucial time our thoughts turn to the families of those soldiers who are also called upon to make tremendous sacrifices while their loved ones participate in this mission. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them as well.

Our soldiers have given much of themselves in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo and many times they are not recognized for what they do. Now the country is calling upon them once more in a time of crisis to give again. We are grateful for their professionalism and their commitment. We know they will serve this country valiantly and, in so doing, make us proud.

This is a new type of war which our brave men and women in the Canadian forces will be involved in. As was evident during the events of September 11, these terrorists are fanatics who are so indifferent to the sanctity of human life that they consider it an honour to die for their cause, as misguided as their cause may be. They are well trained and in a sense they are well funded and somewhat organized. Their mission is to cause collateral damage when they attack and to strike fear. The war on terrorism will therefore not be easy. It is likely to be long and arduous, but it is just and it is necessary.

As has been stated on numerous occasions, the war being waged is not against the people of Afghanistan or against any religion. Unfortunately these terrorists have woven themselves among the legitimate Islamic religion and use this religion to justify their horrendous deeds. This is a war against terrorists and those who support and willingly harbour terrorist groups on their soil. They too must bear the consequences for their actions.

We in the House and Canadians near and far take pride in our military. Sadly though we cannot take pride in the equipment it is given to do its job. I know, after listening to the admiral of the Atlantic fleet, that, in spite of shortcomings with the equipment, it will do the maximum that equipment will allow it to do. I believe that is commitment in itself.

As a former defence critic for the Official Opposition, I remember hammering away at the government over the deep cuts that were made in military spending and in personnel. However the government chose to go the path it did and not fund the military. There is now another crisis that our military has on its hands and I believe it will stand up and meet that challenge.

We have some of the finest soldiers in the world and I believe they should be given the finest equipment to do their job. The events of September 11 and the current war being waged against terrorism should be a wake up call for this country and for this government, the opposition included, to the importance of maintaining a strong and viable military with proper military hardware.

I cannot help but ask the question: What if these attacks had happened in Canada? Would we have had the means to deal with them effectively and quickly apprehend those who might be planning further attacks? In other words, could we as a military entity pick up and get over to the Middle East or some other location in the world and do what has to be done to apprehend those responsible?

It is crucial now more than ever that the government undertake a commitment to increase personnel numbers and to rebuild our armed forces so we can send our soldiers off to war and have the confidence that the equipment they use will not fail nor will it embarrass them or the country.

I believe that if we are out to maintain our standing in NATO and if we wish to have some influence in the international community, we must devote more money to the military to improve its hardware and to recruit more soldiers.

As I indicated earlier, I fully support the government's decision to join the war on terrorism. This war is about peace, freedom and security. However, how can we speak of security in this country when we look at other problems that have cropped up, creating the uncertainty with which we are faced.