Art Hanger

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is one on "don't tax reading". It has 103 signatures and I concur with the comments of the petitioners.

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to introduce today.

In the first, 28 petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the provincial governments to make a national highway system upgrading possible beginning this year.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-17. I am encouraged by the statements that my colleague from Crowfoot has made in reference to this bill concerning its shortcomings and the fact that we will be supporting it reluctantly. I too have very deep concerns about some of the provisions of the bill.

I have paid some attention to the shortcomings in the area of the reduction in maximum sentences. That really concerns me. As as a police officer for 20 some years in the city of Calgary police department I have experienced what reductions of sentences actually do in the courts. There seems to be a trivializing of sentences that are delivered when parliamentarians start tinkering around and reducing the maximum terms allotted to some offenders.

I look in particular at section 279(2) which deals with forcible confinement. When is the section on forcible confinement often

used? What kind of offender is charged with such an offence? For the most part it deals with the rapist, the sexual abuser, the person who has intent to kidnap or to hold against his or her will someone. It is most often a female or a child that the offender has attacked or is attacking.

In Bill C-17 the government introduced a reduced sentence lowering an indictable offence which had a provision of 14 years to one of 18 months and making it a dual procedure. A minimum sentence of 18 months can be delivered if the courts proceed by way of summary conviction.

Rape or sexual assault is a very serious offence. Yet the government has trivialized a good portion of the number of charges of forcible confinement laid in sexual assault offences.

Another provision in Bill C-17 comes under section 348(1). Breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house is now considered a dual procedure offence with a maximum of 10 years. Again it has been decreased.

[Petitions, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, the first containing 162 names. It calls on Parliament to enact legislation that will register all pedophiles.

The second petition is a similar type of request. The petitioners call on Parliament to eliminate the right of convicted pedophiles to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This would ensure the protection and safety of the victims and the community from such convicted offenders. There are 165 names on this petition.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Liberal logic.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Yes, as my colleague puts out, it is to try the victims. It is to upset them. It is to keep every victim off balance. That is the message they are getting. Why should we, as parliamentarians, allow that to happen?

When this issue came forward many months ago, in fact many years ago if we look at section 745, which was implemented over 15 years ago by a Liberal government, why were there not outcries from every parliamentarian? There was not. The Liberal Party is content to leave it that way. It is content to keep the victims in our society on edge, off balance and constantly suffering.

There is a point of justice and I do not believe that it is being delivered as it should be by the Liberal government with the legislation which it has brought forward. In spite of the fact that the Liberals have been told time and again, they refuse to make any adjustment.

I believe that in section 745 hearings the statements are very important. At the most recent hearing which I attended we heard the statements of other witnesses. This case concerned Mr. Glaremin. If the victim's impact statement can be altered, what about other witness statements which are issued?

Expert testimony was granted at Glaremin's trial. However, it was not from an expert. It was from a paraphrased condensed version that the court allowed to be entered and allowed the jury to read. In other words, somebody had already altered it. It was supposed to be from the expert witnesses. There was no opportunity for even the crown to cross-examine it. This is absolute nonsense.

The killer was then up on the stand giving his evidence. What was he saying? Was he telling the jury how he felt? Absolutely. Was his statement altered or edited by the judge? No way. He could even reconstruct the events that brought about his conviction.

There may have been some objection on the part of the crown in reference to that point, but he said it and the witnesses were not around to say otherwise because the trial was long gone. It had been 15 years ago. Here again was the opportunity for the jury to hear a very sanitized version of what had really happened. That is what happens at a section 745 hearing.

We should not be talking about just a single statement. This omnibus bill, C-17, should strike section 745 and clear it right off the books. That is where it should end. First degree, premeditated murderers should be subject to the most severe of penalties, not some opportunity for involving parliamentarians in a debate on whether a statement is good or not or that the murderer could get out earlier. First degree, premeditated murderers should be subject to the most severe of penalties.

I have had several victims in my office over the last little while. The consensus right now is not to have anything done with section 745 but to bring back the death penalty. That is the comment and the desire, I would suggest, on the part of a number of Canadians. I would suggest that number is very high. People want section 745 gone but they also do not ever want killers let out. Not only should life mean life but the ultimate penalty is now being discussed in an even broader context.

However, this is not on the lips of the Liberal members. The death penalty is not a item that will ever be brought to the floor by the Liberals.

Reform's position on the death penalty is that we would like to see it brought to the people in the form of a binding national referendum for first degree, premeditated murderers. That is really the way to deal with the issue. Who wants to entrust it to elected representatives who refuse to do what the people want? Give it back to the people and let them decide. If the issue should be brought forward then so be it, it will be brought forward.

We could go on and on about section 745 because this issue will never die. There are some 600 possible applications coming up under this section. I think that is to what Canadians should really pay attention. The pressure should come on the federal government, the Liberal government. It brought this section in and it is up to the Liberals to get rid of it. If not then they should be voted out of office.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather frightening to look at the content of some of these omnibus bills. Bill C-17 is one of those bills. It actually encompasses a lot more than what my colleague has just described as a very important item. I agree the bill should go through because of the mandatory admission of victim impact statements. This should be one of the more significant pieces of legislation to talk about right now, and certainly pass.

There is a lot more in this bill that is frightening. It is frightening to see some of the very significant charges and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code changed, for instance, the issue of house breaking. To unlawfully break into a dwelling is now considered to be a dual procedure offence whereas it was considered an offence carrying a minimum of 10 years in prison. Some of the other changes that we see in the sentencing provisions trivialize the offence.

Unfortunately, over the last three and a half years, that is exactly the kind of legislation that the country has been getting from the Liberal government. It is an effort to trivialize some of the more serious offences which have been committed against society.

We are going to be contending with a weakness when it comes to some very significant charges like shop breaking and being unlawfully in a dwelling house, where they will be placed into a dual procedure category which they should not be. They should be maintained as serious charges.

The major topic that I want to speak on is victim impact statements. I have had the opportunity to sit in on several court hearings, as have my staff and other members of the Reform Party. We have managed to glean from these hearings what is happening with victim impact statements.

Victim impact statements should be mandatory. Bill C-17 addresses that point. However, the statements should be pure in the sense that whatever impact the victim feels the crime has had on his or her life should be told to the court. At the present time a judge can look at the victim's impact statement, with the accused present, and edit the statement. That is absolute nonsense. The edited statement may not be anywhere close to what the victim had intended.

Evidence is evidence. Why should a judge be given the power to alter the statement of a witness? That is exactly what is happening.

I attended the hearing in Saskatchewan concerning Marie King Forest. I watched the judge tear her statement apart. He called it editorializing. He told her not to get emotional. This happened not only in that hearing, but also in the following one I attended which was held in Calgary. The victims were told that if they got emotional there might be a re-trial of the offence. What are our courts turning into?

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to address the bill before us.

As the Reform member for Mission-Coquitlam mentioned, it is interesting the issues of victims are becoming more prominent in the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. Bill C-46 has some benefit for victims, especially sexual assault victims.

Before I get into the specifics of the bill, a question was asked of the justice minister today dealing with victims. Of course the justice minister went on and on.

We on this side of the House and members of the public who were watching heard a somewhat revealing dissertation from the justice minister on how his party has supported victims over the 3.5 years it has been in Parliament. The justice minister related to several bills which were introduced allegedly dealing with support for victims of crime.

He mentioned Bill C-41 which deals with granting victims the right to make impact statements. That is a very key issue for victims. They must have their day in court. There is no question about it. However in our current system that is not happening.

The justice minister made the proclamation that the Liberals gave victims the right to introduce their victim impact statements in court. Almost in the same breath Bill C-45 was passed which took that right away. The court sits in the same position it did when this began. The victim no longer has the right and the discretion is granted to the judge. He decides whether or not the victim can introduce the statement.

I have listened to section 745 hearings concerning early release for those who have committed first degree murder. Victims have a real struggle trying to tell their story at those hearings. The judge can even edit the victims' statements.

The judge tells the victim what he or she can or cannot say. Yet the accused can get up on the stand and clearly state all his feelings and even reconstruct the events that put him in jail. That is what the jury hears. There is no real opportunity to cross-examine the accused because the trial has long passed and the witnesses are not there to support or deny the story.

The justice minister talked about Bill C-68 and what it has done for victims. What has it done for victims? The bill is quite intrusive into the lives of law-abiding citizens. It will create more victims as opposed to helping them. The bill is an intrusion into the lives of law-abiding gun owners, yet the justice minister claims that it will support victims. I would like to know how the gun control bill will limit the use of firearms in crime. I have not yet heard a plausible answer from that side of the House.

The justice minister talked about Bill C-55 which deals with the incarceration of dangerous and violent offenders. The fact is that violent offenders will still be released on parole. As has been already pointed out, they will be able to victimize the community again. The violent and the dangerous will still be released under Bill C-55, the bill that is supposed to get tough on crime.

I hesitate to speak on some of the other bills which allegedly support victims. With the five bills I have mentioned the chances of victimization occurring is greater now than it was before the Liberals formed the government.

Bill C-46 is intended to strengthen the protection of privacy and equality rights of complainants in prosecutions for a variety of sexual offences. There is no question there needs to be some

revision, but I caution members opposite including the justice minister that false accusations have been made by those claiming sexual abuse. Witnesses, even expert witnesses testifying in sexual abuse cases, have pointed the finger at the so-called accused when the expert witnesses have also been sexual abusers.

What have been the results? In those cases would an innocent person be tossed into jail upon the expert testimony of a witness? I do not think the justice minister or the entourage of lawyers under his purview have really thought about some of those situations. False accusations have been made time and time and time again.

One must admit that when it comes to some of the sexual abuse charges which have been laid not all complainants are true victims. I have had privy in some of my investigations as a police officer to realize that. Whether they be children, male or female, some people have come forward with false accusations of sexual abuse. Those are difficult investigations to involve oneself in. It is difficult to lay out all the information. On the other hand I have seen very legitimate complaints laid and unfortunately no conviction in court.

As a precautionary measure it is always good to have corroborative evidence when it comes to sexual abuse accusations. I remember one investigation that involved children and a high ranking member of the community, a high profile person. The accusation was made by a young lady some 10 years after the offence. It is not that she had forgotten about the incident. It had happened and had a psychological effect on her. Obviously it had been pushed to the back of her memory. Through counselling it actually came forward and the accusation was reported to the police department.

A decision has to be made on the part of an investigator to release the name of any high profile person because the impact on the individual's life could be very substantial. It could be devastating. It could lay his whole life to ruins. I have seen that happen too.

The accusation was made. The investigator made the decision to release the name of the abuser, the high profile person who had committed the act. The outcry from some in the community was substantial: "How dare you do this on the statement of one person?"

Investigators are trained. There are some good ones. Some may not be as experienced but there are some good investigators in criminal abuse or sexual assault cases. There were some very important consistencies in the woman's statement that caused the investigator to release the name of the accused. With that came dozens and dozens and dozens more. There were young victims and some older victims who had been abused by the individual over the years.

The end of this story clearly indicates the need to have a good investigation and qualified investigators. All the information that can be made available should be made available to the courts. It should all be laid out on the table for cross-examination. It could include some of the past of those who are making the complaint. It should not be shut out completely.

This particular incident resulted in the conviction of the accused person. There was a group of individuals who refused to accept the fact that he was guilty of such an offence, and they still believe that to this day.

The accused ended up pleading guilty to a number of charges and he did his time. Justice, I might point out, was nearly served had it not been for the fact that they released him early. An abuser is an abuser and I believe that information should come forward in its finest form.

Let us go to the fact that there could be a false statement made. Some have made accusations against teachers, pastors and others holding high profile positions in society some years after the alleged incidents have taken place. Some of the accusers have had questionable backgrounds. Some had fantasies they have expressed to others that I think would definitely be relevant to the case at hand. I think this is the cautionary side in restricting some of this information because it could mean the difference between guilty or not guilty.

This legislation as it is struck has two built in safeguards in examining the past record of a subject that some may feel is relevant. If the first goes to the judge, is he or she the one who should have the final say in deciding whether this information goes any further? Given some of the comments from the member for Mission-Coquitlam about the decisions and the viewpoints of some judges, I have a major question about that because he would be the one deciding whether the background of a particular witness is suitable to enter as evidence into court.

This individual judge, as mentioned by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, certainly has given rise to another concern. Is each judge in himself or herself suitable in making that decision of what is relevant and what is not? There is a standard drawn up by the prosecution that testified before the committee. It is called the likely relevance standard. There is a requirement here of whether it is sufficient. The concern expressed by the prosecution was that there is not enough definition in this whole area of relevancy when it comes to the background or the records relating to some of the witnesses. Her statement in the end was that for the courts the decision is going to be business as usual.

In other words, because it is not defined as it should be, the lower courts will go on as if nothing has changed with the odd exception that there is going to be an objection somewhere along the way maybe by the crown or the defence over one of the decisions that is

being made and it will be appealed through the appellate court and up to the supreme court.

Here is a qualified prosecutor who has been in the business of producing the arguments necessary to defend or to protect the innocent. This also recognizes that there is a protection and a duty of care required on the part of the accused because ultimately it is the prosecution and the defence who really have the same goals, at least in an ideal sense, that is what our courts should represent. They should have the same goals, to find the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Here is the prosecutor very concerned with the definition of likely relevance when it comes to the decision made on the part of witnesses and their backgrounds being tossed into the lap of one individual, the judge who will evaluate it. She has concerns that it is not really going to do the job.

I listened to a number of those witnesses and I have to say that I believe her statements in testimony were the most relevant to the case. They were the most significant when it comes to the shortfall of Bill C-46.

On that point I can say that Reform has certainly analysed the bill. We have some concerns and reservations about the bill, especially in relation to the records of those people who will testify. With some reservations, at this point we are going to support this legislation. However, as a cautionary note I think this whole area of witnesses or accused testifying in court and making accusations against individuals has not been fully addressed by Bill C-46.

[Organized Crime, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all the Liberal government seems to do is review, review, review. In the meantime the lives of Canadians right across the country are in jeopardy. Canadians are living in fear.

The only way to deal with organized crime is to rip the heart out of its operation. It exists to make a profit. The government has had 3.5 years to do something about it and has failed to do so.

Canadians want safe streets and clean neighbourhoods. They will not tolerate having their lives held hostage by a few lawless people.

If the justice minister is serious about cleaning up biker gangs, will he enact legislation giving the RCMP and the prosecutors special powers to wipe out organized gangs like the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine?

[Organized Crime, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, biker gangs are a scourge and a blight on our society. Gangs like the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine exist for one reason only and that is to commit crime.

In Quebec the biker gangs are killing for control over the lucrative drug trade and prostitution. The same thing is happening in Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. In fact it is happening in every major city in the country.

It is pretty strong evidence that the government's soft on crime approach to criminal justice is an unqualified failure. To make matters worse, the justice minister refuses to debate the benefits of anti-gang legislation.

If the minister will not allow Parliament to consider anti-gang legislation, what specific steps will he take to crush the criminal activities of the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine not only in Quebec but right across the country?