Art Hanger

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to first congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your newly elected position. I would like to thank the minister for her outline. It really spells out what the provincial reconstruction teams would be doing in Afghanistan.

There are bad people around who have killed and continue to kill, suppress and tear down the democratic process that is just starting to grow in Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that there are people in this world who do not care for others apart from using them for their own purposes, which some of the Taliban and a few of the others are doing. That is the situation there under “enduring freedom”.

What is the status of the situation there for the provincial reconstruction teams to fulfill their mandate; that is, reconstructing many of the matters in Afghanistan for the people there?

[Alberta Centennial Medal, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my constituents in Calgary Northeast for their vote of confidence for allowing me to continue to serve them in the House.

As part of Alberta's centennial celebrations, I presented an Alberta centennial medal to Bruce Howe for his outstanding community service. Bruce is a father, an upstanding member of the community and someone whose life was shattered when his daughter Kelly was killed by her partner in 1995, a victim of domestic violence.

Since then, Bruce has raised over $100,000 for five Calgary women's shelters and he has given of himself to save others from the tragedy that he and his wife have been forced to deal with.

After 11 years, Bruce has announced that he will not be able to continue his annual Kelly Howe Star of Hope Campaign. After so much effort, Bruce deserves a rest and he deserves our thanks and gratitude.

His dedication and work have helped those affected by domestic violence and his selfless sacrifice will ensure that Kelly's star will continue to shine bright in the hearts and minds of so many people.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include IBI-ABA therapy for children with autism as a medicinally necessary treatment and require that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my second petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to non-drug preventative medicinal options as well as the information about these options and to sanction the personal choices of Canadians.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting three petitions on behalf of the good people of Calgary Northeast. In the first, petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Correctional Service of Canada, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of concern to people across the country, the decay of our correctional system.

Last week the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police went public with their concerns about lengthy court delays, soaring costs, and lax prison rules that make a mockery of the justice system. York Regional Police Chief La Barge has even had to go to the effort of setting up a new committee to work with government and community leaders in an effort to hold Correctional Service of Canada accountable, including preventing violent criminals from visiting amusement parks at taxpayers expense and risk.

Several years ago, the Canadian Justice Foundation raised public awareness about the fact that a nun was being allowed to take a violent murderer out on day trips, a practice that showed no regard for public safety. Recently, it was reported that inmates were getting access to prison security plans and confidential personnel files.

It is time to slam the door on this cavalier attitude toward violent criminals and put public safety first. If we fail to show criminals there are consequences for their actions, we fail our citizens who will fall prey to their violent acts.

[Child Pornography, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that should concern all of us: the sexual exploitation and abuse of our children relating to the production and trafficking of pornographic images and distribution over the Internet.

Recently a young girl in Calgary was filmed as she was being sexually molested. This heinous crime was broadcast over the Internet via a webcam. The perpetrator was picked up and charged, but later was released on $2,000 bail.

In her mother's words, this crime has robbed their family of so very much, and the man charged with molesting her daughter is still walking our streets.

I ask everyone in this House to consider what they have done to prevent children from being abused like this. For years, some of us have called for tougher laws and sentences for pedophiles and sexual predators, to draw a line in the sand and say that crimes against children will not be tolerated and to strive for a justice system that reflects the serious impact of violent crime.

I therefore call upon this House to support Bill C-286, Carrie's guardian angel law, which is designed to crack down on predators.

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I find this legislation interesting in the sense that quite a battle has raged onward with law enforcement and its legislators in trying to address the whole issue of proceeds.

I remember as a serving officer that in an investigation there was always this matter of trying to seize the goods, whether it was a drug trafficker or some other organized criminal group. There were so many loopholes in the law that many of the organized criminal groups or individuals would simply sign their proceeds over to their lawyer and the Crown could not touch them. For the most part I think that is basically where the legislation sits today.

The other part of it was an issue that would deal with perishable seizures. For instance, there were individuals who went into ranching. Perhaps they would have 500 head of cattle. All the cattle were bought with illicit money from the drug trade. How does one look after 500 head of cattle? Who looks after 500 head of cattle? Is the Crown responsible for looking after 500 head of cattle? The issue became a moot point because nobody wanted to do it. Of course the proceeds would slip away and again end up in the hands of the lawyer who was defending the person.

I am curious. When it comes to an outright seizure, what does the state have to do to prove that the goods were obtained through illegal activity? What hoops does the Crown have to jump through? The legislation can say a certain thing, but until we see it all played out on the ground, we will not really know how effective it is going to be.

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the whole issue of minimum sentences came up as a result of legislation in the past, which eliminated, or which confused, and I guess that might be a better way of putting it, this whole issue of consequences for one's actions. Before then, the law took care of that. The law said that if we broke the law or rule we would pay a price for it. That ruled the courtroom. I was a police officer during those years to see it. There was precedent. There were issues that dealt specifically with the crime. Yes, the judge had discretion, but he looked at the safety of the individuals, the safety of the community and the consequences to fit the act that was committed.

There does not seem to be that philosophy anymore in the whole issue of judicial decisions. In fact, it is almost like situational ethics. Let us talk about a lawyer. I was going to say a Philadelphia lawyer, but how about a Bay Street lawyer? A lawyer would come in and say, “Look, this guy did this because of these reasons and any normal person would do the same thing”. Maybe that is stretching it a little bit, but the argument is there: it is that situation and it warrants a different judgment so there is no consistency anymore. Once a precedent is set, even a new precedent, in any law or any case, then suddenly that becomes the issue for the entire court to follow. It just deteriorates over time.

Why are minimum sentences now the topic of discussion? Because it is the only way to hold accountable--something that our government will not do--those courts that decide these are frivolous matters and warrant only minor sentences. On this side of the House, we want to ensure that there is some sort of consequence to the action of an individual. I do not know what the members on the other side think, but that is what is behind minimum sentences. I believe that even legislation like Bill C-49 should be addressing these matters clearly.

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abbotsford has contributed a great deal, both in this country and this House, to the issue of sentencing and the issue of the drug debate and the lack of drug law enforcement in this country. I appreciate his question.

By the way, what is the rationale? I would like to poll the members across to see if there is some sort of consensus about why there are low sentences even though legislation may come out with maximums that sound really tough. What is really behind that? The rhetoric makes it sound tough, but when it comes to the reality of the way the courts work in our nation, will tough sentences ever be delivered? Is that what is behind this?

I go back to the days of the Trudeau era of the Liberal government and men like Warren Allmand wanting to cut the feet out from underneath sound judicial reasoning. If we want to talk about changing the sentencing program, we just have to look at that man to see what he has done in this nation, all the way from murder on down.

At that time capital punishment was still around. He rationalized it away. People in this country were never consulted, but he rationalized it away, saying that we could not put a man in jail for life. It is a waste of a life, he said. I think those were his words.

As a result, he threw in the faint hope clause and down came the sentencing. At that time he laid down the law and shaped the future of what this country was going to look like from the judicial and the sentencing points of view. Shame on him, for he has jeopardized the safety of so many. I think that is really the philosophical root of what we see today. Unless somebody else explains otherwise to me, that is what I believe has happened.