Art Hanger

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, June 13th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I know that this member is pretty new to this House. I would like to make a comment and then pose a question to him. The comment will reflect the amount of time that I have spent in the House and certainly, border issues were on the table long before this bill was ever introduced.

In fact, I can reflect back to 1994 and the disbandment of the ports police, a dedicated force that was stationed at every harbour in the country that was of significance. I remember the controversy about the disbandment of that particular organization.

I can also reflect back over the disbandment of the tracker units that were designed strictly to go after illegal entrants, foreign criminals, as they made their way into this country. That unit specialized in tracking people down who were of that ilk. However, the Liberal government of the day chose to disband it.

I would like the member, since he has made a thorough presentation offering support for this particular bill, to tell this House what problems arose in this country after the ports police was disbanded and how Bill C-26 would fix it?

[Petitions, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with marriage. The petitioners state that marriage is in the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. They 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.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition draws to the attention of the House that juvenile type one diabetes creates many devastating health consequences that produce not only a huge human cost but also a large financial burden for the Canadian health care system and the economy as a whole. Diabetes is one of the most costly chronic diseases, costing Canadians in excess of $10 billion a year, making it one of the nation's most costly illnesses.

The petitioners seek to secure federal funding, targeted specifically to juvenile type one diabetes research, of $25 million a year for the next five years.

[Justice, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the actions and comments of the Prime Minister's colleague are unjustifiable. It is too bad he did not share that deep concern for the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and the pain they have had to endure and continue to endure because of comments like that. To lend moral support to Karla Homolka is nothing short of repugnant.

My question to the Prime Minister--

[Justice, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the whole Liberal caucus should be choked over the comments from that man. That Liberal caucus member stated that he felt the restrictions facing Homolka--

[Justice, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, a Liberal colleague of his offered strong support to notorious schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka by attending her recent court hearing in Quebec. That member actually stated that he did not consider her to be dangerous. In fact, the way the Prime Minister's caucus colleague spoke of Homolka, one would think that she was some kind of martyr who was unjustly punished by a totalitarian regime, namely Canada.

Does the Prime Minister condone his caucus member's comments and behaviour?

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of my colleague in his reflection on the legislation that is before us. Over the number of years that I have been here, along with other colleagues in my party, I have had the opportunity to travel to many border crossing across the country, from Victoria all the way out to Halifax.

One issue that came up time and again was the number of people assigned to enforce border security. The RCMP in particular had a certain function and I can give an anecdotal account in British Columbia. Four RCMP officers were assigned to cover the border from Victoria to the Alberta border 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is impossible, ultimately, to do that. That was about two and a half years ago and I do not think anything much has changed since then.

We have heard a lot of talk ever since 9/11 about increasing border security and cracking down on individuals crossing both ways but we have not seen any major increase in personnel on the borders nor specific training. As my colleague mentioned, the officers who are charged with this duty are not armed and they should be armed because there are more dangerous people out there than there ever has been before.

Does my colleague have any recent knowledge about what the Liberal government has done to truly beef up security at the borders, if anything? I know there has been a lot of talk on the other side but just what has changed?

[Organized Crime, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the proverb goes, “there is nothing new under the sun”, and that applies to the actions of our government charged with the responsibility to control all crime and look after the good citizens of our country.

Why then is law and order breaking down?

Let us put it into perspective. Drive by shootings, gang wars, fraudulent telemarketing schemes, identity theft, drug operations and juvenile prostitution, to name but a few, are very much prevalent in every community. The alarming aspect, and we should be more than alarmed, is that organized crime launders between $5 billion and $17 billion a year from these activities. Dirty money in the hands of dirty people.

Is it that some in authority are playing in the same sandbox as the shadowy figures of the underworld or are politicians just turning a blind eye to organized criminal activity? Whichever, our justice and law enforcement systems have been compromised and the results are devastating.

No, there is nothing new about politicians not acting when they should. We in the House had better get out of our comfy chairs and address the problem of organized crime before it is too late.

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling 13 petitions totalling 1,266 names dealing with the marriage issue.

The petitioners feel that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Criminal Code, May 6th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-378, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill. Under this bill, everyone who is convicted for a second time of a violent offence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, in other words, two strikes and they are out. In so doing, these criminals will never again be able to harm anyone.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes, on the street or in their communities. In short, Canadians want a country in which they are not constantly looking over their shoulders to see who is coming after them.

This bill sends a strong message to the perpetrators of violent crimes that if convicted for a second time, they will be locked away for a very long time.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)