Sharon Hayes

[Petitions, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.

I support this petition and call on the government to-

[International Women's Day, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is an important opportunity to speak out for all women and all concerns.

Government policy and priority focus solely on equal workforce participation and economic autonomy for women. I speak today for many women caught in the time crunch of competing demands. I speak for the ultimate concern of many women, their communities, their homes and their children. I speak for their right to make choices and be free from economic and social penalty in raising their own children. I speak for the many men and women who recognize that some of the greatest architects, engineers and scientists are those who build and work not in the marketplace but in the shaping of our future generations.

Today I salute their right to be heard by a government that has been deaf to their concerns. Today I am proud to stand with the Reform Party whose fresh start policies include their voice.

[Justice, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 16-year-olds cannot buy cigarettes, 16-year-olds cannot vote but in 1988 the Conservative government reduced the age of consent from 16 to 14.

Liberal proposals continue to do nothing to prevent children from being commandeered by adults for sex. It is no accident that the average age of recruitment for prostitution is 14. What will the justice minister do to protect our most vulnerable citizens? When will he raise the age of consent from 14 to 16?

[Petitions, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition from people in my riding and in neighbouring ridings that draws to the attention of the House the fact that 38 per cent of the national highway system is substandard.

The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the upgrading of the national highway system possible.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from individuals in the lower mainland area.

These petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to keep dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life; eliminate statutory release; impose stiffer sentences for violent offenders; have criminals serve their full sentences and have time added for bad behaviour; have a central registry for names and addresses of violent offenders; give more powers to legal institutions to keep dangerous criminals even after their sentence is served; give police authority in apprehending and interrogating violent offenders, including the ability to take blood and saliva samples; eliminate the

insanity or drunk defence; impose stiffer laws and sentences for stalker criminals; and reinstate capital punishment for first degree murderers if there is not doubt of guilt.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first petition is from 140 individuals from across British Columbia.

The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate their commitment to education and literacy by zero rating books, magazines and newspapers under both the GST and the harmonized sales tax.

They also ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove the federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.

[Unemployment, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberals do not like to be reminded of their promises, but the Prime Minister could not escape the frustration of Canadians about the broken promises on CBC's town hall last night. Jobs, jobs, jobs. It was evident then, as it is every day in the House, that the government has no real solutions to ensure a reduction in unemployment.

Reform's tax reduction strategy is the real solution. For low income Canadians our tax reductions would reduce their tax bill in most cases to zero and provide them a credit that would be put toward job training and education. For middle class families tax reductions will provide up to $2,000 more in their pockets each year by the year 2000. This will help the growing number of entrepreneurs that are starting their own businesses or improve consumer spending.

The reductions in capital gains tax and unemployment insurance premiums which the Liberals despise so much will give Canada's job creators more incentive to create jobs. Canadians now have a real choice.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Red Deer.

I am pleased tonight to be able to speak to the commemoration of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both to reflect on its helpfulness in providing guidelines for national institutions and specific human rights issues as well as to call on the Canadian government to account for the steady erosion of these principles in public policy today.

Forty-eight years ago the world, having endured two world wars, one which threatened the global with the spectre of fascism, called on its leaders to commit to a fundamental standard of responsibility toward both their own citizens and to people around the world.

Forty-eight years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born to form the basis of many national human rights acts. In 1976 it was coupled with the international covenant of economic, social and cultural rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the optional protocol to the latter covenant, to become the international bill of human rights.

The declaration has much to commend it. It has been used to protect many vulnerable Canadians. It has been used not only to direct public policy but also to remind individual Canadians in their own private relationships about their responsibility to respect others. It has been used to frame policy which has made Canada a safe haven for those who have fled from oppression and almost certain death in their own country.

Unfortunately, as each day passes it becomes more and more evident that Canada has lost its commitment to the essence of the human rights debate, the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. With the loss of the vision it has also lost its commitment to our fundamental institutions.

In my brief time tonight I want to reflect on three issues, the lack of protection for existing basic human rights, the evolution of the broader interpretation of rights, with their infringement on existing rights and basic institutions, and the denial of the full equality of Canadians.

First I want to talk about the erosion of our protections. There have been many UN conferences in the past few years on a wide range of issues, from population to habitat, from women to the environment. It has become clear that special interests dictate the agenda, not those representing the main concerns of many countries.

The UN process is not democratic, in violation of the universal declaration's affirmation of the importance of democracy. Certainly in Canada there is no accountability to Parliament to ensure that delegates accurately reflect the views of our country.

My own experience at the Beijing conference on women showed me how developed countries, including and especially Canada, trampled the human rights of delegates from other countries as well as those of Canadians. When they are advancing narrow special interests, the commitment made to the most basic of human rights like the freedom of opinion, conscience and religion found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not matter.

I read into the record last week a statement from the official Canadian facilitating committee report. It specifically advised Canadians to criticize the opinions of Muslims, Catholics, pro-life groups and REAL Women. This kind of intolerance, which is condemned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, appears to have become standard policy among Canadian delegations to UN conferences over the past few years.

Even more disturbing is the way countries like Canada use the UN to lever legislative change in Canada as well as in the domestic policies of developing countries, contrary to the democratic process. An example of the influence of the UN policy is in the guise of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which seeks to broaden children's rights at the expense of family and parental autonomy.

The most significant institution recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the broader international bill of human rights is the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society. Yet astonishingly this is one of the sections which is most ignored by the federal government today.

The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in article 10 states that the widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependant children.

The international covenant on civil and political rights, in article 23, says that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.

The framers of these documents recognized that the family was the key social institution for effectively realizing all other rights that are mentioned.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is being used to eliminate parental freedom and responsibility in child discipline through its demand that Canada repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Despite the strong majority view in Canada that the discipline of children should be the prerogative of parents, the UN has demanded that Canada repeal the protection for parents who choose to use responsible corporal punishment.

The fact that such a demand comes not through democratic process but by way of an international body does not seem to matter. The fact that it attacks the autonomy of parents and, therefore, the UN's human rights commitment to the family seems to be irrelevant. The fact that such a decision has ramifications for the freedoms of religion, opinion and conscience which are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not appear to matter.

Canada's leading anti-corporal punishment group, the Repeal 43 Committee said that: "Freedom of religious belief does not include the freedom to engage in practices that threaten health and safety," yet there is no evidence to defend its link between responsible corporal punishment and health and safety.

Reform supports the original understanding of human rights as they apply to children, that is protection rights which obligate us to make the health and well-being of children a priority by combating abuse and seeking their best interests in situations such as family break-up.

But in the same Beijing document I cited earlier we can read the following: "Human rights activists applauded a Canadian breakthrough that recognizes children's evolving rights to make their own decisions even though the issue pits a child's right to learn about issues against the right of parents to prevent access to subjects in which they do not believe".

The new notion that legitimate protection rights should be expanded to include what could be termed choice rights for children denies the autonomy and importance of parenting and the family. Despite the problems associated with giving children the freedom to make choices they are not ready to make, and despite the opposition of most Canadian parents toward this idea, Canada has been advancing this ideology domestically and on the international stage.

Finally, another violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the system of special rights that has contaminated almost very sphere of public policy in this nation.

The Reform Party has told Canadians clearly in our fresh start election platform that we support the repeal of section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for the establishment of discriminatory treatment of Canadians based on sex, race, ethnic origin, family status and other irrelevant characteristics. Untold destructive policies have been introduced in Canada and justified by this mentality: employment equity, official bilingualism, official multiculturalism, the ongoing paternalism toward out native population and divisive immigration policies.

It is astounding that in 48 years, almost half a century, the Canadian government has lost its commitment to true equality and the dignity of every human being.

In conclusion, those who constructed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had noble intentions. They worked hard and produced a commendable document. Unfortunately, while bureaucrats and governments have been busy redefining and massaging the message to their own ends, here in Canada and elsewhere real human rights abuses still exist.

There are many around the world who face death each day as they take a stand for the most basic of human rights. The spirit and letter of the universal declaration supports their cause and calls on the world to respond. There is much to be done at home and abroad to honour our 1948 commitment. Let us never lose sight of its original intent.

[Status Of Women, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday two members from the other side attempted to justify the government's status of women portfolio.

The member for Halifax mentioned the department's commitment to women's health. But at the recent Canada-U.S. health forum, Canadian breast cancer advocates found themselves unaware of the conference's objectives and were shocked to discover their American counterparts had not even been invited.

The member for Halifax also spoke of the role status of women played at the UN Conference on Women in Beijing. What she did not mention was Canada's support for the marginalization of many Canadian women in order to advance its narrow agenda.

The official Canadian facilitating committee report classified the Vatican, pro-life groups and REAL Woman as fundamentalist groups and went on to say that: "Constant criticism of fundamentalist discourses is a collective responsibility because they endanger the rights of women all over the world".

I would like to know if the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, while standing on Canadian soil in front of Canadian citizens, including her own constituents, will defend this statement.

[Taxation, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing for these families. Under Reform's plan these families would pay no federal taxes and would instead receive a refund of $690.

Contrary to the minister's statement yesterday, 6.1 million low income Canadians now pay taxes. We do not need a new, sophisticated system or a new government program, as the minister suggests. Anyone can see that these Canadians are being crushed under the burden of taxation. Will the minister just lower their taxes?