Sharon Hayes

[Petitions, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is again from a group in my area. They call on Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put a hold on any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.

I am pleased to present both these petitions.

[Petitions, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to rise to present two petitions from residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia.

The first one is from Sun Hope Petitions in memory of Andre Castet. The petitioners would like to draw attention to a great public concern that sexual predators are at large in our streets without public notification.

They feel that Bill C-37 does not address the public's call for substantial revisions of the YOA and they call on the House to enact legislation to reform the justice system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act addressing a number of principles, primarily that new laws would ensure that sexual predators are kept off the streets and placed in a secure setting until they no long represent a threat to public safety.

[Petitions, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today to draw the attention of the House on behalf of many of the constituents in my own riding and around the lower mainland to the following: That, Canadian law does not prohibit convicted criminals from profiting financially by writing books, setting up 1-900 lines, producing videos.

The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

My colleague says that only Reformers are connected. We care about representing our constituents. Why do the Liberals not care what their constituents are thinking?

The private members' bill put forward by the member for York South-Weston has been ignored, has been swept under the carpet. It demanded repeal of section 745 and that is where we should be going, not tinkering, not doing what we did with the YOA, but making real change.

Seventy-four members supported that bill. Where are they today? Where are the government members who should be saying that we do need change. We need repeal of section 745. For goodness sake, why does the justice department reign without consideration of where Canadians are coming from. These members march in lock step with government priorities, whether it be automatic parole, or treatment of illegal immigrants or the small minority of immigrants who break the law. These are all things which are a total disgrace to Canadians. The government is not treating the criminal justice system with its due priority nor is it reflecting the views of Canadians.

The member for Skeena asked some excellent questions. What do we say to a woman whose husband was murdered and we know she has to live with the pain for the rest of her life while the criminal has a chance to go free in 15 years? What do we say to children whose mother was raped and killed by a repeat offender who was released early by a justice system that does not take the crime seriously? What do we say to the families of Clifford Olson's victims when he applies for early release? What do I say to the

moms and teens who will live on the same street as that young offender who will be released in three years?

Liberal members who have spoken have no appreciation of the anger that is out there or the overwhelming public support for a capital punishment referendum. Reform listens and we speak to and support that. How can these MPs say they are representatives? They have managed to miss the message. Who are they listening to? They are not hearing the people I am hearing.

I say today that we should repeal, not tinker with section 745. Along with my colleagues I will vote against Bill C-45.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code in the judicial review of parole ineligibility and another act.

I will start with a question. Where is the government coming from? What in the world is it doing? Having been here for just about three years I ask the question are we better off in any capacity now than we were three years ago? I wonder, in terms of the criminal justice system, what in the world the government is doing with this amendment.

Bill C-45 purportedly toughens the justice system. I would say today that it is simply a half hearted public relations effort, as is most of what the government has done in its supposed reforms, in an effort to show the Canadian public that it is doing something.

I will look briefly at the history of the justice system's response to this particular issue, a first degree murderer.

We see a record that actually started in the era of another Liberal, Prime Minister Trudeau. At that time, the rights of the criminals and the process of the rehabilitation of criminals overtook, within the justice system, any idea of the importance or the pre-eminence of the idea of the protection of law-abiding citizens.

Since the time of Trudeau, both traditional parties, Liberals and Conservatives, have spent those 20 intervening years becoming softer and softer on crime and criminals. The sad fact is that one cannot get softer on criminals without making life more difficult

for society in general, as well as for the victims of the crimes that they commit.

First, capital punishment was replaced with life imprisonment. Later, parole was provided so that life, even life of a 25-year sentence, no longer meant that 25 years. A faint hope clause was introduced, as was described earlier by many of my colleagues, which gave an automatic right to apply for early parole at 15 years. Records show that the possibility of it is very good.

In the meantime, the system is tied up with criminals, such as we have heard about today like Clifford Olson, who have a right to a process which makes no sense to the essence of justice or to the majority of Canadians.

Today, with this amendment we come to another step in this process with a government that is full of bleeding heart Liberals who think that withholding parole from only multiple murderers constitutes being tough on crime. How ridiculous. The Liberal government today pretends that action is being taken in the criminal justice system. There is nothing here that is substantive, nothing helpful. What it is doing is at total cross purposes to the good of our society.

I would like to remind the House of the recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act and the amendments made by this government purportedly to make that system work better. That too was a smokescreen for a mindset that did not take crime seriously. It was these amendments that put society at a greater risk today.

In my constituency-I have spoken of this before-a little over two years ago, there was a murder. It has been mentioned by my colleague. It was a cold-blooded murder, a kicking to death of a young man on one of our streets five blocks from my home. They were two young offenders.

Our community reacted to that with an outpouring of heartfelt petition to government to make some change. Over 3,000 people came together at a rally. Never has an event like that happened in my constituency before. Over 3,000 people participated.

This summer, the then 15-year old and now 17-year old, with the changes made by this government to the Young Offenders Act was raised to adult court. His case was reviewed and he was sentenced according to the adult court provisions for young offenders, again specifically in response to the amendments made by this government.

The cold-blooded murderer of Graham Niven on the streets of our town would have received 10 years under the previous Young Offenders Act. Given that he was raised to adult court, he received five years for cold-blooded murder. Because he had already served two years in the intervening time, he will be on the streets of Port Moody-Coquitlam in three years. From what I understand that young man has shown no repentance, no sense of guilt or remorse. Yet in three years' time that young man who committed cold-blooded murder will be in our community, on our streets, thanks to grand amendments made by the government under the pretence of making the judicial system better. The system does not care or demand accountability. The system does not care about public safety on the streets of our cities.

I know that my constituents do not think that Bill C-45 is tough on crime. I know that my colleagues' constituents do not think that Bill C-45 is tough on crime. Canadians do not think that this bill is tough on crime. Once again the Liberals are out of touch with the Canadian people. They have no interest in the views of Canadians. They seem to want to represent the views of the justice department which is disconnected, the views of a justice minister who has repeatedly shown us that he is disconnected and the views of a Prime Minister who is disconnected from the beliefs and wishes of the Canadian people.

[Cyprus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the debate today. I am pleased to speak in support of this motion.

I read it into the record again:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support all measures leading to the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus in such a way as to enhance prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute regarding Cyprus that would benefit all the people of Cyprus and bring about an end to more than two decades of division on the island.

I have heard from people in my constituency of the situation on the island, of the heartbreak, of the conflict, of the number of years of difficulty in that region.

In the debate today we saw an example of the international community on two accounts, first the international community in the recommendations it put forward, security resolution 939, which actually recommended a resolution process to the problem on Cyprus. Unfortunately on the international scene we have also seen an example of international complacency on an issue that has gone on for 24 years on this island.

Today we are debating something that hopefully will be a move toward the solution in areas of security concerns of the people who live on that island along with their friends and relatives around the world, hopefully a solution that will be a lasting peaceful solution.

There will be no simple solution, but perhaps to find the first step is what we are about today. That first step, the bridge to peace, may be and hopefully is the step of demilitarization on that island. Canada today has an opportunity to be part of that solution as it speaks up. As was just said, all three parties are in agreement for that.

Our party certainly feels private members' motions need to be taken seriously. We commend the private member who brought this forward. However, we do not feel that one hour of debate is enough for an issue like this or for anything a private member has worked on.

I ask for unanimous consent to make Motion No. 239 votable. It is an opportunity for all parties together to speak for peace in the world.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the last two petitions are from people from Ontario. One is from Toronto and area and the other is from other areas of Ontario.

The petitioners ask that Parliament support private member's Motion No. 91 which calls for a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

I present these petitions with pleasure today.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is that Parliament not amend the human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships. This petition is from B.C. and Ontario residents.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present two petitions from Canadians opposing the recent amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I believe it is an insult to these Canadians and to the concerns of many others the way the government shut down debate in the recent treatment of Bill C-33.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present four petitions concerning a bill which was recently passed in the House. Two of the petitions are from the constituency of Port Moody-Coquitlam and two are from Ontario.

All of the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.