Beryl Gaffney

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present 25 signatures from people in the Ottawa area, six from my city of Nepean.

These petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Peacekeeping, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

On Wednesday this House debated Canada's peacekeeping role under the UN banner with a view to reaching a decision on Canada's commitments. Will the minister please explain to this House today if a decision has been made with regard to peacekeeping in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the former Yugoslavia and, if so, the reasons behind his decision?

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing of criminal offenders.

Since the opening of the 35th Parliament on January 17, 1994 this government has set in motion a number of initiatives to reform and strengthen Canada's justice system.

Amendments have been tabled in the House of Commons to revise the Young Offenders Act to crack down on violent youth offenders. Legislation has been introduced to reform the corrections and parole systems in order to improve our handling of sex offenders and, in particular, those who victimize children.

Today we are discussing the initiative announced by the Minister of Justice to reform the sentencing process in the Criminal Code. Bill C-41 is a well balanced, wide ranging bill that not only reorganizes but rationalizes the sentencing system in Canada. These reforms provide a number of options that address the public's concern for safety and the victims' demands for restitution. They include an important principle that serious offenders should be treated differently from minor or first time offenders.

Currently Parliament's role in sentencing is limited to setting maximum penalties for specific offences. The court systems in each province have been responsible for determining the purposes and principles of sentencing. As a result the values in sentencing structures in Canada's judicial system have varied from province to province.

Under the proposal a statement of purpose and principles would be added to the Criminal Code to provide guidance to judges from coast to coast in the sentencing process. The statement describes the objectives of sentencing as follows. They help in the rehabilitation of offenders as law-abiding persons, separate offenders from society where necessary, providing restitution to individual victims or the community, promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders including encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims, denouncing unlawful conduct and finally deterring the offender and other people from committing offences.

This provision would allow the federal government to take a lead role in directing the courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing, that is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

Furthermore the proposed statement of principles would direct the courts to hand down sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes. The proposed statement of principles would meet the concern about hate motivated crime and crime committed by those in a position of trust or authority in society. It would state that these types of crimes must be considered aggravating circumstances, therefore carrying heavier weight when handing down a sentence.

Bill C-41 also provides amendments to the Criminal Code that would improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sentencing system. First it needs to amend the probation provisions of the Criminal Code. The proposal would encourage the transfer of important information to the courts during sentencing hearings.

The Criminal Code would be amended to specify that basic information be included in pre-sentence reports, including the offenders' juvenile records, their criminal records, information about the offenders' employment and social history and active steps taken toward rehabilitation.

Furthermore the bill seeks to strengthen the penalties for breach of probation. Strict time limits for reporting to a probation officer, for example, will be added to the Criminal Code. The penalties for breaking these conditions of probation would also be increased to bring more credibility to the probation system.

Second, if the bill is adopted by the House it will work to decrease the work load of Canada's already overburdened court system. Like most Canadians, I shudder every time I hear of a case that has been thrown out of court because of delays caused by an exhausted court docket.

The bill provides alternative measures to court proceedings that would prevent more criminal behaviour and would lessen the harm that can sometimes be done when minor offenders are dealt with through the courts. Furthermore alternative measures would involve the community and put greater emphasis on victim-offender reconciliation in court proceedings.

A final area of concern addressed by the bill is the impact of criminal activities on the victims of crimes. I am pleased the Minister of Justice has listened to the needs and concerns of those citizens. Victims feel a sense of frustration and loss when dealing with the criminal justice system. They want their voices heard. In particular they want to be involved in the process and have their interests taken into account during sentencing hearings. Bill C-41 addresses these concerns.

In recent years our justice system has seen the development and limited use of victim impact statements. The bill would oblige judges in sentencing hearings to consider these statements when handing down their penalties. This would ensure that a victim has the opportunity to speak about the harm inflicted upon them by the offender and would ensure that the victim's experience was taken into account in determining whether the parole ineligibility should be reduced.

We all know that crime is very costly not only to the judicial system but more importantly to the victims I speak of. Often expensive or cherished family heirlooms and personal possessions are stolen, lost or damaged during the commission of a crime. Currently if victims wish to seek restitution for personal or property damages they must make a special application to the court or seek recourse through costly civil litigation.

While they should not lose their right to follow a civil course of action, Bill C-41 would allow judges under their own volition to consider restitution to cover property and personal injury suffered by victims.

We can be proud of these proposals. They are indicative of the government's commitment to the rights of the victims of crime.

I would like to take a moment to compliment the Nepean Police Services victim crisis branch for the work it has been performing for victims of crime since 1983. Staffed mainly by a large contingency of trained volunteers from my city of Nepean, the service provides direct crisis intervention assessment, short term counselling and referral to suitable community resources to individuals and families that suffer the effects of trauma due to crime.

The mandate of the Nepean victim crisis branch not only operates in the best interest of the client it serves but follows the mandate set out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

I am pleased to stand here today in support of Bill C-41. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice for having the heart and courage to listen to Canadians and for carrying out the promises we on this side of the House laid out in our electoral platforms. I am convinced that all who carefully examine the provisions of the bill will recognize that it is in the best interest of Canada and works toward restoring Canadians' faith in the safety of their homes and streets.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to the Customs Act.

Bill C-44 goes a long way to address the concerns of many people. It provides the necessary tools and authority to maintain the integrity of our immigration and refugee system. There are a number of key points to the bill which merit highlighting. I would like to highlight a few.

Immigration officials, for example, would be given expanded powers to seize suspicious documents for inspection. Enforcement officers would have the authority to prohibit the shipment of documents which could be used to circumvent the rules and regulations of the Canada Immigration Act. These papers are the documents used to establish false identities to enable persons to enter and travel to Canada illegally.

Last year during a five-month period over 120 packages containing one or more status or identity documents were found in major Canadian cities each week. These packages had to be returned to the mails because there was no authority to seize them.

Under the provisions of Bill C-44 serious criminals will be prevented from using the refugee process to delay their removal from Canada. It should be noted that this is not a violation of their human rights. The United Nations convention on the status of refugees recognizes that some individuals are not deserving of protection because they had committed serious criminal offences.

This bill would also transfer from the immigration appeals division to the minister of immigration the authority to disallow permanent residents convicted of serious crimes to remain in the country on humanitarian grounds.

As many hon. members in the House are aware the immigration appeals division has recently been involved in a number of controversial decisions that allowed certain people to stay in Canada in spite of the crimes they previously committed. This amendment will place this important and controversial duty squarely in the hands of the minister, which I believe makes the system more accountable to Parliament.

Nevertheless, the immigration appeals division will retain jurisdiction to stay removal orders on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for permanent residents convicted of minor offences.

There are a number of serious other provisions in Bill C-44 that I believe will have a positive impact on our immigration and refugee system. For example, a person who is found to have made multiple claims will not be able to pursue a claim of their choice once the series of claims has been discovered. Instead, the first claim will now take precedence and the Immigration and Refugee Board will be notified to terminate all subsequent claims.

Senior immigration officers would also have authority to make removal orders besides the powers they have now at ports of entry and inland. In addition, all permanent residents who are ordered removed will lose their permanent resident status.

Abuse of Canada's immigration system and the existence of criminal immigrants and refugees are real serious concerns to many people in my constituency of Nepean. During the summer months I held a forum in my riding to garner the views and ideas of my constituents regarding Canada's immigration policy.

Throughout the evening a number of topics with a wide range of opinions were examined. One of the underlying themes of the discussion was a tremendous concern about newcomers who undermine the integrity of our immigration and refugee system.

The people of Nepean recognize that crime in Canada is not a result of any particular ethnocultural group of immigrants or refugees. They do however clearly feel that we must take steps to prevent criminals from entering Canada, expel those who commit crimes while in the country and impose barriers to those who have been able to cheat the system, attempting to enter Canada under false pretences.

A copy of the full report on the thoughts of the participants at the Nepean forum has been filed with the minister of immigration.

I firmly believe that Bill C-44 will work to tighten up our enforcement system and help to restore not only the faith of my constituents but of all Canadians in the integrity of our immigration and refugee system.

I am confident that hon. members in this House will see the merits of Bill C-44 and join me in supporting this legislation. We owe it to the people of Canada, both native born and newcomers alike, to ensure that our country is a nation where peace, prosperity and safety prevail.

[Laughter Day, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Laughing Does Matter is an interest group of professionals and volunteers who promote the benefits of laughter in all walks of life.

Thanks to the efforts of Irene Martin and the late Marjorie Mann, June 21 has been declared Laughter Day in Ottawa-Carleton. They are encouraging Parliament to proclaim this date as National Laughter Day.

Laughter tends to bring us together as a community and as a country. Laughter serves as a valuable coping mechanism and has many physical, psychological and social benefits. Sometimes Canadians need a shot in the arm to help them deal with the realities and uncertainties of job loss, high unemployment or just making ends meet. It is a well-known fact in the health care field that laughter helps dissipate fears, frustrations and anger. It helps people regain the health and energy they need to keep on fighting.

I invite Canadians from coast to coast and my colleagues in the House of Commons to join us in celebrating Laughter Day. Let us all have a good laugh today.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank everyone on all sides of the House for speaking in support of Motion M-14.

The motion has received a tremendous amount of interest right across the country. There have been an incredible number of contacts made to me personally from every province, from women, from custodial parents and from payers whom I want to thank publicly in the House of Commons.

This motion was born because of the plight of children. We as a nation have said consistently that to look after children we must decrease poverty. We must ensure that our children are properly looked after.

It was because of people bringing the issue to my attention during the recent federal election campaign that I brought the issue forward in the House of Commons. It has been a great privilege for me to have had the opportunity to present it and to have three one-hour debates on the votable motion before the House.

Again, on behalf of all parents and all children, I hope we have unanimous consent in the House to approve the motion. I thank the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice. There is no doubt in my mind that we will move ahead to enact some change to the Income Tax Act to allow the children to be better taken care of.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to have the consent of the House for a few moments to close the debate on this very important matter.

[Petitions, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition with 400 signatures of residents of Canada whereby these petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision which states that the relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren is a natural, fundamental one; that the denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have a serious detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents and the grandchildren; and in no case may a father or a mother, without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and the grandparents.

We as parliamentarians have a strong obligation to uphold the right of grandparents and I encourage all members of the House to do so.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today in support of the efforts of Debbie Mahaffy in her quest to have the importation of killer cards seized at the Canada-U.S. border to stop their distribution in Canada.

I applaud the efforts of the Minister of Justice for tabling his draft legislation in the House of Commons on April 30, 1994 dealing with serial killer cards and board games.

Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their products if destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.

[Income Tax Act, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is supplemental to the one previously asked in the House with regard to today's Federal Court of Appeal decision on child support payments and is for the finance minister.

In recent weeks many members on all sides of the House have spoken in support of changes to the Income Tax Act with regard to how child support payments are taxed.

Will the minister please take into consideration those members' views before making any decision on the approach the government will take?