Sharon Hayes

[Young Offenders Act, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of my constituents regarding the proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-37.

In my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam a rally of over 5,000 Canadians took place on September 25, 1994 to publicly demand changes to this act. This rally reflects the national demand for change to a justice system that caters to the rights of the criminal, young or old, rather than the security of society. A few brief weeks ago over 2,000 more concerned Canadians near my area marched for changes to the justice system on behalf of Melanie Carpenter.

The Minister of Justice has stated that such public outcries are an emotional response to media headlines. How wrong he is. These are the responses of people who have had enough and now realize they are not alone in their hurt and anger.

Yes, there is a shocking, tangible anger against the system. The rallying cry of the Jesse Cadmans, the Graham Nivens, the Melanie Carpenters, all tragic victims of this system, has served as the catalyst for a too long silent and threatened majority. Their concerns are real and widespread. And they, the people of Canada, must be heard.

Today I wish to speak directly for my constituents. I cannot do less. In August last year with requests pouring in, my office sponsored a meeting to respond to demands to organize a public rally following the senseless and tragic death of Graham Niven. We arranged for a room to accommodate 20 and then 50 people. That night over 300 people came to volunteer to make something happen.

Led by a core dedicated committee of about a dozen committed individuals, literally hundreds of community volunteers organized and successfully ran the rally one month later. Their message echoes the concerns of Canadians across this land.

Young offenders should be held individually responsible for harm done by their acts. They should know that they face certain consequences for breaking the laws of this land. Police officers must be given back the mandate to enforce laws designed to protect our communities. Parents must be given the authority over and the responsibility for the actions of their children. It is only thus that the very real fears of youth, women, parents and seniors, all citizens, of this rising violent attitude in our streets and in our schools can be adequately addressed.

The current Young Offenders Act has a statement of principle which recognizes that young people should have a special guarantee of their rights and freedoms. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that any treatment of a young offender requires their consent. This same misled interpretation would still apply unless specifically addressed in this new legislation. Let me share with you some real life examples.

A Richmond court worker, a frontline worker, wrote that Bill C-37 does not go far enough. He said: "Young offenders are laughing at us and rubbing our noses in a system which leaves them unaccountable for their actions". It is not uncommon to see young offenders laugh at their sentence and wink at their buddies in the public area of the courtroom. He said that it was time that we stop giving them something to be proud of and instead give them something to think about.

The system is not tough enough and this only encourages recidivism. The statistics speak for themselves in that approximately 75 per cent of 12 and 13 year olds are first time offenders. This decreases to 58 per cent of 14 and 15 year olds and falls further to 50 per cent of 16 and 17 year olds. The study declared that those youths who did reoffend usually had far more than one prior conviction. These young offenders are obviously not deterred from continuing to violate the law. The present experience with the law and the court system obviously does not serve the offender or society. Canadian families pay the price for this failure.

Share for a moment the grief of a Langley, B.C. couple whose 17-year old son was shot and killed by a 16-year old who had just been released from custody. They wrote in their letter to me: "Ours is a lifetime loss of a young man with a brilliant future. We will never forget him or the atrocity".

Diane Sowden, a mother of a 14-year old young offender in my riding, shared her frustration with the judicial system at the rally. Her daughter at the age of 13 left home because she resented a 9.30 p.m. curfew. The police informed the parents they were powerless to do anything.

The girl was assigned to two group homes and three foster homes but she refused to stay at them because they also had rules. Diane reported that there was no curfew, no order to go to school, and no order to reside with the caregivers, completely against their request as parents. The story goes on to include pimps, drugs, schoolyard solicitation for child prostitution, heroin addiction, ignored parole violations and nothing anyone could do about it.

"We wanted stricter consequences for her actions, rather than no consequences", said Diane. "We as her parents want some say in what is happening to our daughter". Presently this 14-year old girl works the streets and the Young Offenders Act will respect her right to continue down this path of self-destruction.

We have accomplished nothing giving young people so many rights that the consequences of their actions are no longer relevant. The interests of young offenders are not best served

when they cannot be required to respect the authority of law or even the authority of their parents.

Unless there is proven reason, parents should both know and have a say in their children's treatment and those children should have no choice but to face the consequence in treatment, reparation and penalty for their illegal actions.

Let me share with the House the experience of Erma and Dennis Vietorisz. Erma addressed the rally in September as a teacher and a parent who has seen the consequence of rising violence in her school and the community. She wrote me again on December 29, 1994 about an attack on her son and a friend the month before, after the rally: "There was no provocation, no argument, nor any reason for a brutal attack on these two young people. After being taken to the hospital, our son was told he had a broken jaw and had to undergo emergency surgery and spend six weeks with his jaw wired shut. His friend had six stitches to his eye. Meanwhile the attackers had gotten away without consequence. Why? Because the police said there was very little they could do to protect our son from retaliation if charges were laid. The police could not detain the attacker after they arrested him as the courts would release him back on to the street to await trial even though he was very violent in his behaviour. All the police could do to protect our son was to put a restraining order on the attacker which would only help our son if he was attacked again".

After much deliberation and consideration the parents decided not to lay charges because the judicial system could not protect him. They decided not to subject themselves to the very real possibility of more violence. The attacker had nothing to fear from a system that is powerless to restrain him from inflicting fear and violence on others.

Erma recently received a letter from Premier Harcourt of B.C. who criticized her for not giving the judicial system a chance. What mockery. On the one hand we have a brazen offender who has, and will likely continue to accumulate a history of violence. On the other we have a judicial system with a mandate from the government that puts fear into the heart of the victim and not the offender.

Bill C-37 further entrenches this deplorable pattern. According to the latest studies published in January 1995 by the forum of correctional research, youth crime is on the rise. In 1986, 179,000 youths were arrested by police and 113,000 were charged. In 1992, 211,000 and some were arrested by the police and 140,000 were charged. Violent offences have increased from 9,275 in 1986 to 20,033 in 1991. That is over a 100 per cent increase in just five years.

Take these statistics in light of the fears of victims and their families such as the Vietorisz. Take these statistics in light of the pat on the head that first, second and third offences get or the total lack of consequences or recorded incidence of crime for all those under 12 years of age in the present system. There is an epidemic out there that our justice experts refuse to recognize.

I have received over 13,000 letters and faxes and over 15,000 signatures on petitions from concerned Canadians calling for real change to the Young Offenders Act.

Like Mrs. Sandy Mahoney of Maple Ridge, B.C. whose 14-year old daughter had to move to Ontario to live with her grandmother because she was constantly beat up at school, constantly harassed by what the authority and school officials called gang members. It is very clear that young criminals are not afraid of any authority, is what she said.

Another woman, Marian Jutila from Coquitlam states: "As a community we demand you immediately follow through and begin revamping our Young Offenders Act".

Many seniors have written to me, those who fear to leave their homes and also many who fear that violence will actually break through the walls of those homes. Perhaps the most compelling was the cry at the end of one letter that concluded with a handwritten note: "You must help us".

In conclusion, let me read the words of 17-year old Jamie Lipp, a dear friend of Jessie Cadman who was killed by a young offender. Jamie spoke at the rally: "What kind of society do we live in where young people are not held accountable for their crimes? What kind of society do we live in where we must fear for our lives within a few blocks of our homes? What kind of society do we live in when there is no respect for life?"

Bill C-37 does nothing to reflect the concerns of those who have spoken up with such clarity and sincerity. I cannot in good conscience support such a bill. We need a legislative overhaul which demands accountability for the sake of society and the young offender, that teaches respect for authority and the rights and lives of others, and that reverses the trend of fear and intimidation experienced within our community.

Today I implore the Minister of Justice to listen to these Canadians. They have something to say that he must hear.

[Petitions, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions that call upon Parliament to review the Young Offenders Act in an open and accountable process which addresses the following principles: deterrence of the offender, accountability of the offender and the rights of the victim.

I support these petitions.

[Petitions, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present four petitions today on behalf of my constituents.

The first one is rather timely. The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions and recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to only use recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety and have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

There are 125 signatures which support that petition.

[Family Income, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada's annual report on family income verifies what many Canadians have known for years: family budgets do not balance. Why? StatsCan reports that family income has actually declined by 6.7 per cent since its peak in 1989. The report calls it the longest and steepest decline in the last four decades. In fact, the average family income in 1993 was slightly lower than the level recorded in 1980.

As if that is not enough, personal per capita income and take home pay has also declined. The culprits? The PST, GST and UI premiums. We are income taxed to death.

It seems easy for the government to dismiss the grassroots tax rallies springing up across Canada. In doing so it blithely dismisses the growing economic nightmare of those individuals and families that hold our future as a nation.

The finance minister must recognize that Canadian families will not sit back and watch this trend continue with the imposition of further tax increases in its forthcoming budget.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.

These residents of Canada request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.

I certainly support these petitions today.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today. The first petition contains almost 200 signatures.

The petitioners request that Parliament refuse to accept the anti-firearms proposal of the Minister of Justice and insist that he brings forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent. I gladly present that today.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming debate on Bill C-64.

To sum up what I have already said, as a Reformer I stand by and support the concept of equality for all Canadians, whether that equality be in law or in opportunity in the marketplace. As a Reformer I am strongly opposed to the injustice of establishing employment goals for designated groups. I have listened to young people who also resent the inference of inequality of such employment equity legislation as we see today.

Visible minorities do not want this type of help as it creates resentment not only within their own communities but also in their efforts to be accepted as equals within the larger community.

A young second generation Chinese Canadian journalism student recently shared her frustration in my constituency office. Despite her excellent qualifications, the recognition that she had received was lessened by the question of whether her success was in fact a token of her perceived difference rather than reward for her unequivocal excellence. Tokenism has no part in Canada if we truly believe in equality.

It is the government's job to provide the means for equality of opportunity. It is not the government's job to push unjust and unfair equality of results in the marketplace. Employment equity is unnecessary and it is unwise as it institutionalizes the very notion of discrimination that it purports to reject.

Years ago as society's architects only mused about the notion of legislating hiring practices, Martin Luther dreamt of a society that was blind to race and gender. "Judge us not by the colour of our skin but by the content of our character" he implored. How sad that Canadians are being driven to adopt policies that deny the very principles we hold dear. These are principles that are upheld by Canadians of all abilities and backgrounds. These are principles that will lead us to the prosperity we deserve as a great country, principles which we have presented in this brief discussion.

The legislation of Bill C-64 works against the principles I have described, principles of equality, of fiscal accountability and of the excellence of all Canadians in our society.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as a Reform member on the standing committee on human rights to address the government's proposed legislation to extend employment equity.

Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity as tabled by the human resources minister yesterday, reflects the government's disregard for proper process in its presentation and the government's ongoing folly of spending non-existent public money to undermine the job creation abilities of Canadians and to create further division and social pressure among competing groups of otherwise talented and proud Canadians. I am delighted to take the opportunity to expand on these tenets.

Today much discussion has been shared in the House on the pros and cons of such a program. The rhetoric and mixed messages become confusing. In response I take a moment to consider how employment equity measures up to three basic and clear philosophies I believe the vast majority of Canadians would welcome and support.

According at least to the red book, Liberals too would agree, first, that deficit reduction is a major priority. They have agreed that billions of dollars in government spending must be cut to accomplish it. Second, Canada must have a credible place in the global economy. To quote from the red book:

The federal government can and should support and facilitate the national effort to prepare Canadians to compete in the world.

Third is the equality of opportunity, and again I quote:

Governments should support a framework of fundamental fairness and decency within which Canadians are able to pursue their individual goals.

Let us hold up the existing proposals of the bill against such a benchmark. It is not in viewing things in isolation but against a true measure that we can separate pretence from fact.

Even the present Liberal government is finally recognizing the debt and deficit are a major threat to Canada's present situation and future potential. Current government policy has finally recognized the connection between fiscal recklessness and unemployment, between high indebtedness and the loss of economic and fiscal sovereignty.

In a recent release from the Department of Finance entitled "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate", the government now seems to realize that the deficit problem cannot be addressed without a clear priorization of federal spending. Budgetary actions "should weigh toward reductions in expenditures". Choices must be made between high and low priority items.

Although as Reformers we believe their 3 per cent target to be totally inadequate, it has become apparent in public debate that even for that goal billions must be cut, which will demand cuts to some untouchable programs.

The first question I ask is: Should the added expense of broadening employment equity be a top priority in the mind of a budget balancing government? We must keep in mind that employment equity already exists as a policy across all public service within the Public Service Act.

Bill C-64 will mandate that approach in law though the Treasury Board now refuses to try to estimate the cost of the existing policy.

Does this imply that such a policy has been immune from the departmental review process demanded by the government in recent months? Does this imply that the policy of employment equity is so philosophically important it takes priority over federal downsizing or even some social programs? Is this so necessary as to be deemed untouchable in government operations even before it comes before Canadians for discussion? If so, who did the government listen to in order to come to that conclusion.

A Gallup poll conducted last December showed that the majority of Canadians accept the concept of equality in the workplace. However 81 per cent of Canadians oppose numerical hiring goals and 90 per cent oppose exclusionary job competition. The government is also ignoring the fact that 74 per cent of those surveyed are definitely opposed to government equity programs.

In response to the government's mantra of jobs, jobs, jobs, how will this priority program affect Canada's long term viability in the important world markets? The purpose of the act is the explicit encouragement of employers to discriminate in favour of targeted groups over all other employees, largely white able-bodied males.

No matter how we look at it, the establishment of numerical goals as outlined in the legislation means quotas. The rejection of merit as the only distinguishing characteristic dictates that the best candidate, as opposed simply to the qualifying candidate, will not necessarily be the one chosen for any particular position.

By treating some more equal than others the government's mandated policy dictates that we end up with a workforce less expert than otherwise may be possible. Canada increasingly exists within the demands of an ever expanding and increasingly competitive world market. Every means possible from sound fiscal management to excellence in every sector of the economy will be necessary for us to hold our own in the challenge of that competitive environment.

Finally I want to spend some time on the notion of equality. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims Canadians are equal before and under the law. True justice lies in a process, not in the outcome.

Any competition between two individuals, whether it be a race or a job competition, can only be deemed fair in the equal treatment during the process. The outcome is never predictable. The test of the race should never be in comparing the anticipated with the actual results.

The true test of equality of opportunity is the very randomness of the outcome. Fairness dictates only that the best man or woman wins. This legislation is not just. It establishes numerical goals that must be met, which affects the outcome in favour of those covered under the goals.

As a member of a designated group I take offence at the implications of the government's numerical goals or quotas. There is a suggestion by their very existence that somehow the system lacks confidence in the ability of women in general to really compete on a level playing field.

The same Gallup poll I referred to found that 75 per cent of women agreed with the statement that governments should not actively hire more women or minority groups. As a group, women are not at a disadvantage. The 1994 annual report indicates women are actually doing better outside the act than they are under the employment equity program.

[Petitions, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a petition with over 1,000 signatures from my constituents who pray that Parliament not amend the human rights code, 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 homosexuality.

I concur with the petition.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have with me today eight sets of petitions from the people in my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam and across the province of British Columbia on the need for amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

These petitions are a follow-up on the huge outpouring of support for changes to the Young Offenders Act which was demonstrated in a rally held in my riding on September 25. These are part and only part of nearly 15,000 signatures collected from concerned Canadians.

This is an issue that will not go away. It is the responsibility of Parliament to respond to these legitimate concerns. It is with this directive that I table these eight petitions containing some 7,000 of those signatures.