Sharon Hayes

[Young Offenders Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak once again, along with the large crowd in front of the Parliament Buildings today, to demand real change in the Young Offenders Act legislation.

This past Monday in my riding of Port Coquitlam, Derek Rosenberg was attacked by a group of young people upon leaving a 7-Eleven Store and pushed through a glass door face first. Mr. Rosenberg, age 26, has a heart condition and requires medication as well as continued good operation of the pacemaker which was installed this past January and on which his health depends. This was of no concern to those who left him lying in the broken glass with serious injuries.

How many more victims must fall before the government enacts real change to make the streets safe for those who live on them and judgment certain for those who threaten that safety?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

I have a really short question for the hon. member.

You mentioned that your community wants more community involvement in the process. Can you see programs within the system where the community can take over part of what the federal government is now involved in?

[Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by 131 residents of communities in my area.

They present this petition in memory of Dawn Shaw. For their sake I would like to go over some of the things they have mentioned. They are concerned that the present justice system fails to protect the children of our communities who are increasingly becoming victims of sexual assault. Judges should not be allowed to drop sexual assault charges because of a delay in bringing a case to trial. Jail sentences for sexual assault offenders should be lengthened for any person convicted of sexual assault.

Community interests should be protected by permitting police to take DNA samples from persons suspected of sexual assault. Sexual offenders should undergo monitoring by police. Pedophiles and sexual offenders should be required to register with police in their community of residence and the police be required to contact schools and agencies.

In memory of Dawn Shaw they request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of those offenders.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today from people in my area.

The first is signed by 40 petitioners from New Westminster, Burnaby and the lower mainland. They join with many Canadians who are greatly concerned over the stated government agenda in amending the Canadian Human Rights Act.

They 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 or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-41. The purpose of this bill is to introduce changes to the sentencing system of the Criminal Code. A number of aspects of this bill do improve the sentencing process.

Canadians are demanding improvements to the criminal justice system. Perhaps Bill C-41 will address a few of their concerns. However, some aspects only appear to be positive. Half measures or blatantly misleading proposals are not what they want.

Despite the introduction of the statement of purpose and principle of sentencing, judges will still have the same latitude under this legislation as they do today in imposing various and inconsistent penalties.

This month I have received over 4,000 letters and faxes as well as petitions containing the signatures of over 12,000 residents of the lower mainland demanding real deterrents as a fundamental part of the justice system. I believe that inescapable, real consequences are part of such a deterrent.

Respect for the criminal justice system stems from equality before the law. Where is the principle of building confidence in Canadians that their safety and security is a primary goal of an accountable justice system that must include the principle of equality?

As I address the issue of equality before and under the law, I would like to address the so-called hate crime section of this bill. It reads as follows: "Evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances".

There is no question that it is totally reprehensible that a person should be attacked viciously or otherwise because of their personal characteristics. The attacker should be punished fully for the offence. However, this section of the legislation poses several dilemmas which need to be addressed.

How will the courts determine that a crime was motivated by hate, prejudice or bias? Will prosecutors launch investigations into the backgrounds and motives of every person convicted of assault in order to determine whether that assault was based on a personal bias against the victim?

How will this affect current backlogs in the courts? Will only the most obvious crimes be subject to this section? Will the courts later overturn a verdict delivered by a lower court because it later seemed that the assault was or was not motivated by hate, prejudice or bias, even though the assault on the individual took place?

Why should one form of assault be judged as more hideous or unacceptable than another? What happened to the fact that any assault on a man or a woman is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated regardless of motivating factors? It is the viciousness of the attack that needs to be judged, not whether the accused harboured personal prejudice toward the victim. There is a problem with the enumeration of categories upon which bias, prejudice or hate will be decided. Is hate only an aggravated crime if it falls within these categories?

What about a person who is attacked because someone does not like their chosen profession? Consider for a moment the popularity of lawyers and politicians. Occupational bias is not on this list. What if they hate someone because they are rich or because they are poor? Class distinction is not on this list. The person who is mugged and beaten half to death for their wallet and keys to their expensive car by someone who resents their status or achievement will see their accused face a lesser sentence than if the same accused had attacked them for their religious beliefs. There is great inequity in this type of legislation.

I would like to bring to the attention of this House a couple of incidents from my own province of British Columbia which will help illustrate the problem with this particular clause.

The first occurred in B.C. to a young man by the name of Andre Castet. Let me read from the coverage of this case provided by the Vancouver Sun : `But no less than a month after the Sidney teenager died from a beating, its his former classmates and the community who must regain voices and steps broken by the tragedy.People are still grappling for an explanation for this-something they can latch on to', says Derek Peach, a grade 12 English teacher at Parkland secondary, the 800

student Sidney school where both Andre, 17, and his two accused killers attended classes last year".

Would the parents and friends of the victims feel any better about this tragic death if they knew that the accused would be facing a stiffer penalty because the crown prosecutor could prove that the attack was motivated by hate, prejudice or bias? Since there does not seem to be any such evidence should there not be an outcry of injustice from those same parents and friends because the accused will not suffer as harsh a penalty as they might if it could be proven that they hated him?

What about the case in my own riding of Coquitlam, the tragic and senseless death of Graham Niven? His death sparked an outcry from the public which resulted in a rally attended by over 5,000 people demanding stiffer penalties for those youth convicted of crimes of violence.

Again, I quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun : `A man who was kicked to death last weekend was helping a teenager in trouble, the victim's roommate said Tuesday. Graham Niven, 31, had just called a taxi for a stranded Burnaby youth before a confrontation with a group of youths outside a Mac's convenience store in Coquitlam early Saturday morning.He was being a good Samaritan' said roommate Steve Hoskins Tuesday. `He gave his last $7 to a kid from Burnaby who had missed the last bus home.''

The people in my riding do not want the accused getting off lightly because they are young offenders but they also do not want them getting off lightly because they cannot be found guilty of hate, prejudice or bias. They destroyed a man, along with his dreams and goals, and left his family and friends with nothing but their memories and their pain. No matter what the motivation for the crime the sentence must reflect the tragedy and hideousness of the crime. An assault is an assault and must be treated with the full extent of the law.

I would also like to address the inclusion of sexual orientation in this legislation. I am personally opposed to the inclusion of this term and would like to outline the reasons for my stand.

My party affirms the equality of every individual before and under the law and the right of every individual to live freely within the limits of the law. I assert that homosexuals already have the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sexual orientation in itself is not a legitimate basis for special enumerated protection. I will give several reasons.

First and foremost sexual orientation does not possess the characteristics essential for inclusion in the list. Human rights are protected on the basis of immutable characteristics such as age, gender and race, or the universally accepted positive characteristic of religion. These criteria have not yet been established for the category of sexual orientation and in particular the undefined term as presented in this legislation.

As well my conclusion is based on the position of my constituents. Recently in a questionnaire sent out from my office I asked whether my constituents agreed that sexual orientation should be included in the charter as a protected category along with race, colour, religion or gender. A decisive 65 per cent of respondents rejected that notion.

It is my duty to represent the concerns of my constituents. It is also my duty as an elected representative to consider all consequences and implications. As illustrated in the debate in this House, the inclusion of such a term as sexual orientation would result in a profound infringement on the longstanding rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Would the label of crime of hate be applied to even the expression of one's deeply held religious or personal convictions if those personal convictions were that homosexuality was immoral? That has been proposed.

Would it be a crime of hate to express personal freedom of association by the exclusion of homosexuals in churches or private associations or even as roommates? These and other questions will be raised in broader ways as we discuss the government's proposed changes to the Human Rights Act.

May I say that a government that denies the moral will of the majority of Canadians by forcing a vote on party lines is denying the very basics of democracy.

In conclusion, society demands that a criminal justice system enforce deterrence of the offender with just and predictable consequence. It demands the principle of equality under the law to be applied to all Canadians. Assault or any other crime for whatever reason should receive the full force of law regardless of the range of emotion behind the motives for the crime. Canadians want justice applied without the intrusion of mind police or political correctness. Canadians want laws and systems better defined to protect society as a whole.

Bill C-41 introduces more potential for inequities and unpredictability in an already flawed system.

[Income Tax Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-256 presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

This bill would allow one spouse to split their earned income with a spouse who is working in the home and caring for a dependent child who is not yet enrolled in full time school.

This bill responds to the growing demands of Canadians that recognition be given to those who care for their children at home.

I am pleased to speak to this bill as an MP who has chosen to be recognized as a homemaker in my previous occupation. I have not felt isolated or deprived in that role. I am pleased to speak to this bill during national family week and in this, the International Year of the Family.

The initiatives presented in this bill would meet three important criteria. It provides parents with the option of keeping one parent at home during the early formative years of a child's life with a tax benefit recognizing the contribution as being significant. Income splitting is an important first step forward in recognizing the financial needs of families with young children. It would allow the spouse at home to be eligible for certain pension benefits such as RRSPs.

The most important objective of this bill is that it would reintroduce choice in the realm of child care so parents can have the freedom to make decisions that are in their best interest and in the best interest of their child.

Currently the system favours those who use day care by the tax incentives provided to the spouse earning the lower income. Consequently those who have one spouse stay at home do not have the equivalent tax deductions for providing the service themselves. Coincidentally, with the high taxes they pay single income families with one spouse at home are technically subsidizing those who have two incomes and use day care along with the tax deductions.

The Reform Party considers the family to be the fundamental social and economic building block of Canadian society. We also believe that parents are the number one choice when it comes to providing the best possible care for their children. This view is also supported by the majority of Canadians.

An Angus Reid poll published in Maclean's magazine in June of this year stated that according to all respondents 68 per cent agree that the best type of family in which to raise children has two heterosexual parents with one at work and one at home.

Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians cannot realize this desired ideal because of the limited choice in the area of taxation given to those who stay at home.

As a matter of fact, there is an unfair bias within the current federal tax system against two parent single income families in Canada. Currently, the lower income earner in a dual income family can claim under the child care expense deduction a maximum tax deduction of $5,000 for a child under seven years of age, while $3,000 per child is permitted as a deductible expense for children aged seven to fourteen.

Reform supports many Canadian parents' belief that by allowing a child care taxable benefit to working parents the federal government in essence is advocating dual income families in Canada and in so doing creating an unfair financial situation for stay at home parents.

This government has further aggravated this situation by advocating a commitment to increase the number of day care spaces every time the economy grows by 3 per cent or more. This is a commitment it will have to honour despite the fact that it will only further increase the inequities toward those who

elect to have one parent stay at home to provide personal care for their child.

No move has been made by this government to address this serious inequality which currently exists. Therefore, the bill introduced by my hon. colleague is a very positive step in the right direction.

Until such a time as a system of flat tax can be implemented the Reform Party supports the concept of income splitting between legally married couples. No other measure of tax relief would affect the family so greatly under our current system as the ability to split income and lower the resultant tax burden. The tax savings would be particularly meaningful when one spouse is working as a full time care giver to their children.

Regardless of the employment situation of the husband and wife, the marriage union will be recognized in tax law as an equal economic partnership. Should the flat rate income tax proposal presently being considered by the Reform Party be implemented, income splitting would become largely irrelevant because individually or collectively a couple would pay the same tax.

It is also important to counter some of the criticism launched against reformers by those who claim that supporting such policies is simply a means of trying to turn back the clock and keep women at home. Quite the contrary. We are simply responding to the desires of a large number of Canadian families that would like to stay at home to care for their children if they so chose without being unfairly disadvantaged financially by federal tax laws.

We believe that if implemented correctly, measures such as income splitting will allow those parents who are forced to work because of finances the option to stay at home and care for their children.

In a recent survey conducted by Angus Reid 57 per cent of respondents thought it would be good news if the government would provide some type of financial assistance to help one parent in a two parent family stay home to care for their children.

Income splitting would have several strong advantages to those involved and some spinoff benefits for others. First, it would help alleviate the excess tax burden experienced by those single income families with one spouse at home to care for their children. Even with a maximum of $25,000 of split income it would allow the spouse at home to receive proper benefit in terms of income and participate in simple pension benefits such as RRSPs. The tax burden on the family would be lessened, allowing for more disposable income to be spent on the very real needs of raising a family today.

Second, it would also have spinoff benefits in the area of employment and day care space availability. There is a very real need among single parents for both day care spaces and potential employment. If the spouse of a two income family leaves their job to care for their child at home this opens up a job for someone else and also creates a day care space. A single parent who wants to get off any sort of social assistance needs both of these possibilities to do so. These are very real needs for the single parent and simply creating day care spaces is only half the solution. Income splitting could provide for all components necessary in the equation.

The bill does have one apparent weakness in that it limits the deduction to those with preschool children at home. I would advocate that the bill be considered for amendment in that the eligibility criteria be extended to include those spouses who stay home to manage the affairs of the home with children who are in school. This is also an important area of parental care.

As critic of family issues I have heard from numerous Canadians across Canada regarding the issue of recognition of those who stay at home to provide care for their own children. It is also an issue in my own riding.

Let me read from two letters I received from two of my constituents. Mrs. Andrea Jones in Coquitlam wrote to me after I was first elected, sharing her concerns on the present status of the Canadian family.

She is a stay at home mother with a toddler to care for. Her husband is employed but they are finding it very tough to make ends meet. Andrea asked for equality to be implemented within the present tax system that does not discriminate against single income families. I quote from her letter:

I understand the terrible financial mess this country is in, but I strongly feel that the subsidies enjoyed by two-income families discredits the hard work homemakers do in support of their children, husbands and community.

Andrea Jones and her husband are not asking for special treatment, just fair and equal treatment.

Sandra Boleak from Port Coquitlam also wrote to me this past spring about the need for the government to recognize the important work of those who stay at home in support of the family.

Sandra and Len have four children at home under the age of six. Sandra left her full time, good paying job in 1989 to look after her family. Since then, it has been difficult financially and the sacrifice they are making to keep one parent at home is real. She states in her letter:

When will stay at home parents' jobs be recognized and respected? Why can my husband not write me off as a caregiver as well as claim the spousal amount?

The dilemma facing parents who have exercised this choice is that they are disadvantaged taxwise for doing so. They have

chosen the preferred child raising option of Canadians and yet pay higher taxes on their earnings because of it.

There is a real need to entrench within government policy and give full recognition to the importance of family in our society. The issue of child poverty is rooted not in the issue of women's rights or even of children's rights but in the issue of the strength of families.

Government policies can actually detract from the importance of family role. It is refreshing to see a slight reversal of this trend from the government side. Perhaps this will send a loud message with a purpose to give the family back its prominence and priority within our society, and give them back the freedom to choose.

[Freedom Of Speech, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to address a very serious issue, the current threat to freedom of speech in this Parliament.

We are witnessing the decline of dialogue when a member in this House can be accused of hate mongering for expressing what she feels are the views of the majority of Canadians and which are rooted in her personal convictions.

No member of this House should be afraid of expressing their point of view because of a threat of being labelled as a bigot. Nothing shuts down dialogue and the freedom of debate more quickly than labelling.

It is extremely important to all Canadians that in the shaping of public policy alternate points of view must never be suppressed but must be allowed free expression.

Members of this House must never fear to speak out in defence of the views of their constituents, the convictions of their conscience or on behalf of the concerns of Canadians.

[Young Offenders Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 25, 1994, over 3,000 people gathered in Coquitlam to send a message to the government that they want real change to the Young Offenders Act.

On August 13, Graham Niven, a 31-year old man stopping by a Mac's Milk store, was brutally and senselessly kicked to death by two teenagers, one of them just 15 years old. This is just one of a recent number of tragedies in the Vancouver area.

Addressing the rally were the voices of citizens from our community. Diane wants the government to know that its rules have tied her hands as a caring parent. Her 14-year old daughter is a young offender. The discrepancies and inconsistencies of our youth justice system were voiced by the school board, the RCMP, the mayors, a provincial cabinet minister, the Cadman and Niven families and young people themselves. Neither the YOA nor Bill C-37 are enough.

Yesterday alone my office received over 500 faxes to add to our community petition for real changes to the Young Offenders Act. "YOA give the people a say".

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question. I do commend this legislation for the fact that it does close that loophole of allowing illegal documents into the country. The fact that that was previously allowed astounds me. It seems most appropriate that now there is legislation in place which says no, these will not be allowed in the country.

However I do not know if I have quite addressed the hon. member's question.

That legislation is toward the boxes of illegal documents that would come through our postal service and then be available within this country for people to use here. The thing you were referring to though was people coming across our borders from outside with illegal documents. That part of the legislation would in no way affect someone presenting themselves at our border from outside with documents that were illegal or falsified. It could not affect that particular case.

It is at that point where our present system has no check point. We take a person's word for it. They come into our country and then are not actually processed by a security system until they then present themselves for a refugee hearing or some other kind of a hearing.

I go back to the comment I made earlier. We let the foxes into the hen house and then expect them to show up for a process that will then check their validity. There is the problem and that is not addressed by this legislation.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to comment on what he said aside from his question.

Certainly in my comments I sought to address the needs of all Canadians by birth or by choice. All immigrants are not criminals. In fact very few are. It is the same as with all Canadians. Very few are involved in criminal activity. It is the immigrants as much as Canadians who suffer from the abuse of our immigration system. I want to make that very clear. That is my purpose. The people whom I met in Toronto were immigrants who were victims of what was happening by the abuse of this system. I speak for them as I speak for all Canadians.

What the hon. member says is true. We feel that for the sake of the integrity of the immigration system for Canadians and new immigrants the present system is not working. It is not working in the criminal element. It is not working in the way that immigrants are welcomed into Canadian society.

We need people who can come here who have jobs available to them. We need to provide a future for people who come to this country.

True, we need to get our fiscal house in order. We need to make our economy work. We also need to provide those opportunities for the people who come here. We have to select the people so that they have the opportunity when they get here. If we bring people here with no future for them, is that fair to them or is that fair to the fellow Canadians that they join?

Yes, the immigration numbers need to be addressed so that we have an economic mix that works for all Canadians new and old. By doing that we will in fact be more than able to afford it because it will work for all Canadians.