CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
Motion for concurrence agreed to 4899
Bill C-41. Motion for second reading 4900
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4903
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4914
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4932
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4934
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4935
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4936
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4936
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4937
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4939
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4939
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4941
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4941
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4942
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4946
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 4946
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4946
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4948
Division on motion deferred 4952
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 4952
Bill C-41. Consideration of motion resumed 4957
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4960
Bill C-44. Consideration of motion resumed 4962
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 161; Nays, 51. 4963
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 4963
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4963
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 178; Nays, 36 4964
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 4965
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4965
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4968
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4972
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
4899
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in
both official languages the report of the Canada-Europe
Parliamentary Association on the fifth annual meeting of the
parliamentary assembly of the OSCE, the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe, held in Stockholm, Sweden from July
5 to July 9, 1996.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
to present in both official languages the report of the Canadian
delegation to the seventh annual meeting of the Canada-Japan
Interparliamentary Group which was held in Toronto, Montreal and
Ottawa from September 1 to September 5, 1996, as well as the
report of the executive committee meeting of the Asia-Pacific
Parliamentary Forum held in Ottawa from September 6 to
September 8, 1996.
The Asia-Pacific region is becoming increasingly important in
Canada. Japan is now our second largest trading partner. Asia has
become Canada's second most important trading region.
The recently completed seventh annual Canada-Japan meeting
focused on our growing and harmonious bilateral relationship.
Discussions focused on bilateral and multilateral co-operation in a
rapidly changing world. Relations with our other Asia-Pacific
neighbours are also changing.
Canada will be hosting the fifth annual meeting of the
Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in January in Vancouver. The
executive committee of the APPF just held a highly successful and
productive meeting here in Ottawa and approved the arrangements
for the Vancouver meeting. We look forward to hosting this
meeting and to kicking off Canada's year of Asia-Pacific.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the second report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on
Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures
Act. The committee has agreed to report this act without
amendment.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 33rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 33rd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1005 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to the House
three petitions which focus on Canada's economy, signed by the
residents of York North.
The first petition draws the attention of the House to the
government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per
cent of the GDP. The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to
keep its commitment to Canadians and pursue its deficit action so
that the government will reach its revised deficit target of 2 per cent
of GDP by 1997-98.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition draws to the attention of the House that in the past
year alone short term interest rates have declined three percentage
points. For the last two and a half years inflation has averaged less
than 2 per cent and by 1997-98 the federal deficit will have been
4900
reduced by $25 billion. The petitioners further draw to the attention
of the House that since the Liberal government took office, over
600,000 jobs have been created.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to work diligently
to continue to maintain a healthy environment for jobs and
economic growth.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition draws to the attention of the House the important role
that small businesses play in our economy. They have created over
85 per cent of new jobs and account for almost 60 per cent of
Canada's economic output.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that the
government is improving the climate for small businesses by
addressing the need for financing, reducing overlap and
duplication, increasing access to the information highway and
assisting their ventures into exports.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to create a
healthy environment for small businesses, to ensure they have the
financing they need and to help them explore and capitalize on new
opportunities.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
present two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
These petitions implore Parliament to introduce legislation
which would prohibit criminals from profiting in any way from the
crimes which they have undertaken.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions today.
The first one concerning taxation of the family comes from
Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners would like to draw to the
attention of the House that managing the family home and caring
for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not
been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Midland, Ontario and concerns
labelling of alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability. Specifically, fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4900
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment,
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping
Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1010 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased today to speak in favour of the act to amend the Divorce
Act and other acts. Before I get into the details of the amendments I
would first like to provide a broader context for the changes.
There is a yearning in Canada today to focus on what we have in
common and to return to basic values. Canadians do have values in
common. We have not prevailed for 130 years and produced one of
the world's most prosperous and successful nations without a
foundation of shared principles and beliefs. When we set aside the
quarrels about jurisdiction and the forms of the federation, and
when we focus on the features that define us as a nation, we will
find that what is common to every province and to every region of
Canada is our shared values.
We are a society that is compassionate, tolerant and civil. We
take pride in social programs that are intended to protect the most
vulnerable. We care deeply about our commitment to sharing.
These values are reflected in the way we treat our children.
Canadians understand the importance of early intervention of
safe and secure childhoods if we are to enable all individuals to
4901
reach their full potential. Canadians also place a strong emphasis
on the importance of individual responsibility while governments
have a role in helping the most vulnerable. We also believe in
people taking responsibility for themselves.
How do these values relate to our strategy for child support?
They require laws and policies that produce adequate and
consistent child support levels, that respect fathers and mothers
who make their payments and ensure that those who are obligated
to pay actually do so. Viewed from that perspective, I suggest that
the measures we have proposed in our child support strategy very
much reflect the fundamental values that unite us.
The starting point is that the nature of the Canadian family is
changing. There are more single parent families today than ever.
When families divide, there are two households to support and
fewer resources to go around and too often the children suffer. Over
the past 20 years families headed by an individual parent have
doubled in number. There are almost one million such families in
Canada. In 1990, 61 per cent of single parent families headed by
women lived below the poverty line. This compares to just 10 per
cent of two parent families with children.
The steps we are taking to strengthen and improve Canada's
child support system will not end child poverty, but we believe
these steps will help. These measures derive their value from the
shared principles on which they are based.
The principle that children should be first in line. These reforms
will put them there and keep them there. Child support is the first
and most important obligation for parents.
The principle that a child's standard of living, both before and
after divorce, should reflect the means of both parents. These
reforms make sure that it does. Children are a shared responsibility
and a divorce does not change that.
The principle that people in like circumstances should be treated
in a like fashion. These reforms will ensure that they are. Both
parents have an obligation to support their children based on their
ability to pay.
The strategy we have adopted has four interdependent elements.
One, we are introducing child support guidelines to establish
appropriate and consistent support levels, and to reduce the degree
of conflict between separating parents. Two, we are changing the
way child support payments are taxed to make things fairer and
simpler. Three, we are enhancing federal and provincial
enforcement measures targeting the wilful defaulters to ensure that
payments are made in time and in full. Four, we are helping
working poor families by doubling the level of the working income
supplement of the federal child tax benefit over the next two years.
I would like to describe each of these initiatives in more detail.
(1015)
At the heart of this approach are the guidelines that will be used
across Canada by the courts, by lawyers and by parents to establish
appropriate levels of support payments for children. At present,
courts determine child support levels on a case by case basis. The
issue prolongs litigation and adds to the anguish of the parents.
Some suggest that the system is based on the principle that every
person deserves his or her decade in court. Not all judges take the
same approach or have the same philosophy. As a result, levels
vary greatly not just across Canada but even within provincial
jurisdictions and even from family to family.
The amount that is available to pay for a child's needs should not
depend on which province one lives in, to which courtroom the
case is assigned or which party has the more persuasive lawyer.
The guidelines will establish without the need for trial the levels of
child support to be paid according to the income of the person
paying. The amounts are calculated by a formula that takes into
account average expenditures on children at various income levels.
As income levels increase or decrease so will the parents'
contributions to the needs of the children, just as they would if the
family had remained together.
The guidelines are standard but they are also flexible. No two
families are exactly alike. Exceptional expenses for children can be
added, such as uninsured medical expenses and child care costs for
preschoolers. A court can also change the amounts if undue
hardship can be established.
This approach has tremendous strengths. It is simple and it is
standard. It ensures that support paying parents with the same level
of income pay the same level of child support as other parents. It is
also easy to use and in the end it is easy to understand. There will
be less reasons for parents to argue about what is and what is not an
appropriate level of support. This means less conflict, lower legal
bills, reduced legal aid and diminished court costs. The result is
that a lot of money which would be spent on lawyers in courts can
be kept in the hands of the parents for the benefit of the children.
The second pillar of our child support strategy is a change in the
way child support payments are taxed. Currently child support
payments are tax deductible for the payer and taxable to the
recipient. That rule was put in place 54 years ago. After carefully
considering all of the circumstances we have concluded that this
approach is unfair and indeed outdated.
To begin with in the present age it is understood that parents do
not need an incentive or a reward in the tax system to encourage
them to pay support for their children or that a general subsidy by
4902
all taxpayers toward families that are separated and divorced is not
appropriate.
In any event the subsidy works best where there is a large income
spread between the mother and father which is less and less
common. Shifting income patterns have brought their earnings
closer together. Where a mother earns the same as or more than the
support paying father, the present system actually penalizes her.
That is the case in over one-third of all separated couples and that
proportion is growing. Even when the incomes are different the
subsidy only works if the court takes care in each case to make
complex calculations to gross up the amount awarded to take tax
into account. This does not always happen in every case. The result
is the tax liability eats into the support award and the losers are the
children.
Furthermore custodial parents do not want to have to administer
the tax system. They are the ones who now have to calculate the
amount due and pay it on April 30 of each year whether the support
payments arrive late during the year.
More fundamentally, child support is not income for the parent
but it is money intended for the children. It therefore should not be
taxed in the hands of the recipient.
(1020)
The reforms will change the system. We are adopting what is
known as a no deduction, no inclusion system. That means support
paying parents will not be able to deduct their payments from their
total income and custodial parents will not be required to include it
in theirs. This no deduction, no inclusion approach will not come
into effect until May 1, 1997 and it will apply to all new awards
made after that date. It will not apply after that date to existing
awards unless the parties agree or unless the court directs that the
change be made.
We are waiting 14 months before making this change effective
for very practical reasons. We want the tax change and the
guidelines to become effective at the same time. That way if parties
to existing orders want to change their tax treatment the new child
support levels can be taken directly from the tables without the
need for individual assessment in each case.
We anticipate that the provinces will create complementary
guidelines to cover child support levels in cases under provincial
jurisdiction so that the systems are uniform. The 14 months will
enable them to do that.
Finally, the time will be used in planning for the transition.
Ottawa has budgeted $50 million to help the provinces develop
simple and effective systems for dealing with the many requests
that may be made to varied existing orders once the changes
become effective.
In the coming months governments, courts, professionals and
other stakeholders will work together so that these cases are dealt
with quickly and effectively. The current tax system has been in
place for 50 years. I do not think it is unreasonable that we take 14
months to achieve a complete reversal.
Let me address the concerns that have been expressed by some
fathers about these changes. First, parents who now have child
support orders or agreements will not be forced into a new tax
system. Both parents may decide for a number of reasons that their
support agreement is working reasonably well and should be left
alone.
Second, let me encourage parents to examine the guidelines that
we have now published and consider how they may apply to their
situations. They are the result of many years of consultations across
Canada and they take into account tax levels and average expenses
for raising children. The guidelines have been tested not only with
family lawyers but with fathers and mothers, both custodial and
non-custodial parents.
Third, there may be situations of undue hardship in which the
payment in accordance with the guidelines would simply be
unrealistic or unworkable. We recognize that cases of hardship do
exist and the new process can accommodate those situations.
Finally, we are committed to monitoring these guidelines and if
necessary they will be adjusted. Let me restate that in evaluating
amounts our eye will remain fixed on the welfare and needs of the
children. I think we can all agree on this objective. Of course a fair
child support system is more than just setting levels evenly and
taxing them fairly. It is also a matter of ensuring that payments are
made in full and on time. Enforcement is crucial.
Let me make it clear that a great many parents who make their
payments on time and in full deserve our continued respect. They
take their responsibilities seriously and they follow through. There
are some who cannot pay because of misfortune: they have lost
their job, they have fallen ill. They must ask the court to relieve
them of their responsibility that they cannot meet. However, there
are also too many who are in wilful default.
As of last September almost half of the cases registered with the
Ontario family support plan involved child support orders where
absolutely no money had been paid. On the remaining half, only
one in four was fully paid.
Wilful and chronic default by people who can pay but refuse to
pay child support is simply unacceptable in this country. These are
not just people who turn their backs on their sons and daughters,
they are also walking away from their responsibility as citizens and
because they cheat their children all other Canadians are obligated
to take up the slack.
4903
(1025 )
The prime responsibility for enforcement of child support orders
currently rests with the provinces. A lot has already been done by
the provincial agencies but the Canadian government also has a
role to play, a role of leadership in co-ordinating, encouraging and
complementing the provincial efforts.
The measures we are proposing will support and enhance the
strategies of provincial and territorial governments. We want to
work with them in a common cause. There is a list of measures that
we will now take. Let me mention just a few of them.
Federal legislation will authorize the suspension of federal
licences and certificates such as passports in the cases of persistent
default. It will allow access by the provinces to the database of
Revenue Canada to help trace persistent defaulters. It will invest
money and effort in upgrading computer systems to share
information among provinces to co-ordinate their efforts.
The fourth pillar in the child support strategy involves a measure
that is intended to help working poor families whether they are
separated or still living together. The Canadian government
contributes to basic income security for children through a child
tax benefit.
One component of that benefit is the working income
supplement which provides a non-taxable benefit to supplement the
employment earnings of families with net incomes below $25,900.
At present, the maximum amount that is payable under the working
income supplement is $500 per family each year. Over the next two
years the Canadian government will double that supplement to
$1,000 per family each year.
The revenue derived from ending the deduction on child support
payments will be used to fund the increase in the working income
supplement. The result will be that over the next five years over $1
billion of additional revenue will be put into the hands of about
700,000 low income families in the labour force. About one-third
of them will be lone parent families.
The advantages of this strategy are obvious. The increased
working income supplement is tax free and will go right to the
bottom line for families that need dollars for their children. This
supplement is distributed fairly, benefiting children of separated
families and families that remain intact. And the working income
supplement is targeted to those most in need.
What will make these reforms work well is that they will work
together. Guidelines will ensure consistent awards at appropriate
levels with diminished conflict and expense.
A tax rule that reflects the social conditions and values of 1942
will be changed to conform to current needs and trends. Effective
tools will enhance enforcement so that good people who make their
payments will know that those in wilful default will be pursued.
Every dollar of increased revenue that Ottawa derives from the tax
change will be ploughed directly back into a system for the benefit
of children in low income working families.
I invite the support of members of the House and their
involvement in making this strategy succeed. Working together,
Canadians can put children first. The government will put children
first. It will put responsibility fairly on the shoulders of parents and
and make our system of child support one of which we can all be
proud.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-41, a bill which addresses various
aspects of child support payments. Its objective is a praiseworthy
one: to improve the situation of the children of divorced parents.
(1030)
On top of the emotional and psychological effects of divorce, the
vast majority of these children have to deal with another kind of
effect, which has an unfortunate impact on their daily lives. As you
may have guessed, I am referring to the sometimes drastic drop in
their standard of living.
A brief presented two years ago by the now defunct Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women described the situation
of mothers with custody, and how despair, emotional exhaustion
and other family problems, such as custody arrangements, spousal
abuse and child abuse, impact on the negotiation of child support.
Sometimes these women accept lower amounts just to see the end
of it, just to avoid continual confrontations, and this of course
results in lower financial resources for them and their children.
If there is one area in which governments can, and must, act
directly, it is the area of children's and parents' living conditions.
In introducing last March's budget, the government unveiled its
action plan for child support.
This plan had four components: removing child support from the
tax system, creating and approving federal guidelines,
implementing measures to ensure that support is paid in full and on
time, and increasing the Working Income Supplement under the
Child Tax Benefit.
This announcement followed on the Minister of Justice's
announcement in November 1994 that his guideline project would
enable the government to save $1.5 billion yearly in social
assistance payments, if 80 per cent of parents in arrears with child
support were to start paying. It can be seen, then, that the federal
government had two things in mind: improving the children's
situation and saving itself considerable amounts of money.
4904
This government intervention is one of a set of actions taken
by all levels of government in order to try to solve one of the most
endemic of the problems experienced in our society, whether in
Canada or in Quebec: the impoverishment of women and children.
Last year, Quebec passed legislation to ensure that, as soon as
child support is awarded, a mechanism is put in place by which
court orders for child support are automatically recorded by the
clerk of the superior court in which the case is heard. Under the
system, those not earning a regular salary are required to deposit as
security the equivalent of three months' support payments. In the
case of wage earners, payments are deducted at source.
These measures are aimed at simplifying the payment of support
for children and the custodial parent. Similar measures have been
adopted in other Canadian provinces. For instance, a universal and
compulsory system for the automatic deduction of support
payments also exists in Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. In
other words, the provincial governments have already taken certain
steps within their own jurisdictions to improve the financial
situation of women and children.
The bill tabled by the federal government today is intended to
complement action taken by other governments in the fight against
poverty. Divorce is obviously a fact of life in Quebec and Canadian
society. In Quebec, however, the phenomenon has become more
widespread than anywhere else, with nearly 50 per cent of
marriages ending in divorce.
In 1990, there were 78,152 divorce judgments in Canada,
leading to 48,525 judgments on child custody, while about 44 per
cent of judgments on family matters involved an order for support
payments. In 1989 alone, 83 per cent of all these judgments were
the result of an agreement between the spouses. We all know what
the situation is like when such agreements are made, so it is clear
how the existence of a grid would have a considerable impact on
the negotiating process.
It is also true that in Quebec, the vast majority of those who
receive child support payments-98 per cent in 1988 and 77 per
cent in 1990-are women. This is to explain why, in my speech, I
refer to the custodial parent in the feminine. I hope my colleagues
understand I certainly have no intention of downplaying the fact
that the remaining 20 per cent of custodial parents are men.
(1035)
The statistics are very clear: two thirds of divorced women with
three children live below the poverty line. When the mother is poor,
her children are poor, since, as I just said, 80 per cent of the
children live with the mother. This comes as no surprise. We are all
familiar with this fact.
I would like to point out that the decision is made with the
consent of both spouses. And I would also like to remind this
House of the impact of single parenthood on women and children.
A link has been established between poverty among women,
especially those with children, and marital breakdown. As I
mentioned earlier, single parent families headed by women are, as
a group, most exposed to poverty in Canada.
According to research done by the staff of the Library of
Parliament, authors of studies on child support payments in Canada
have found that on average, such payments do not cover even half
of the actual expenditures involved and usually the custodial parent
has to absorb the difference. And people wonder why women are
poor, especially when we know that, on average, their income is
only two thirds of the man's income. The wage gap between the
sexes is particularly significant here. My point is that women who
have to raise their children alone are carrying an unfair share of the
burden.
For further insight, here are more figures. As we know, after a
separation, the standard of living of women and their children
drops by 27 per cent to 37 per cent according to statistics, while the
standard of living of men invariably increases between 4 per cent
and 30 per cent. But the issue must also be analyzed in light of the
fact that women see their standard of living drop by 27 per cent to
37 per cent.
This situation brought the former Canadian Advisory Council on
the Status of Women to write, in March 1994, and to repeat until its
untimely abolition, which I deplore, that: ``Taking into account the
greater responsibilities assumed by the mother receiving child
support, the difference in men's and women's ability to pay
because of the difference in their earning power and the limits that
raising children imposes on the earning power of the mother who
assumes custody, the tax policy should first of all take into
consideration the situation of the mother''.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was not
the only one to come to that conclusion. If I may, I would like to
quote from an article written in 1994 by the Honourable Claire
L'Heureux-Dubé, Supreme Court justice, in the magazine Femmes
et Droit. This article was about the myths society and the courts
face when dealing with child support.
It showed that, according to a study done by the Department of
Justice in 1990, the standard of living of 59 per cent of the women
and children in the study dropped, after divorce, below the poverty
line, while the percentage was 46 per cent if child support was
included in the calculation of their income.
Therefore, when child support is paid, 50 per cent of women still
live below the poverty line. It is absolutely terrible. Yet, this is
4905
supposedly an improvement, since the data for 1988 showed that
the income of two-thirds of divorced women was under the poverty
level. If we exclude the support payments, this proportion came to
74 percent.
Further on, the judge wrote: ``The popular belief that men are
generally overburdened by unreasonable support payments orders
to women who use them to buy themselves luxuries and small
incidentals is false, for two reasons. It stems from the false premise
that women, in particular those who stayed at home when they
lived with their husband, always, or at least easily, become
economically independent after divorce. [-]This belief ignores a
number of facts, both real and inescapable. Following a divorce,
child custody is almost always given to the mother, and this by
mutual agreement in 80 per cent of cases.''
(1040)
Furthermore, according to the judge, the belief that the
ex-spouses find themselves in similar situations after the divorce
does not take into account the every day realities to which the
custodial parent is confronted. Yet, the economic difficulties are
worsened by the responsibilities inherent to child custody.
I read on: ``For the great majority of custodial parents, this
responsibility leads to a proportional reduction in economic
choices after divorce. Thus, the ex-wife will have more difficulty in
overcoming her limited ability to make a living when entering the
job market after years of not working at all, or very little. Unlike
her husband, she will be restricted in her economic choices because
she will have to choose a home close to schools, she will not be
able to work late at night because of her family responsibilities and
she will have to stay home if a child is sick. She also must choose a
safe neighbourhood for children, not too close to a busy street and
having green spaces where children have at least a place to play
safely. The other parent, on the other hand, does not have these
restraints. He is free to live wherever he wishes and to work the
hours he wants. He has more disposable income. For these reasons,
the real cost of child care is rarely if ever accurately reflected in the
amount of money allocated as support payments.''
Madam Justice Dubé also says, in her article on the myths
society and the courts must face: ``Despite the facts surrounding
the custody of a child, there is a popular and persistent myth that
raising a child is not expensive. In consequence, some think that
the amounts sought as support payments are extravagant, if not
totally beyond reason. This is not true, of course, since the parent
having the custody of the child is most of the time neglecting
personal needs in favour of the child. These beliefs also influence
those who make support payments. It will be easier for him to make
excuses for not paying if he does not believe this money is really
needed. Such assumptions and beliefs have really tragic
consequences, considering that the number of Canadian children
living under the poverty line is ever increasing''.
Therefore we will be analyzing Bill C-41, or at least its most
important features, in terms of its impact on women and children.
The bill deals with two of the four elements in the federal
government's planned child support initiative: the establishment of
a framework to develop and apply child support guidelines, and the
strengthening of ways to collect child support payments.
To start with, I will mention the aspects of the bill I find positive.
First, the establishment of a framework for the use of child support
guidelines: the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this concept. However
such a framework raises a few questions I will deal with later.
Then, the bill differentiates between child support and spousal
support. In my view, this is beneficial as it will help dispel the kind
of myths Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé mentioned. Moreover,
this differentiation will put the child-who should be the main
focus of any protection or help measure-at the centre of court
decisions.
With regard to proposed provisions to enhance enforcement
measures, adding Revenue Canada to the list of federal
departments whose data banks can be searched to locate defaulters
is a step in the right direction, as is the creation of a scheme for the
denial of certain documents, such as passports, driver licences, and
the like. Access to federal civil servants' pension benefits and
seafarers' wages will be made easier to ensure payment of child
support arrears.
(1045)
Naturally, any measure giving back to children the money
required for their support deserves our endorsement. I would also
like to mention the broadening of the definition of the word
``child'' to include young persons 16 to 18 years old and students. I
think this measure better depicts the reality of modern families and
that it will help many children and young adults to start their life on
the right foot.
Finally, again in the best interest of children, I agree that priority
should be given to the needs of children when both child support
and spousal support are requested. I think children's needs must
have preeminence at all times and in all legislation. That is
necessary for our collective future.
Those are the elements of the bill that we should support.
However, other elements raise questions or prompt less positive
reactions. I will mention only one that seems the most important to
me. Afterwards, I will propose other amendments as the bill
evolves and I am sure my colleagues will refer this morning to
other aspects of the bill I will not have time to address.
As far as negative aspects are concerned, the discretionary power
is the most unacceptable one in my opinion; it could even turn the
4906
enforcement of guidelines into a nightmare. I will quote clause 4
of the bill, which deals with the discretionary power accorded
cabinet. It states clearly, and I quote:
(5) The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes
of the definition ``applicable guidelines''-
I think there is a problem here and not a minor one.
How can a government encourage provincial governments to
develop and adopt their own guidelines and, at the same time, give
itself the unfettered discretionary power to decide if the guidelines
adopted by a province will replace its own federal guidelines in that
province? It is like saying: ``I am telling you to pass your own
legislation, but I warn you that it is I who will ultimately decide
whether or not I will impose my own legislation because I do not
like yours''. There is a rather ambiguous message there.
This behaviour leads us to wonder about the real intentions of
this government. Will it really let the provinces decide for
themselves what is good for their people or will it, once again,
interfere insidiously and impose its standards and its policies? I
wonder.
I invite the government to reflect on the words of its Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who was speaking highly, only
yesterday, of the virtues of decentralization and who was
comparing centralization to something to be fought at all cost. For
once I can tell you I agree with the minister.
To those who could think the issue is trivial, I would say it is
nothing of the sort. This issue is crucial because, in practice,
parents and children could find themselves very much with two
systems of rules that would be applied in the same court of justice,
by the same judges, to the same people, according to whether they
choose to divorce or to separate. That is crazy.
Thus, if the government decided not to recognize the guidelines
adopted by the provinces for cases of separation or for common law
spouses no longer living together, federal guidelines would apply
in the case of a divorce, because divorce comes under federal
jurisdiction. Let us imagine the scenario. There is a whole
distinction to make there.
Mr. Justice X, in a divorce cause, awards Mrs. A support
payments of $1,000 a month for her children. The same judge, 30
minutes later, in the same hearing room, awards Mrs. B, in a
separation cause, a $1,500 support payment for her children. The
two women and their children could be neighbours, could be in the
same financial situation and would find themselves with totally
different judgments because the same grid was not used.
This is totally wrong, and I would invite the government to
reflect on this and to take some concrete action. If it says to the
provinces: ``We give you the choice'', it should not come along
with its own standards.
(1050)
I should point out that this scenario is quite plausible precisely
because of clause 4 in the bill.
It would give the federal government a fine opportunity to once
and for all show off its highly touted flexibility, which exists only
in the minds of some of our Liberal colleagues.
We ask that the discretionary power provided for in clause 4 be
eliminated and that, as soon as a province meets the criteria set out
in the new clause 26.1, its own divorce guidelines apply within its
territory, as dictated by common sense and respect.
This issue was considered by a federal-provincial-territorial
committee whose report proposed three alternatives to the very
concrete problem raised by the distribution of powers, whereby one
formula could be used for divorces and another one for private
cases. The government opted for a single formula within a single
territory, and we totally agree. Now we just have to make sure it
does not undo with one hand what it is proposing to do with the
other.
I would now like to move on to the guidelines section in the bill.
For some years now, lawyers and legal experts have agreed on the
lack of uniformity and the arbitrary way support payments are
determined.
We know that the decisions relating to child support orders are
left to the judges' discretion and vulnerable to all kinds of
manipulations by one or both spouses in assessing their ability to
pay. There is now a total lack of uniformity in the amounts granted.
According to one study, child support payments are already
inadequate when they are set, and the situation gets worse with
inflation and as the children grow up and their financial needs
increase. In fact, many people working in the judicial system are
calling for the standardization of child support payments.
This bill proposes the adoption of a grid, which is a step in the
right direction. The federal-provincial-territorial family law
committee on child support came to the same conclusion in its
report, saying:
``The committee believes that adopting a child support setting formula will help
parents, lawyers and judges negotiate and set fair and consistent support payments
and bring parents to take responsibility more readily for their children. By
eliminating a major source of conflict when families break up, this formula may also
foster a positive relationship between family members, and particularly between the
child and the non-custodial parent. It may also reduce not only the legal costs to the
parents but also the legal aid costs, court costs and costs to execute orders, which are
borne by the government''.
The Conseil du statut de la femme agrees. In a notification filed
merely a month ago as part of the Quebec government consultation
process, the council pointed out other benefits a support setting
formula may have, including: the value to parents of an objective
tool by which agreements better tailored to their needs can more
4907
easily be reached; the sense of security this tool will give women in
their negotiations with their former spouses; the use by the court of
an objective tool, making the decision making process easier to
foresee; and, finally, the educational value of such a tool for
non-custodial parents regarding the adequacy of support payments
and their use by the custodial parent.
It seems that the majority of stakeholders agree with the
recommendations made by the committee and so do we.
Some lawyers have concerns however about how these rules will
be used by the courts. In Prince Edward Island, where the
guidelines adopted by the government are more generous than
those proposed by the federal government, there are complaints
about judges regarding the guidelines as a ceiling. In American
states where similar guidelines were adopted, judicial discretion
has all but disappeared.
(1055)
But this judicial discretion seems to cut both ways, and its
pitfalls were revealed under the deduction-taxation system.
In its presentation to the task force on the tax treatment of child
support, in July 1994, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women wrote about the impact of taxation of child support:
We have contradictory evidence concerning the increase in and the extent of child
support payments, and there is very little information to indicate that what is not paid
out in taxes is being used for child support. Some family law practitioners say they
always allow for the taxes to be paid, but there is a basic difference between
emphasizing tax consequences and ensuring that child support payments fully reflect
the increase. Other family law practitioners point out that, even after considering all
the tax consequences, the amount finally awarded does not reflect the increase
because, suddenly, the sky is seen to be the limit. The judge acts instinctively and
declares that ``in fact, things do not cost that much-or amounts awarded are not
usually so high'', and he ends up reducing the child support payment.
However, a standard grid of payment levels would solve the
problem to a great extent.
Another issue raised by lawyers is the concern that, if the amount
of child support increases, more and more fathers will ask for
custody of their children, which will mean legal expenses for the
mothers. Finally, some judges fear that the number of deadbeat
fathers will rise.
In short, even if the principle of a single grid of payment levels
appears to be a possible solution, we will have to be watchful and
closely monitor its use by the courts.
This view is shared by the chair of the family law division of the
Canadian Bar Association, who believes that, in order to be
effective, the guidelines must be flexible enough to take into
account variations in the cost of living from province to province
and from city to city, as well as the specific needs of certain
children.
A lawyer who has his own private practice summarized this view
quite well in an article published in the Law Times. The lawyer
concluded that the benefits were greater than the drawbacks. The
main benefit, according to the lawyer, was consistency.
Consistency means that the outcome is predictable and, when we
have that, there is no need to go before the court. The lawyer noted
that, in the United States, lawyers practising in states where there
are guidelines find that fewer couples ask for temporary measures,
which saves them thousands of dollars while also reducing the
workload of the courts.
Therefore, we support the principle of guidelines that would
apply to the majority of cases. However, we have some concerns
about the draft version of the grid of payment levels released in
June.
Based on the information available to us, the federal grid is
based on the notion of equality. This means that someone with an
income of X dollars will pay Y dollars, regardless of the income of
the custodial parent. Therefore, the parent liable for financial
support will know what contribution will be sought by simply
looking at the line corresponding to his income on the grid,
regardless of the income of the parent who will get the payment,
since it does not come into play. Moreover, the federal and
provincial taxes are taken into account in this grid, but all
government transfers specific to a province are excluded.
Quebec is about to introduce this fall a bill that includes
guidelines of its own. Last August, a parliamentary committee met
for three days to hear witnesses' comments on the grid the
provincial government is suggesting to determine the support
payments. More studies are being made to make the proposal under
consideration even better.
The Quebec grid was drawn up by taking into account the rights
and responsibilities of parents under Quebec civil law. First of all,
both parents' revenues are added up in order to set the contribution
level, and then, the percentage to be paid by each parent is figured
out according to the needs of the child. The Quebec grid is also
based on the whole Quebec system, including taxation and
government transfers.
(1100)
Obviously, the basis of payment determination is fundamentally
different, and an in-depth study would improve it in order to
maximise the positive impact on the financial situation of children.
Since the Quebec policy is based on a much more extensive set
of data and takes into account all family and social policies in the
province, this is all the more reason for the federal government to
recognize the guidelines provinces have worked out for their
population. Let us hope that, this time, the federal government will
listen to and respect the will of the provinces.
4908
Before I conclude these remarks, I would like to raise a problem
that is fairly common in border areas. The problem involves former
spouses living in different provinces who might be tempted, in
order to save money, to move into the province whose rules are
most advantageous to them.
The proposed regulations provide, in section 3(4)a), that the grid
to be applied would be that of the paying parent's usual place of
residence.
I call on the justice minister to review this provision and amend
it so that the criterion is the child's place of residence, as requested
by Quebec. We feel that direction would be more beneficial to a
vast majority of children.
I see that my time is almost up; I will therefore conclude by
stressing that the official opposition supports the principles set out
in Bill C-41, but that it has strong reservations about the
appropriateness of the discretionary power the government is
reserving for itself and about certain enforcement provisions.
Meanwhile, we reiterate our invitation to the government to
show some flexibility for once and to leave to provinces an
important role in an area, the family, that, in the final analysis, is
within their jurisdiction, except for divorce.
We also call on the justice minister to introduce immediately
legislation to implement the two other parts of the reform, so that
the citizens know exactly in what direction the government is
leading them and, most of all, at what cost to them and to the state.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank you for recognizing me today in
this debate. It is an honour for me to speak first. I have been asked
by my party to lead off on this second reading debate.
We recognize with Bill C-41 that the government is addressing a
much needed part of our society in that there are support payments
which are in serious arrears. In British Columbia, my home
province, there are serious arrears and persistent arrears in some
cases. We must deal with the issue and this bill is welcome in that
sense.
There are a lot of divorces in which the non-custodial parent is
working very hard, is making the support payments and is trying to
keep in touch with his previous family. I say ``his'' because nine
times out of ten the non-custodial parent is usually male in our
society.
I feel that the bill addresses a very important concern; however, I
have several reservations regarding it.
In the 1996 budget the government addressed a strategy to
change the Canadian child support system, including the
introduction of guidelines to establish child support awards in
divorce cases. Legislation implementing key components of the
strategy was tabled in the House of Commons on May 30, 1996.
Both the guidelines and the new tax rules for child support are
scheduled to come into effect on May 1, 1997.
Bill C-41 is a bill which will amend the Divorce Act and other
acts in order to establish a federal system of aid for the payment of
child support or spousal maintenance.
The bill will alter four statutes in order to do these four things.
First, it will establish federal guidelines for child support. As I
stated before, that is needed.
Second, Revenue Canada data bases will be open for searches in
the case of payment default. This may cause all sorts of problems
arising from the questions of privacy and confidentiality. These are
some considerations we have to look at.
(1105)
Third is the denial of passports and certain licences to
individuals whose support payments are in arrears. In doing so, in
denying those passports or licences, there will be a garnishee
notice. The intent of this bill, as I understand it, is that the notice of
intent to garnishee will no longer be there. That is a major concern.
Why? We recognize that sometimes if a person receives a notice of
intent, they then can be long gone if their intent is to never pay the
support payments.
However, suppose the person is working out of the country,
suppose they are off on the oil rigs somewhere in Iran and that
notice of garnishee does not get to them within the 30 days.
Suppose there is an affidavit that does not have correct information
on it. We know that happens often in the legal system. Then they
are at an extreme disadvantage. That is another problem.
The fourth is that it would provide for the garnishment and
attachment of federal public service pensions and the wages of
individuals working at sea.
The acts involved in Bill C-41 besides the Divorce Act are the
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the
Canada Shipping Act.
Speakers for the government on this bill have already indicated
that it does establish a grid of payment levels for child support as
well as creating a number of enforcement mechanisms which can
be brought into place should default occur. That is all it does.
It does not deal with the deductibility of support payments from
income tax. It does not establish a system of required mediation. It
does not improve access issues for non-custodial parents or dare I
say for grandparents, and it does not address the issue of redress for
the parent who pays child support but is denied access by the
custodial parent without just cause.
4909
These are only some of the matters that are important issues
in family law today that this bill neglects to address. If Bill C-41
does not deal with the most controversial aspects of child support
announced in the 1996 federal budget, namely income tax payment
and deductions, and it does not deal with access to children or any
of the other issues relevant to family law reform, why has this
government called this Bill C-41 a comprehensive strategy to
improve the child support system?
Comprehensive means all encompassing. This bill is a piecemeal
approach at best for amending the Divorce Act. When I say
comprehensive, I am referring to a working draft of federal child
support guidelines issued in June 1996 by the Department of
Justice where it states in the 1996 budget that the government
announced a comprehensive strategy to improve the Canadian
child support system, including the introduction of guidelines, et
cetera. I have a problem with that because I do not see this as being
comprehensive.
Canadians need a comprehensive approach. The focus of such
comprehensive reform would be changes that benefit the children
of divorce. We are talking here about children. As I have spoken
about before in this House, when I talk about grandparent rights or
any rights in the family, it is the children I am always concerned
about.
A comprehensive approach would include compulsory
mediation as a first step in the divorce process rather than going
straight to court. A comprehensive approach would include access
provisions that are enforceable. It would also include the elements
of easier access for grandchildren to their grandparents. As well,
the bill should include the tax payments and deductions announced
in the budget.
I find the Liberal government's rationale odd when a reason
given to me by the minister for his failure to support my
grandparents bill in committee was that he would be doing a
comprehensive family law review of the Divorce Act. Hence at
some later date the grandchild-grandparent relationship would be
dealt with, unfortunately though, far too late for many of our
grandparents.
Yet this minister is in favour of a piecemeal approach to child
support. Is Bill C-41 a comprehensive reform? No, of course it is
not. It is a typical Liberal knee-jerk reaction to part of the problem.
As always, when someone deals only with part of the problem they
deal with the easy part first, the part that will not get them into any
trouble. This is the Liberal philosophy. Play it safe, do not stick
your neck out. There must be an election around the corner.
Playing it safe and delivering only half a loaf will not work in the
case of family reform. There are pressing issues and they should be
addressed together in one bill.
Dealing specifically with Bill C-41, we have some major
concerns. We do not believe the bill takes an even handed approach
to the issue of child support.
We are here to represent all Canadians, both men and women.
This bill is decidedly biased against the male parent. There is very
definitely a lack of equality for both parents. We all know that the
much larger group paying child support are men. This bill does
nothing to assure them of access rights.
(1110)
There is nothing to address the issues of mediation which are so
necessary if couples are going to live apart but still maintain the
best interests of their children uppermost in their minds. I
understand there is provision on the books at the present time that
asks divorce lawyers to attempt mediation prior to going into the
divorce court. I am told it is a half hearted measure at best and few
attempt it seriously.
That is why I was interested to read of the Edmonton pilot
project which requires people to take a six hour course before they
can start action over child access or custody. The free two night
seminar gives general information on topics such as the impact of
divorce on children, how to reduce a conflict and ways to negotiate
settlements without going to court.
Alberta justice minister Brian Evans said the program is
intended to help children and to save the courts time and money:
``If you have an agreement right off the bat and the parties are
amicable and the children are well taken care of, there is no
intention of forcing this upon people. There is some flexibility. The
focus of the program is on minimizing the impact of divorce on
children and avoiding future problems with the law. If they are
damaged psychologically and emotionally there is a very good
chance they are going to get into our criminal justice system''.
The article goes on to say Alberta is the second province after
Saskatchewan to introduce such a program. Manitoba is
considering a similar move.
There is no similar program in B.C. according to Diane Bell of
the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association in B.C: ``It
would be nice if it was available. If this free was around I think
lawyers would use it''.
The Edmonton program is a year long pilot project that could be
expanded to the rest of the province. The departments of justice and
social services are implementing it. Mr. Gronow, a justice official,
said that 1,200 couples in the Edmonton area will go through the
course each year because they cannot settle disputes over child
custody or access. The parent who wants to take this issue to court
will have to prove he or she has taken the course.
I have to pat the people in Edmonton on the back because I think
what they are addressing is the real issue. First, no child support
payment system is going to work if people are not willing to go
4910
along with it. It is realistic because it deals with the actual facts. If
we look at the fact that realistically we are going to address the
needs of the child and the ability of the father to pay and that both
parents who are getting divorced are involved in that mediation,
then the reality is they are going to come up with something that is
workable. I think that is what Edmonton has addressed and rightly
so.
What the article is telling us is that there is a need for such
programs. Divorce is a major happening in our country and we had
better deal with it in a positive manner. I believe we cannot over
emphasize our commitment to children. To invest in a child is to
invest in the country.
Bill C-41 gives authority to the governor in council, the cabinet,
to set the payment grid for child support and for spousal support
but does not clearly indicate that judges may vary the grid if
warranted by the circumstances. I think it would be all too easy for
a judge in this case to just go with the grid because it will probably
result in fewer appeals.
Therefore everything meaningful and important in this bill will
be implemented by the order in council, and so parliamentarians
will not have the opportunity to review or to comment on the child
support payment grid.
Reform has difficulties with this mechanism. We always have
difficulty when this government tries to bypass Parliament in an
attempt to legislation through the use of regulation. This grid
should be referred to a committee of this House for study before it
has legal affect.
Given my recent experiences with the House of Commons
justice committee I doubt whether that would be the appropriate
forum. However, some committee of this House, hopefully one on
which members are sympathetic to the problem of family break-up,
should review these guidelines.
Clause 2 of the bill which amends section 15 of the Divorce Act
recognizes that a judge in both child and spousal award situations
may look at agreements made between the parties, ability to pay
and matters which would be of benefit to the children. First the
judge is to take into consideration the guidelines, which is the grid
established under this bill.
I think the drafters here have it backwards. The judge should
look first at agreements reached between the parties and only when
the parties cannot agree look at the grid. As well the judge should
look at the ability to pay. If we are looking seriously at mediation
before divorce, as Alberta is, then the parents have already worked
out an agreement which will work for them.
There will be no need to put extra stress on a couple who are
already in a stressful situation. We have plenty of evidence of large
awards of support and maintenance which bear no relation to the
spouses ability to pay. No matter the consequences, we run into
problems of the payment.
(1115)
The Financial Post took a realistic look at this problem. In the
article ``Getting tough with deadbeat dads won't solve the
problem'', the writer states:
Deadbeat dads stand only slightly below tobacco companies in the modern
compendium of villainy. Governments across North America compete to devise the
toughest schemes to extract child support money from these men. Give the prize for
harshness to Tory Ontario. Beginning this January 1, Ontario fathers who fail to pay
court imposed child support obligation will lose their drivers' licenses, will see their
credit ratings stripped away, and will soon hear the pounding of the debt collector's
fist on their front door.
So, can Ontario's single mothers soon look forward to a big bump in their
incomes? Hardly.
Even those men lucky enough to have full time employment are averaging only
about $40,000 a year, according to Statistics Canada. But a father who moves away
from his children must still pay taxes. He must still eat and put some sort of roof over
his head. It's still against the law for him to appear in public naked and he must
somehow get to work.
A single man earning $40,000 faces income taxes of more than $15,000 in
Ontario, even after the first Harris tax cut. Grant him a frugal $1,500 per year for
food, and another $6,000 a year for a cheap apartment. Budget $1,500 to finance,
insure and operate a car, and $1,000 for shoes and clothes. Toss in $2,000 more for
laundry, electricity, toothpaste, a telephone to call the kids he is supporting, the
occasional haircut and a few other meagre incidentals.
In other words, provided that this man is willing to devote every discretionary
dollar to their lives, and provided too that he never remarries and never fathers any
more children, we might be able to squeeze as much as $10,000 a year of child
support out of him. If we fail to make him live like a monk, if we permit him to form
a new family, then the money available will rapidly tumble to a thousand or two a
year. And that's not going to do very much good is it?
Here's the truth that the whole deadbeat dad discussion evades. The reason
women and children usually suffer economically after the break of a family is not
that some man is selfishly or punitively withholding money from them, although of
course some men do. The reason women and children suffer is that the typical wage
earner does not earn enough to support two households. Neither for that matter does
the comparatively affluent wage earner, one of the ten per cent of Canadian workers
who grosses above $50,000 a year-''.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to ask for the
co-operation of the House that we might all be able to hear each
other's interventions. When the time comes for questions or
comments, I will certainly facilitate those to the extent I am able to.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker:
No matter how onerous the child support decrees against these men may be, no
matter how diligently governments enforce these decrees, for reasons of basic
economics and arithmetic, divorce and unwed motherhood will inevitably mean
4911
economic catastrophe for the people involved. If anything, tougher child support
rules are likely to exacerbate the catastrophe especially among the poor.
It is not that I did not hear the comments at the side, however
rudely said. What it does say is that the members opposite are
trying to point out, and perhaps rightly so, that usually the mothers
have a very difficult time. Yes they do. But that does not mean that
we should put our heads in the sand and pretend their is economic
prosperity out there. There is not.
I do not want to see families falling apart even further than they
do after divorce. A divorce does not mean a family has to fall apart.
People who use common sense can encourage the father, which is
usually the non-custodial parent, to continue visiting and to let his
children know he still loves them and cares for them. But we
cannot hammer them into the ground and then say come on, be a
good family person. You have to use your head. For many years
those paying the support and the parents who are receiving the
support have had a lot of problems. I am personally well aware of
it. But that does not mean that I stop thinking or stop facing reality.
(1120)
In these economic times the Liberal government should certainly
look at the 10 per cent unemployment level. We cannot punish
people. We have to offer encouragement. That is what we must do
when we are making laws.
If we have moved to no fault divorce, which I believe we have, at
least let us be consistent in awarding child support maintenance
and not use this to punish the non-custodial spouse. There is no big
bad guy out there and no one on a white charger either.
We also have concerns with clauses of the bill which allow the
government to suspend licences and passports in order to achieve
payment of support arrears. I recognize that in these instances of
persistent arrears we should be careful. By suspending a licence or
a passport we may be putting someone's ability to earn a livelihood
in jeopardy. It does not help to make it so difficult that someone
may end up out of a job. Then they cannot make any payments or
help anybody, least of all their children.
If the ability to earn a living is jeopardized then there will be no
money at all to pay child support. It is a lose-lose situation. We
must also keep in mind the revocation of a passport may place such
a person in jeopardy if he or she travels or works outside of Canada.
This international law aspect of the revocation of a passport should
be explored.
I hope these clauses will be examined closely in committee. We
will be considering amendments which lengthen the period of
notice under clause 22 of the bill which amends section 67(4) of
the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.
What also distresses me about this bill is the fact that it does not
address the issue of access, especially the access of grandparents to
grandchildren.
Finally the media is starting to pick up on that major issue in our
society, giving Canadian children access to their families, which
also includes grandparents.
We are told to wait for a comprehensive review of the Divorce
Act. I put it to the Minister of Justice today that a number of
grandparents do not have much time left.
Let us agree on one thing. There are no good guys, no bad guys
in divorce. The term no fault divorce recognizes that. How do we
establish fairness and equal responsibility and access rights that
recognize that parents divorce and children do not? I am talking in
general terms here because we are all aware that there are parents
who should never have been parents. Some are irresponsible and
not supportive. But the average parent, divorced or not, cares about
his or her children, loves them, wants them with them and wants to
help them. This is a major reason why mediation before divorce
and before child custody and access is decided is necessary.
What am I really saying? It is the children who are the real
victims of divorce. They need a loving, caring family. As a teacher
for over 30 years, I can tell the House that all children are affected
by divorce. However, divorce does happen and will continue to
happen. So what can we do as a country? We all must remember
that the family is our most basic unit in society.
Unfortunately in today's world over 50 per cent of marriages end
in divorce. Unfortunately in the case of divorce, which is what this
bill deals with, it is most often the case that children are the last to
be considered. This in spite of the fact that the courts and our laws
use the phrase ``in the best interests of the child''. In fact, in most
cases it really comes down to the best interests of the custodial
parent.
We know from heavy documentation in the United States, which
keeps records of trends in divorce, that generally the practice was
in the best interests of the custodial parent. The child and the rest of
the immediate family are seldom considered.
The House knows that I have been concerned about our Canadian
grandchildren and I have spoken of the crisis after divorce when
many grandchildren no longer see or visit with their grandparents.
Perhaps I see families in a different light than other members of the
House. It seems to me that just because a divorce takes place does
not mean that a child or children of that marriage no longer have a
father or a mother. A divorce should not make those children any
less deserving of maintaining family ties. It would be more
difficult, perhaps, but also more necessary.
4912
(1125 )
If we want a strong, healthy society then we must be concerned
with all families, divorced or not. We must ensure that children are
encouraged to maintain access to their whole family. Children need
to know they are loved by both parents, regardless of the divorce
and by both sets of grandparents. Child support or a lack of it is a
major problem but I feel the government by treating it as a one
sided issue is not going to help the issue but rather exasperate it.
I want to say at this time that I will be making some amendments
because obviously there are some current concerns which I have
already raised pertaining to this and I hope those amendments will
be taken seriously by the government.
In closing I would like to point out an American book, Ladies'
Home Journal. A business woman, Rebecca Morrick, was a parent
who suffered from lack of support payments. They did not come to
her on time and so she started her own collection agency. She said:
``I understand the anger and frustration of the women who come to
me. I know what it is like when a support cheque doesn't come or a
child's birthday is ignored. I know how it feels to hunt for pocket
change just to buy a gallon of milk. Believe me, I've been there''.
Then she talks about her work and how successful she has been
in finding, as she calls them, deadbeat fathers. That is not a very
nice term but it does probably describe the situation. She said: ``It
takes me about six months to start collecting money from deadbeat
dads and I do most of my leg work by computer. In the end a client
can make out quite well. Even if the support award is relatively
small, the ex can be made to pay his or her spouse the compound
interest that would be accrued over the years of non-payment. Not
surprisingly, finding fathers on the run is my speciality. In a case I
am closing now, my largest one ever, I tracked down a deadbeat dad
who owed more than $200,000. He had been ordered to pay my
client $300 a month to support their daughter back in 1979 but he
skipped town without paying a cent.
``His wife Moranda hadn't tried very hard to find him, thinking
that he would never earn enough to make the payments anyway.
Years later, however, Moranda learned that her ex had become a
successful songwriter for a country music star. We found him in
Nashville, had him served by the court and we are in the process of
seizing his royalty cheques, some of which amount to more than
$30,000''.
She is talking about those that she has had that are successful.
What she is saying is there are very serious issues of non-support.
She sees them all the time and tries to rectify the situation with a
certain amount of success. She mentions too that the bureaucracy
often gets in the way and that happens in Canada too. It gets in the
way too often and sometimes our workers in the social field are
overworked and cannot address all the concerns.
What I want to point out is that here is a woman who has gone
through the situation, who works with it every day, who sees the
worst scenarios, but is she biased like the member opposite? Does
she only push one side of the question, like the member opposite?
Or does she deal, and this is what-
Ms. Clancy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if
the hon. member could clarify when she says ``biased like the
member opposite'' to which of the members opposite she is
referring. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would submit to the House
that respectfully the member is engaging in debate and does not
have a point of order. I will resume debate with the hon. member
for Mission-Coquitlam.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do like to be heard.
This is very pertinent to the last part. I want to point out, after the
interruption, that this again is a woman who deals with this every
day of her life, the worst scenarios in lack of child support.
This is what she said: ``When I first went into the business I tried
to be cool and objective, a real hard-boiled detective, but it just
wasn't my style. As a result I often find myself getting emotionally
involved in my cases and giving my clients personal advice. My
favourite cases are those in which my work helps to reunite a
family. Some fathers are actually relieved when I find them. They
miss their children and are eager for a fresh start.
``Take the case of Joe and Sally. Joe, tired of being turned away
every time he wanted to visit their children, stopped paying child
support and Sally refused to let him visit until he started sending
the cheques again. To end this bitter standoff I drew up a
modification to the child support decree stipulating that the
payments and visits were to resume immediately. Sally, still
distrustful of Joe, was reluctant to sign the agreement but I warned
her I would drop her case if she didn't. Finally she gave in. Both the
cheques and the visits have been helping ever since.
(1130 )
``Helping women get the support they deserve is immensely
satisfying. However, helping fathers like Joe make amends to their
families makes me feel that my profession is really worthwhile.
Fatherhood can and should be more than just a monthly cheque not
just a wallet. My work has taught me that a child whose daddy
disappears is never quite the same''. As a teacher for over 30 years,
I can second that.
Now that I am coming to the end of my speech, I must again say
that no one understands any more than I do, having personal
4913
experience, the very serious issue with which we are dealing. If we
do not start caring about everybody, if we do not start putting
children first and trying to help families, then we are going to see
more and more separation, divorce and lack of support payments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House is presently
operating under Standing Order 74 which entitles the first three
speakers to a maximum of 40 minutes and are not subject to
questions or comments. The next five hours of debate will include
20-minute interventions subject to 10 minutes of questions or
comments.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I commence
my remarks I want to pay tribute to the member for
Mission-Coquitlam and her advocacy for grandparents. I may not
agree with the legislation she has put forward, but I certainly agree
with the spirit and intent of her advocacy.
I also want to take a line from her comments just now when she
said, in conclusion, that if we do not care about everybody and
particularly children we are going to be in trouble. That is
refreshing and, I know from that member, a true statement of her
feelings. It is also refreshing to hear it from the Reform benches.
However, the best way to put this is that there is place for
everything legislatively and everything in its place. While I
understand the member's frustration, given her advocacy on the
question of access to grandparents in a post-divorce world, this bill
does not deal with access. Access is something separate which may
have to be dealt with at another time. This bill deals specifically
with corollary relief and the situation faced by, for the most part,
mothers attempting to deal with their financial lives in a
post-divorce situation.
Sometimes to explain why amendments are taken in the manner
in which they are taken and why the government decides to act in
the way in which it decides to act, particularly in these
circumstances, it becomes necessary to talk about the real world.
While I applaud the hon. member, I think there is a touch of
naivety in the comments. This is not, particularly when we talk
about post-divorce families, the best of all possible worlds. Indeed,
for those of us who have long experience in the realm of family
law, the post-divorce world is survivable for those people who have
gone through it only if the legislation is strong enough to ensure
behaviour that allows survival.
This is not a world to be looked at with rose coloured glasses.
Post-divorce for a number of years and sometimes many years can
be described best as a page out of hell for the people who are
involved in it.
I would like to correct a mistake in statistics that I am sure the
hon. member did not mean to make. The divorce rate in Canada is
not 50 per cent, thank God. The divorce rate fluctuates somewhere
between 3 and 3.9 in 10. This is not terrific but it is not as bad as 50
per cent. Maybe it should be at 50 per cent given some of the
things that happen in marriages that still stay together.
Nevertheless, just in the interest of accuracy, the divorce rate is
somewhere between 3 or 3.9 out of 10.
(1135 )
An hon. member: Source?
Ms. Clancy: The source is Statistics Canada. If the hon. member
wants to get into sources he may be a little sorry.
One of the things I want to say with regard to the hon. member's
comments is that we have to be very careful in attempting to draw a
correlation between the children of divorce and participation in the
criminal justice system. If the hon. member has sources for that
kind of allegation we would be very interested to hear them on this
side of the House. Given the fact that divorce rates are high, I
believe we would be seeing an increase in the crime rate, as
opposed to a decrease, which is what we are in fact seeing.
However, for all the goodwill that came from that speech and
which comes from the hon. member opposite with respect to this
matter, there is a naivety which needs to be corrected.
As I said before, the post-divorce world is not the best of all
possible worlds. People get divorced because, in general, they have
come to the end of their tether in a relationship which is the most
personal and intimate relationship people have on this earth. When
the emotional response turns from one pole to another, the reaction
and the fallout can be horrifying, not just for the husband and wife
who are going through the divorce, but clearly, as the hon. member
has noted, for the children.
Every piece of legislation in this country that relates to children
in any way, whether it is the Divorce Act or provincial legislation
on maintenance, custody, or whatever, has in it somewhere the
phrase ``the best interests of the child are paramount''. One of the
tragedies of our country is that we have still not learned, whether as
legislators, as lawyers or as jurists, how to truly implement that
phrase. If the parents, the people most directly concerned and the
people who allegedly should care the most for the best interests of
the child cannot do it, it becomes insane to suspect that anyone else
can do it.
In the post-divorce world children are going to be traumatized.
As legislators we have to bring in legislation which will minimize
the trauma and maximize the benefit. No one has ever suggested,
nor should anyone suggest, that solutions which come from the
legislature will be a panacea. It is not possible.
When I started to practise law in 1978 the rate of child support
and maintenance payments which were not enforced was over 90
per cent. Eighteen years ago over 90 per cent of support payments
in this country were unenforceable. Since that time we have
4914
improved. I do not know the statistics today, but I believe we are
fluctuating in the area of 60 per cent. That is still unacceptable.
One of the things which I saw time and again as a family lawyer,
acting for women who were attempting to enforce child support
payments, was what I would refer to as the brow-beaten syndrome.
They had come to the point where it was not worth it. The child
support payments would be late, if they came at all. The process in
the family court or even, from time to time, under a divorce decree
in the Supreme Court, meant that those women took time off work.
They worked themselves up into an emotional state. For most
people, appearing as a witness in court, particularly in an area as
sensitive as one which involves both the financial state of the
individual and the state of their personal relationships, causes great
stress.
(1140 )
Time and again a client would call to say that the support
payment had not come in again and I would say we will go to
family court and we will do this. Then she would say: ``No, to hell
with it. I cannot be bothered anymore, it is not worth it, I would
rather do without than put up with all of this''.
This legislation, which relates to settlement agreements, is being
brought forward in an attempt to alleviate that kind of problem. It is
also being brought forward because whether hon. members
opposite like it or not, on divorce the woman's standard of living
falls considerably and the man's rises. Do you want statistics on
this? Just check. I will bet that you could even check with some of
the hon. members opposite who might know about it. There is no
question that women across the board do not have the same access
to money, to jobs, to promotion, et cetera, as men. It is a fact of life.
Second, if the woman is paying tax on top of this money and is in
a lower category to begin with, she is going to get hit with a bigger
bite. This is another thing that this legislation is here to do
something about.
The whole thing, however, comes down to the recommendations
that are being given to judges and those who are going to hammer
out the settlements either in the courts or in mediation ahead of
time. Spot news for the third party, mediation has been in place for
quite a long time and it works. That is probably the reason we are
down to around 60 per cent on enforcement of maintenance orders.
However, that is still not good enough.
This problem will not be solved by saying that fathers who do
not pay or parents who do not pay are just misguided. They are not
just misguided, some of them do not want to pay. They just
absolutely do not want to sign that cheque. Enforcement is and
continues to be a problem. Again, this legislation is aimed at
addressing some of those problems and alleviating them.
This is not a world where mothers and fathers are going to
reunite after they have broken up. That kind of thing happens in the
odd movie that is released at Christmas time and tragically in the
minds of many children of divorce, but it does not happen in
reality. Let us not go on talking about how we can heal the personal
relationship and wasting our energies there, which is no place for
the legislator at any rate, and talk about how we can ensure that the
financial burdens and the financial problems are at least taken care
of in such a way that children and single parents have some small
chance of making their lives a little bit better than they have been.
I am sure there are other areas in our society and other
professionals and other people who can work on the emotional
reconstruction that may be possible in a limited number of cases.
That is not our job just as it is not our job in this legislation to deal
with the question of access. Our job is to deal with the question of
amendments that will handle corollary relief under the Divorce
Act. That is what we do.
A number of questions were brought up by the hon. member
opposite that relate purely and simply to matters within provincial
jurisdiction. It is all very well for people to question jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction matters. Certain things fall within the provincial
purview and other things fall within the federal purview. This is
something that falls within the federal purview. It is something that
we can do. It is something that we are doing.
It is something that has been long overdue. It was given its
impetus by the Federal Court's decision in the Thibaudeau case. It
was given its impetus by the hon. member for Nepean who came
forward and championed this cause from the beginning. It is
something that I am proud to stand here today and support.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member opposite
and I must say that she used some very noteworthy examples. The
principle of the bill in itself is acceptable because its first priority is
the welfare of the child.
However, I would like the hon. member to answer a question I
have about the principle of the divorce guidelines set by the federal
government, which contradict the guidelines on separations set by
some provinces, including Quebec.
We know that, by order in council, the government could decide
not to authorize-
Mrs. Clancy: In separation cases.
Mrs. Gagnon: Yes, in the guidelines.
4915
I would like the hon. member to tell us why the government
in such cases does not allow the provinces to set the appropriate
guidelines. This is a another telling example of
non-decentralization. A Liberal member said centralizing
federalism is like an irresistible urge.
I would ask the hon. member to tell us how, through an order in
council, the federal government can, in some cases, choose to
ignore provincial guidelines. This goes to show, once again, how
inefficient the government is. There is no willingness to
decentralize and let the provinces deal with their own areas of
jurisdiction. How is it that the hon. member does not see this
negative side of the bill?
I acknowledge that the government has come up with some good
provisions to improve the standard of living for children and
women. I think we agree on that, but I disagree again on the
guidelines issue, because the government will not let the provincial
governments set their own guidelines. It is a bit like having a court
make one decision about a divorce case in one room and, thirty
minutes later, on a separation case this time, make a completely
different decision, because the federal government does one thing
and the provinces another.
The provinces should be able to set their own guidelines. I am
worried that we might be granting something not within our giving,
as members of this House.
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Quebec for her intervention and for her comments. In this
particular case I really do not want to sound patronizing. Let me
begin by making an obvious statement. I am not familiar with the
specific laws within the province of Quebec to which she refers. I
am however very familiar with the juxtaposition, if you will, of
federal and provincial law in this area.
The fact is it relates to some degree to what I said in my closing
remarks about jurisdiction and this may have been the translation
because I was listening to the translation. The translator used the
word allow. The hon. member, although not a lawyer, knows it is
not a question of the federal government allowing the provincial
government. These are clearly defined areas of jurisdiction, one
within the provincial area and one within the federal area.
The Divorce Act is within the federal jurisdiction and is really
the only area per se whereby the federal government gets involved
in the legal ramifications of marriage breakdown. There are other
areas in which marriages are terminated not by divorce which are
provincial.
I can only again say to the hon. member it is not at all a question
of decentralization. Indeed I remember some years ago at a
constitutional conference with federal and provincial members,
including at the time the late Premier Lévesque, who was willing to
agree to throw all family law to the provinces. This engendered a
huge and negative reaction from bar societies and lawyers right
across the country, including lawyers from the province of Quebec,
some of whom may even be members of the Bloc or the PQ.
(1150 )
To be quite serious, the guidelines, and as I said, I am not
familiar with the Quebec guidelines per se but I imagine they
cannot be all that different from what may not be solid guidelines
in other provinces, but the traditions, those habits or areas that
define mediation and pretrial settlements in divorce and marriage
breakdown. Most judges in Quebec and in the other provinces of
Canada attempt to get as best a handle on the matter and they also
attempt-and this is the phrase I brought up before-to consider
the best interests of the child.
I do not think there is anything in the federal guidelines that will
unduly hamper anything in the provincial guidelines. The federal
guidelines are good guidelines. They reflect, in my estimation and
in my knowledge of what is happening in other provinces, much the
same ideas, much the same theories, much the same goals and
aims.
If there is something under the civil code in Quebec that is
utterly at war with the guidelines at the federal level, I would
personally be very surprised and I would imagine that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would be
interested in knowing what those were and perhaps looking at
them. But it is most unlikely that these would in actuality conflict.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in her
presentation the hon. member referred to the best interests of the
child and the fact that this legislation in her opinion would fulfil the
best interests or look out for the concerns of the child.
The most important thing a child can have is two loving parents.
Could she comment on the fact that this legislation does nothing to
deal with the access of the non-custodial parent? Could this be a
huge gap in the legislation?
The Divorce Act is rarely opened. It should be dealt with in a
much more thorough way than this. Could the hon. member
comment?
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have been asked this
question. I know my hon. friend asks it in the best of faith and I will
answer very seriously.
Of course the optimum, the ideal for a child is to have two loving
parents. I look at my own experience. The first seven years of my
life were as idyllic as any child could have, and then my father
died. It was a tragedy no one could have foreseen. My mother
carried on in an admirable way. I was very lucky and grew up in a
4916
very loving home. The wonderful creature you see before you is a
product of that.
One of the things my mother used to say to me at times when the
loss of my father became a great burden was: ``You know Mary,
there are many worse things that could happen to you than having
your father die''. That is very true. I think the hon. member knows
that as well.
It would be wonderful if we could legislate two loving parents
for every child. It would be possibly the greatest thing we could do,
but we know we cannot do that. We know there are parents who
neglect their children; there are parents who abuse their children;
there are parents who behave in the most ghastly and horrible ways
to their children, betraying the love and the trust in ways that make
legislators like us, all Canadians and all people of goodwill on this
earth cry out for justice.
(1155 )
I said earlier in my comments that there are things legislators can
do and there are things we cannot do. We cannot legislate two
loving parents for every child. We can only attempt to make the
situation as good as possible.
To get to the technical question of access, it is in the Divorce
Act. I am not sure what the hon. member wants to do with it. If he is
referring to those who have standing to apply for access, that is
another question, but access is dealt with in the Divorce Act. If he
is referring to the private members' bill of the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam, I already said that I support her spirit and the
intent. I do not happen to support the particular mode she took to
implement it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-41, which is before us, is a good illustration of the
fact that policies do not necessarily respond to people's demands as
quickly as one could wish.
Bill C-41 is intended to solve a problem known to many a
single-parent family. Members know that, in most cases, women-in
perhaps as much as 99 per cent of the cases-and ultimately
children-in every single case-have to live with it. There has
been a lot of unfairness.
Women's and community groups as well as many individual men
and women have long been asking first the Conservative
government, and then the Liberal government since 1993, to amend
support legislation. There was clearly a consensus although some
non-custodial fathers, naturally, viewed this unfavourably. But as
the objective was to improve the children's lot, I think everybody
recognized that there was a problem.
It took a legendary court case to bring the government to really
do something. It took a courageous woman to confront the
government on this important issue. I am referring to the
Thibaudeau case, which is known to everybody.
Mrs. Thibaudeau had the support of a lot of people, including,
although I do not want to brag, the support of the official
opposition from the very beginning. A Liberal member said earlier
that his party had supported from the beginning the amendments
proposed in Bill C-41 but, from the moment we became the official
opposition, we were the ones who, clearly, asked the government
questions on this particular issue.
Members will recall how often, in the House, the Bloc member
for Québec asked the justice minister to introduce legislation to
split the cost of raising children between both parents. Or the hon.
member for Temiscamingue who said this in May 1995: ``Thus, it
is imperative that the government act right now to answer women's
expectations''.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for
Québec, among others, for her persistence and perseverance in this
difficult matter. In spite of all the different preconceptions and
factors to be taken into account, she did an excellent job. This is
why the opposition parties joined forces to have the rules changed.
I would also like to thank the member for Témiscamingue, who
was our critic for National Revenue at the time. He explained very
clearly the financial implications. Because of his explanations, all
the members of the Bloc agreed on this issue.
However, almost a year late, the government and the minister
have at last introduced the reform the Bloc Quebecois has been
calling for for so long.
In the 1996 Budget, for the first time, the federal government
finally unveiled the new child support payments system. As
members will recall, there were four sections. The first established
that child support payments will no longer be deductible for the
custodial parent, but for the non-custodial parent. Second, the
maximum working income supplement included in the federal tax
benefits for children will be doubled. Third, guidelines will be
drawn up for calculating support payments. Fourth, new measures
enhancing the enforcement of child support will also be announced.
(1200)
If Bill C-41, which amends the Divorce Act, the Family Orders
and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, some provisions of
the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act as well as
other related acts, is adopted, it will implement two of the four
elements I mentioned earlier. I will cover these elements in greater
detail later.
4917
According to the bill before us, the Divorce Act will be
amended to create a framework for the use of the child support
payment determination guidelines. Such guidelines would replace
the discretionary power of the courts and would be adopted
through regulations.
The other aspect changed by Bill C-41 concerns enforcement.
Specifically, the bill would amend the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to add Revenue Canada
to the list of federal departments whose data banks could be
searched to find individuals who have been delinquent in paying
child or spousal support.
The changes create a new mechanism to deny certain licences or
benefits to individuals who regularly neglect to pay support. The
rest of the new legislation will be put in place through a budget
implementation act which will probably be introduced in the fall.
When we examine those two aspects of Bill C-41, we realize that
the first one, that is to say the guidelines, is the most important. I
have heard all kinds of things in this House, and it is worth taking a
few minutes to talk about the guidelines and to explain to members
who might not know what is going on in other provinces regarding
these guidelines, because the province of Quebec does have such
guidelines.
Bill C-41 will establish guidelines that will prevail even though
some provinces have already adopted their own guidelines. To
respond more specifically to the member for Halifax, who said she
did not know what the guidelines were in Quebec, I think it is worth
taking a few minutes to examine these provincial guidelines as well
as the federal ones.
Here are some details about the criteria used to establish the
guidelines. I invite the members opposite to listen very carefully,
especially the member for Halifax. She must listen to understand
what is going on.
The Quebec model is based on the actual cost of the child. An
estimation is made of what the child needs. It could not be more
accurate. However, the federal model is based on a partial
equalization of living standards. According to that model, a
five-year old child generally needs so much. But one child may
need more than another child depending on his or her family's
standard of living. Therefore, we can see right from the first
criterion that it is not completely true to reality.
A second element concerning the Quebec model is that it is
based on the ability to pay of both parents. Is that not perfectly
normal? The financial responsibility for the children is shared
between both parents on a pro rata basis depending on their
resources. Again, it could not be more accurate. How has the
federal government, which thinks it knows everything there is to
know on the subject, gone about it? The federal model is based on
the premise that both parents have the same income. Nothing could
be further from reality.
In some cases, both parents do have the same income. It is
possible. However, in some fields, women earn 30 per cent less
than men. The premise used by the federal government may be
based on the ideal situation, but, again, it is not true to reality.
According to what my colleague said, even for work of equal value,
women earn 30 per cent less than men. Therefore, if you take two
engineers, there is a difference right off the bat, so the federal
government is wrong on all counts.
(1205)
Third, the Quebec model does not include, either implicitly or
explicitly, an amount for the custodial parent. The federal
government takes the opposite approach. Its model implicitly
includes an amount for the custodial parent.
A fourth element of the Quebec model is harmonization with
Quebec income security and taxation programs. Is this the right
approach? The federal government does not seem to think so,
because its model is not harmonized with Quebec programs.
Another point is that, in Quebec, the proportion of child
expenses decreases with income. In the federal approach, child
expenses remain constant. Finally, in Quebec, the non-custodial
parent receiving income security payments is not required to pay
support. Under the federal model, the non-custodial parent
receiving income security could be called on to pay support.
I have just provided the member for Halifax, who said she
doubted that there were large differences between the Quebec and
federal models, with all the proof necessary to show that there
indeed are. She can take that to her caucus and try to convince the
Minister of Justice that he is on the wrong track in wishing to
impose certain federal standards, the same system for all the
provinces.
This is yet another example of how in Quebec-because I am an
MP from Quebec, not because I am a Quebecer-we do things
differently. This is proof again that we are a distinct society. Even
in a bill that, all in all, has nothing to do with the Constitution, we
see that Quebecers do things differently.
I think this would perhaps have been a good opportunity for the
federal government to have a clause specifically recognizing the
distinct character of Quebec with regard to the family and giving it
full jurisdiction in this area. It was time to do so. The Prime
Minister of Canada boasts that he recognizes the distinct character
of Quebec. It was time to prove it in a bill that, in my view, is
extremely important for the family, which is, after all, at the very
basis of Quebec society.
That being said, although the Bloc Quebecois initially applauded
the minister's reform concerning guidelines to determine the
amount of support payments, we voiced several reservations with
respect to the implementation of these federal guidelines in the
province.
4918
Upon reading Bill C-41 and after comparing the Quebec model
and the federal model concerning these guidelines, it is clear our
fears have been confirmed, since thanks to Bill C-41, we will have
two entirely different systems.
I think the points I just made for the benefit of the hon. member
for Halifax could be used by other Liberal members to contend
with the demon of centralization, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said so eloquently. I think they have
enough facts to prevent the minister's demon of centralization from
becoming active and to backtrack, face the facts and decentralize as
we hope they will.
The first part of Bill C-41 deals with quite a few items, and I will
run through them very quickly. What I am going to say is very
legalistic but I think we should spend some time on these items,
considering that legislators must mean what they say. This is a rule
of law that has been cited quite often. I think that when Parliament
adopts a bill of this kind, the meaning of every word is extremely
important.
(1210)
If a provincial government decides to set certain guidelines for
its province, such guidelines will take precedence over the federal
guidelines, provided the governor in council designates, by order,
the provincial guidelines as the applicable guidelines. Here I am
referring to subclause 1(4) which reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of
the definition ``applicable guidelines'' in subsection (1)-
``May'', Mr. Speaker. And right away, you will understand that
the Bloc Quebecois cannot go along with this ``may''. Obviously,
this should read ``shall'', ``the Governor in Council shall, by
order-''. We do not to leave the governor in council any choice,
any discretion to decide whether or not the guidelines of a province
must take precedence over the federal guidelines.
If the province takes the initiative, if a province bothers to
establish guidelines in an area as important as this one, I think the
governor in council has no choice and shall, by order, designate
that province as the province whose guidelines will apply.
According to the bill, provinces must therefore meet the criteria
set out by the federal government in clause 26.1 if their guidelines
are to be accepted as applicable. Thus, the federal government
reserves absolute discretionary power to accept, or not to accept,
the order according to sub-section (4).
Once again, we can see the usual federal paternalism at work
here, always wanting to have power over provincial governments'
social policies. Every time, the federal Big Brother places the
provinces in a situation of guardianship, insisting on imposing its
views on the provinces, without any concern for adapting to
specific situations in various regions of Canada.
As well, rejection of a province's guidelines would lead to the
absurd situation of having the provincial payment grid apply when
the parents separate, while the federal one would kick in when they
divorce, since the federal level has precedence in matters of
divorce.
We would see people legislation shopping with the blessings of
the Minister of Justice in Ottawa. If we adopt the bill as it stands, it
will enable lawyers and those involved in a family case to ask:
which is better for me, separation or divorce? The only
consideration I have is the following-even though I am a man
myself, I think I can say that men often see certain things from the
financial point of view, which may not be the case of women
caught in a very emotional situation and the lawyers will be
involved in this. If the lawyer is on the ball at all, and can influence
or try to influence his client, and he or she succeeds in influencing
the opposing lawyer-who may well be a woman, as women often
choose other women to represent them, which is their choice and
there is nothing wrong with that-well then, after negotiation, after
the lawyers sort out the various points that may influence their
choice, the client may opt for divorce rather than separation,
because the federal guidelines are perhaps less generous than the
provincial.
We will really start to see legislation shopping, and I believe
that, if there is one area in which that must be prevented, it is in
family law, for the objective is, as I have stated at the start of my
speech, the protection and welfare of the children involved.
Finally, the federal government uses the place of residence of the
debtor, the person paying the support, to determine which
guidelines are applicable. I have another difference for the hon.
member for Halifax: the Quebec government considers the child's
residence, a criterion that is much more consistent with the
principles outlined in several court orders that the child's interest
must prevail over everything else.
The rules applied by one province may be much more in line
with the child's situation than those of the debtor province. This
goes without saying. Does the Minister of Justice not think that all
children have the same value, whatever their parents' status may
be, whether it is a separation or a divorce case?
(1215)
I do not know what the minister's answer is, but I can tell you
right now that, in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, whatever their
parents' status is, all children have the same value, and we should
ensure that child support payments are as generous as possible so
that the children are as comfortable as possible in this rather
difficult situation.
Let me give you another example. According to the current
federal and provincial regulations, if the amounts set by federal
regulations are lower, after everything is taken into account,
Quebecers would pay less in child support if they lived in Ontario.
What is preventing Quebecers paying child support who are
starting to feel the heat from moving to Ontario, thus reducing their
4919
payments under section 1(3)(a)? What is preventing someone like
that from moving to avoid his financial obligations or to pay as
little as possible? Nothing. Even if we look at the minister's notes,
the draft guidelines clearly allow this way of getting around one's
financial obligations.
This lack of uniformity between provinces, combined with the
number of courts issuing child support orders, the many
overlapping federal and provincial laws, and the regional
disparities in the cost of living, results in financial instability for
separated and divorced families. We will not reach our goal unless
we make the necessary amendments to this bill.
Obviously, it would make much more sense to let each province
choose the model for determining support payments that suits its
needs and let each decide terms of implementing the rules
governing their determination in keeping with provincial social
security, tax and family policy.
The area of the family is not something that can be pulled out of
a hat and dealt with like that. It is more intricate. The area of the
family is an extremely important area, and with the examples I
gave, with the Quebec model, the federal model, I am sure that the
House of Commons has understood that the province-Quebec in
the example I gave, but I am sure that other provinces also have
terms already established-is closer to the people, knows about
such family-related problems as income and allowances of all
sorts. The provincial government is in a better position to recognize
family needs. The federal government should therefore withdraw
from this area and give full jurisdiction to the provinces.
Since you are signalling to me that my time is running out, I will
say briefly that the opposition supports the second part of Bill
C-41.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a brief comment and a question for the member. The issue of the
family has come up often in the debate. It is an issue that interests
me a great deal in the work I do in this place.
Members know very well that when the family is strong, good
things happen. We are talking about legislation that deals with the
situation when the family breaks down.
The Thibaudeau case has been raised. The member knows that
the change vis-à-vis the Thibaudeau case actually put parents who
separate on the same footing as families have always been. The
change represents fairness and equity. I am glad the member and
all speakers always begin their comments with the statement that
the child's interests should come first. I heartily agree.
(1220)
My question has to do with scheduling. The member, in making
the statement that the child's interests should come first,
commented on the situation in Quebec where the schedules are not
based on both parents being deemed equal. A formula is used to
determine the amount to be paid. He describes the federal proposal
for scheduling as somehow showing both parents are equal.
If the member would look at it carefully he would find that the
chart treats the determination of benefits payable with regard to
child support on the basis of what the needs of the child are and
meets the criteria which he himself lined up.
Could the member please explain how the Quebec schedule
provides a different or a better approach to support benefits?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but when I
read Bill C-41 and the draft guidelines on child support, prepared in
June 1996 by the Department of Justice, I am forced to conclude
that, unfortunately, I am right. Having to say this in the House is no
fun, but I am right.
The federal model is based on the assumption that both parents
have the same income. It is of course not always the case. Why
presume that both parents have the same income? The judges
dealing with divorce proceedings will base their decision on this
assumption. If these guidelines are passed as they stand, judges
will have no discretion to decide whether the children are entitled
to support and, if so, to determine the amount of such support.
I mentioned that, in Quebec, the National Assembly is about to
pass guidelines that will be based on the ability to pay of both
parents. If one parent earns $200,000 while the other one has never
worked, or earns only $25,000 or $30,000 a year, a judge should not
rule that the children will receive X dollars in support and that each
parent will contribute half of the amount. It goes without saying
that the father who earns $200,000 will have to pay more than the
mother who earns $20,000 or $25,000 per year.
I wish I were wrong. Perhaps the hon. member is aware of some
discussions within the Liberal caucus that lead him to believe that
the minister will make some changes to the guidelines, and that he
will lean toward the Quebec approach rather than the one he is
currently advocating. In the meantime, when I read Bill C-41 and
the draft guidelines of the justice minister, I come to the conclusion
that the federal model is unfortunately disconnected from reality.
4920
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak in the House on the second reading of Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act. My comments will
outline the key elements of the federal government's child support
strategy encompassed by the amendments to these acts.
(1225)
At the heart of these reforms is the principle that children should
be a prime consideration in the unhappy circumstances of marriage
breakdown. Child support is the first obligation of parents and it
also of prime importance to us as legislators in the House, at least
on this side of the House. The approach and changes announced in
May are designed so that Canadian children will definitely benefit.
The government is changing the way child support payments are
taxed. I am pleased to see the government fulfil its commitment to
do this.
It was in 1994 in the House that I put forward a motion which
read:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income Tax
Act so that the child support payments are no longer considered taxable income for
their recipients.
That motion was passed unanimously by the House. This served
as an indicator to the government that it was time to rethink a
taxation policy that was introduced in 1942 and which no longer
reflected the reality of single parents, primarily working mothers in
the 1990s.
Canada will be moving to a system known as no deduction, no
inclusion. The new rules will apply to orders or agreements made
on or after May 1, 1997. Child support paid under a court order
made before May 1997 will continue to be deductible to the payer
and included as taxable income to the recipient until the support
payment is varied by the court or the parties agree in writing, or the
payer and recipient jointly sign and produce a form with Revenue
Canada indicating that the new tax treatment should apply to the
face value of their existing support order.
The government is introducing child support guidelines to make
child support awards fairer and more consistent and to reduce the
degree of conflict between separating parents. The guidelines will
be used across Canada by the courts and by lawyers, judges and
parents to establish appropriate support payments.
The guidelines have three main parts. First, payment schedules
are presented in tables like tax tables that show the basic amount of
support from a non-custodial parent according to the number of
children or the income of the support paying parent.
Custodial parents also contribute a similar share of his or her
income to the needs of the children by virtue of the fact that the
children will share in the resources of the parent with whom they
live because their standards of living are inseparable. As the
income of both parents increase or decrease so will their individual
contributions to the needs of their children.
Second, the scheduled amounts can be adjusted to recognize
individual family circumstances. There are four categories of
special expenses that can be added to the scheduled amount, if they
are reasonable and necessary, in light of the needs of the children
and the means of the parents, including child care costs for
preschool children and uninsured medical costs.
The guidelines also allow a court to alter the award in the rare
circumstance that it would cause undue hardship to either parent or
to the child.
Third, the government is enhancing federal and provincial
enforcement measures. The enforcement of child support is mainly
a provincial and territorial responsibility. The measures the
government is proposing complement provincial and territorial
enforcement efforts already in place. The government is targeting,
in particular, persistent defaulters. Some of the enforcement
measures include a national public awareness campaign, a federal
licence suspension initiative, more aggressive collection of out of
province orders, improved federal tracing services, improved
federal pension diversions, improvements to computer systems
connecting federal, provincial and territorial enforcement services,
and a new federal support enforcement director.
Research will continue into developing new strategies for
enforcement of child support debts and into identifying why so
many non-custodial parents default.
(1230 )
Fourth, as the purpose of these reforms is to help children, the
federal government will reinvest its anticipated revenue gains from
the new tax rules in measures to benefit children. The government
will fund a doubling of the working income supplement of the
federal child tax benefit from a maximum of $500 per year to
$1,000 per year. The working income supplement provides a
non-taxable benefit to supplement the employment earnings of
families with earnings of at least $3,750 and net incomes below
$25,921.
In conclusion, I believe the reforms that I have presented meet
the long overdue need for reform in the way Canada ensures
support for children following family breakdown. The reforms will
put children first. They will put responsibility fairly on the
shoulders of the parents and will move Canada's child support
system into the nineties.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-41 today, an act to
4921
amend the Divorce Act, the Famil Orders and Agreements
Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and
Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
In contrast to what the hon. member for Halifax said earlier, she
made the statement that governments cannot legislate loving
families. I would like to put to this place today that in fact
governments can legislate things that will destroy loving families
through the very policies they put forward.
Government and the laws that are made can and do have a
profound effect on those institutions that are the bedrock strength
of our society. Integrity for instance, the most important single
quality for any individual or nation, is born and thrives in the
bosom of the examples and the conversations in the homes of this
nation.
A healthy family is a place of nurture and growth for those
qualities most essential for the success of individuals and nations.
Within the walls of our nation's homes we learn to find our security
and the acceptance and the unmasked behaviour of our family. We
learn about ourselves through the interaction and sometimes blunt
appraisals of those who know us best. We learn to wait and to
compromise. We may hone our debating skills or even our
self-defence techniques on our siblings, or we may find the value of
that same brother or sister as a loyal ally on the far side of the
school yard or on the mean street corner.
We answer to one another. We share responsibility in small and
larger tasks. We see the value of shared love and caring, of
complementary but equally valuable tasks as mother, father and
children working together. We acknowledge the growing potential
of family members. With greater freedom comes the greater
acceptance of accountability to family, to society and to ourselves.
We face the consequences of undone tasks. We learn right from
wrong. We share the benefit of a common purse. We grow in the
knowledge of the stories of the past, the guidelines of custom and
culture and carry those gifts forward to share with our children.
Sadly, the picture of the nurturing caring family is becoming less
and less of a reality in Canada. It in fact has become the chief
victim of our unfolding times and defective government policy.
Divorce rates have increased 15-fold since the 1950s. It is
projected that more than half of our young people will spend at
least part of their growing up years in a single parent family.
Family break-up is a recipe for trouble for our youth. Many seek
community outside their own homes with between 100,000 and
200,000 Canadian youth now homeless by choice. According to a
UNICEF 1995 report, Canada has one of the highest teen suicide
rates in the world. Since 1960 the rate has quadrupled to where
almost 12 out of 100,000 of our young people, mostly boys, choose
to put an end to their own future. ``There is a mountain of scientific
evidence showing that when families disintegrate children often
end up with intellectual, physical and emotional scars that persist
for life'', points out social scientist Karl Zinmeister.
The failure of the justice system under the Liberals is also a
threat to families. Canadian families are victims of a justice system
that is more concerned about the rights of the criminals including
violent offenders than about law-abiding citizens.
(1235 )
As part of the criminal justice system but within the walls of our
homes is the issue of domestic violence. Domestic violence needs
desperately to be addressed but not simply through a gender biased
lens that prevents an accurate assessment and real solutions to the
problems that exist. The Young Offenders Act does not take child
crime seriously and, coupled with other legislation that weakens
the role of parents in their children's lives, prevents parents from
effectively tackling some of the criminal influences in their
children.
What effects are there on the economic front? A Fraser Institute
study demonstrated that the average family of four pays 46 per cent
of its income on taxes. The same study found that taxes on the
average Canadian family have risen 1,167 per cent since 1961. That
number takes on greater significance when we find that real family
income has actually decreased since 1988. Real income has
actually been eroded by successive Conservative and Liberal
government tax and spend policies.
A recent StatsCan report stated that since 1989, after tax family
income has fallen 6.5 per cent, bringing it to the same level as at the
end of the recession of the early 1980s. That income to maintain a
household, it should be noted, now takes almost twice the number
of paid hours it did 20 years ago.
This runaway economic policy has remoulded the
neighbourhoods of our nation. In 1986 only 12 per cent of
Canadian households were made up of one person in the workforce
and a spouse full time at home.
The stresses are multiplied many times over for the single parent
family. The precious commodity of time for communication or
simple renewal is rare indeed, and the natural ally of a caring and
understanding alternate adult is missing. Also of crucial
importance is that money most often is too scarce. More than half
of Canadians living in poverty are single parents and the
overwhelming majority of these are women. However, because of
debt levels and continuing government spending and the flawed
appreciation of the importance of family, these patterns will
continue to be the raw truth for our children and, unless something
is done, for our children's children.
The Liberals like to talk about wanting to put the best interests of
the child first in their legislation. It has become a common refrain
from that side of the House. Yet as usual, the actions of the
4922
government do not bear up under scrutiny when compared to its
claims to be considering the child's best interests.
One would think that addressing an issue such as child support
and marriage dissolution would be one of the best places to help a
person focus most accurately on the issues of children and their
best interests. However, again the Liberals are mired in their
misguided concepts of the role of governments. They refuse to
realize that the best interest of the child is a family that is supported
and encouraged as the most important institution in society. Let me
ask the Liberals some questions about their version of the best
interest of the child.
Is the best interest of children shown in policy that passively sits
back assuming that the present nature and rates of divorce are there
without attempting to discover why and then attempt to do
something substantive about it?
Is the best interest of children served in making institutional day
care facilities more prevalent at a price that puts further economic
burdens on families leading then to a greater use of those facilities
as a second parent goes out to work just to make ends meet?
Is the best interest of children served by universal social
programs that the government cannot afford instead of targeting
those programs to those, particularly children, who are in
legitimate need?
Is the best interest of the child served by stripping authority from
parents so that they cannot effectively raise their own children?
Put simply, the most profound destructive force on families
today is tax and spend, intrusive and divisive family policies that
emanate from Liberal policy makers today.
The Divorce Act which we are talking about today which
originally granted federal jurisdiction over matters relating to
divorce has been re-opened twice before, once in 1968 when no
fault divorce was established and in 1982 to institute further
changes. For the sake of speed through courts and presumably less
acrimony for the sake of children, all accountability for actions of
either side was removed except in decisions relating to child
custody.
(1240 )
It is significant that it is the very matters relating to children
which still remain the most divisive and sadly, with this legislation
that will not change. The full ramifications of the changes to the
Divorce Act in the past or those which are before us today will
probably never be quantified.
Opening the act up as we are again today however, with the
records of social devastation that are before us, must demand that
the government look seriously at its responsibility and all the
realities of our present situation. The kind of tinkering and
ideologically based approach that is being suggested in Bill C-41
reflects a bankruptcy of thought and conscience.
The bill addresses the issue of enforcement of support payments.
I applaud both the recognition of that need and the attempt to look
at real enforcement procedures. Legally binding decisions should
have that force of law for the sake of all those who are involved. It
would be nice if this mindset of enforcement would extend more
generally to the protection of law-abiding citizens in a wider
criminal justice system but we will leave that debate for another
day.
Custodial parents do need protection in law for the rights that are
granted to them in law. However, the government is using a one
sided, gender biased approach which increases the commitment to
enforce support payments but says absolutely nothing about the
importance or the enforcement of child access agreements,
something which is of equal importance to the child involved.
There are two parents in any divorce involving children. There is
usually the custodial and the non-custodial parent, yet the proposed
changes do not show the same respect for non-custodial parents.
Both parents have responsibilities and both parents have rights.
The courts overwhelmingly make men the non-custodial parent.
Sixty per cent of families living in poverty today are headed by
men. Financial pressures, including high levels of taxation, have a
powerful and destructive impact on the cohesiveness of those
families. Men are involved. So are women. Yet the present system
makes recourse difficult for the men who want to dispute a judge's
support or access ruling.
Personally, there have been men in my office who have gone
bankrupt. Some of them have told me they are contemplating
suicide because their lives have been ruined by endless court
battles launched to gain access to their children without avail. How
does Bill C-41 address their concerns?
There is no commitment in the bill to enforce child access.
Neither is there equality in the system in other areas. For example,
Bill C-41 proposes to give the custodial parent access to the income
information of their former spouse for three years. That is a radical
departure from accepted principles of privacy. If consideration of
those kinds of exceptions are being put into place, the same
provisions should be there for both parents, for both sides of the
divorce equation.
Divorce hurts children. The pain experienced by children of
divorce takes many forms. In addition to the many costs to society,
there are of course the economic stresses which I mentioned earlier.
One of the significant reasons for the financial problems is the
4923
simple fact that it costs much more to maintain two households
than it does to maintain one.
I find it strange. The government claims to be concerned about
child poverty. That has been a dominant theme which we have seen
in this government. However, the government cannot be taken
seriously if it ignores the much greater risk of poverty that exists as
a natural result of divorce.
The economic difficulty comes a distant second in importance to
the emotional trauma of divorce for children. Divorce is a very
difficult experience for older children let alone the younger ones.
The pain is dramatically multiplied by acrimonious legal
proceedings which are further complicated by lawyers trained in
adversarial methods which pit one spouse against the other.
In 1970 the Law Reform Commission of Canada released a
major study on family law which argued that adversarial
proceedings in divorce actions should be eliminated. The primary
reason for this change is the detrimental effect it had on children.
(1245)
Here we are 26 years later, and what have successive Liberal and
PC governments done during this time? We have a win-lose
approach to divorce settlements that involves legal wrangling from
beginning to end both in the courts and in lawyers' offices.
We have an adversarial system that constantly succeeds in only
one thing, destroying the relationship between the two combatants.
It is designed to hinder the possibility of maintaining an ongoing
relationship subsequent to the divorce that would be of benefit to
the children. And what does the Liberal government, the
government that claims to be family friendly and child centred,
propose to remedy this situation? Absolutely nothing.
Here in Bill C-41 the government has its best opportunity yet to
initiate substantive and constructive change. What is it offering as a
solution? Absolutely nothing.
The Liberals are content to pursue their half measure, one sided,
pat answer approach for an opportunity for real substantive change
to this critical legislation. The government has dismissed
completely the importance of the overall process. To the
government the answer is simply enforcement and an inflexible
payment schedule.
Recently a marriage counsellor was in my office. As one who is
on the frontlines of dealing with marriage difficulties, he expressed
serious concern over the present situation. He confirmed that there
is no prevention component in the present process dealing with
partners concerning divorce.
We have a government that advocates crime prevention, that
pushes for greater health. Why in the world is there no interest in
reforming the divorce process with a preventive component? Does
the government ignore and discourage counsellors in the present
situation? There is a determined lack of recognition of their value
as front end prevention people to this crushing social problem. In
addition, the government even charges the famous GST on their
services.
So who does the government victimize? Family breakups hit
poor families the hardest, and that makes situations that are already
difficult worse by divorce.
I was talking to a local family lawyer in Coquitlam not long ago.
He has spent 25 years in the practice of law. In his experience
within family law he remembers only a handful of cases that
actually avoided going through with full divorce after coming
through his office.
The present system feeds conflict. The present system adds fuel
to the fire. The present system breeds anger and suspicion between
the partners, and the victim is the child.
However, there is an alternative, one that will help the legislative
process and thus help the families involved. Presently the process
of separation, spousal and child support, divorce and property
division crosses provincial and federal jurisdictions.
The child support decision is decided in a federal court, whereas
the enforcement is generally a provincial matter. For the sake of
those involved, this issue must be addressed. First, I would propose
the concept of a unified family court, a place where all matters
related to family breakup can be addressed under one roof.
Accordingly, the many facets of decision making can be brought
together in a fairer, broader context so that equity and enforcement
can be better applied.
Such a concept was introduced in B.C. with excellent results. It
is time the federal government recognized the need for such a
system and also showed leadership in making that happen.
The second issue was advanced not only by the Reform Party of
Canada but recently by the Canadian Bar Association: the necessity
of the process of mediation. Mandatory mediation through a
unified family court is a cornerstone of an effective process for
addressing divorce.
An effective system would make mediation mandatory in
situations involving children. It would demonstrate itself as a
process that facilitates solutions, not as the present system does,
facilitating destruction.
The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is mutually
acceptable and mutually respected. This process has the potential
to dramatically reduce the number of win-lose situations that leave
at least one party victimized by the process.
4924
(1250)
This individual personalized approach to divorce proceedings is
impossible in the present adversarial, one size fits all type of
approach the federal government is putting forward.
In conclusion, we need to think of the best interests of the child.
Children come into this world with two parents. The decision that
goes toward that child must embody more than simple numbers,
values and dollar figures.
A child is more than the money that the parents bring in. It is
composed of the genes, the extended family history, the ancestry
and values of that family.
The government, with this legislation, owes an apology to the
whole population because we are all stronger if families are valued
and nurtured.
I cannot support the bill which is totally blind to the real
opportunity we have before us for strengthening the foundation of
society and rather would simply look at a small slice of the total
picture.
The value of families and children needs recognition in
government policy. I challenge the government respectfully to
recognize that this is but a small beginning that it has proposed and
that the crisis of family disintegration is far too great to let wait any
longer.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a brief comment and question to the member. The question is about
the access issue.
The member mentioned a couple of themes. She has been very
consistent in the House. There is the issue of domestic violence. As
the member will know, the latest report of the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse in 1995 attributed 50 per cent of domestic
violence to misuse of alcohol.
Second, the Canada-U.S. forum on women's health that was held
in Ottawa in June 1996 also identified a cost associated with
domestic violence at $4.2 billion a year. The member is quite right.
There are some initiatives that probably are beyond the scope and
purview of this legislation in terms of dealing in a preventive way
rather than a reactive way to the problem after it is there.
At the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association annual
meeting I met a delegation of people. There were men who came
who had access orders. They did not have custody. They had a big
problem.
I would ask the member whether her experience is that the
problem is not with this legislation. The access orders are in place
and are fairly granted. It is the enforcement of the access orders
that is the real problem, which is under provincial jurisdiction.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
intervention. On his comments about domestic violence, I would
agree that if we do not look at prevention at the root causes of these
things, we do not do justice to the solutions we find.
I certainly feel that not only do we need a more sure and
effective criminal justice system, we need to look at the root
causes. I would agree that the issue of alcohol is very intertwined
with what is happening in society in those cases. That does need to
be looked at. I challenge the member to go forward with his
initiatives and the government in recognizing his initiatives in that
area.
Second, the question was on the issue of access. It is interesting
that the member brought this up. Again, I was in discussion with a
lawyer. Because this issue is so important to me, I tried to get input
from various sources.
I am not sure if every province is the same. In my province of
British Columbia there is implemented quite an effective technique
of child support enforcement. It has created a whole section of
personnel to put that enforcement into place.
(1255 )
A comment was made to me by this knowledgeable friend, a
lawyer, that the same structure, in fact the same offices, could be
used to make sure there is enforcement for access. The same
individuals who make enforcement happen for support could make
enforcement happen for access and could check the compliance to
the court order. Both are court ordered. Both are legal
requirements.
As I mentioned in my speech, both parents have rights. Both
parents have responsibilities. The present situation only enforces
the right of one parent and the responsibilities of the other. Surely if
the federal government can intrude or take the initiative to have
guidelines that in fact overtake a provincial enforcement-as our
Bloc friend has suggested, the guidelines for support are in their
case and in most cases provincial jurisdiction-if the federal
government because of its interest in this can take initiatives in that
direction, initiatives in the enforcement of support, why can it not
take initiatives in the enforcement of access and direction to the
provinces?
Certainly if one is up for discussion, the rest should be as well.
We have two parents, we have rights and responsibilities of each.
To be fair, to be just, governments should act for all citizens in this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from
here on, official opposition members will be sharing their time.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 now before us. It has two
faces: the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River sees it
as a panacea, the answer to all ills, while our colleague, the
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who just spoke, views it as a
step backward, not forward.
4925
The reality probably lies somewhere in between. There are some
improvements, undoubtedly, but there are also serious
shortcomings. It all depends on how you look at the bill.
Members will recall that the first federal Divorce Act only goes
back to 1968. For our younger colleagues, 1968 is a generation ago,
it is almost another century. For me, it was the year I was still at the
court house and I remember the first times this act was applied.
Before 1968, the provinces had jurisdiction in matters of divorce
and only two provinces had no divorce legislation: Newfoundland
and Quebec. The legislation was made uniform in 1968. The act
was amended in 1985 and we are now living with the 1985 Divorce
Act, which, as these things go in Canada, took effect from June 1,
1986. There is always a time lag between the passage of legislation
and the date it takes effect.
The wish to now set parameters for determining the amount of
support payments, is, in my view, a positive feature in the idea of
how things should work presented by the member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River. It would be much simpler to have a judge
determine the amount to be awarded for a child's needs than to
continue with the method that has been in use since 1968 of
producing the well known lists of children's needs.
My hon. friend and colleague, the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who is himself a lawyer, has
probably on a number of occasions in his career submitted lists of
children's needs in court. When the lists submitted by the
respondents are compared, you find that they add up to almost 238
per cent of the child's real needs.
The language used in the proceedings is inflammatory,
something we must try to get away from. We must reduce the
involvement of the courts, and this is one of the positive ways we
can achieve this, by setting parameters, developing grids, from
which we can undoubtedly deviate in exceptional circumstances,
but which will at least serve as basic guides. So much the better if
we can keep all or some of these problems from reaching court. It is
not the ideal place to resolve them.
(1300)
Those who spoke before me mentioned that the child must be at
the center of all decisions made in a divorce. That is a principle on
which everyone agrees, except perhaps for those who go before the
courts, in many cases, and use the child not as a person to be
protected but as a bargaining chip in the divorce if not an
instrument of blackmail. One parent says: ``If my support
payments were not so high, perhaps I could afford to take the child
more often'' or ``I will see her less often in other circumstances'',
whatever.
It is dramatic when a little boy or a little girl becomes a
bargaining tool in court, when they should be protected. In that
sense, it was a good thing to establish payment grids, parameters to
determine how much should be paid in support.
It is also an improvement over previous legislation, the act of
1968 and the act of 1985, in that those who must pay support can
now be located and forced to pay. Society should not have to pay
for those who default on their support payments.
It is great that defaulters can be located and forced to pay, that
there will be better access to information that can be searched to
identify and locate these individuals or their employers and that, in
other cases, instalments will have to be paid in guarantee. I do not
think that we can disagree with such improvements over the 1968
and the 1985 legislation.
But these acts all have a basic deficiency. This basic deficiency
about the Divorce Act, 1968 and the Divorce Act, 1985 was the fact
that divorce become commonplace. As divorce became trivial, so
did family policy. Under our Divorce Act, solicitors are only
required to inform their clients that a mediation system exists. The
parties are under no obligation to submit to any form of
conciliation or mediation which, in many cases, would preclude the
adversarial process and the adrenaline rush it causes on both sides
of the barricade, and this is an appropriate word to describe the
situation in this case.
If, like in some American states such as California and Michigan
for instance, before divorce procedures can proceed further,
appointments with social workers and psychologists were
mandatory, I think this would be another step in the right direction.
It is clear that we miss the point every time we amend the
Divorce Act without taking onto account the fact that there is, first
and foremost, a family reality, a family unit to that needs to be
protected, and parents find themselves without options.
Help comes their way after the fact, when it is too late to do any
good. People seldom reconcile after battling against one another in
court in an adversarial process. Experience shows that the doorstep
of the court house is not the place where reconciliation takes place.
For all intents and purposes, the divorce decree does not put an
end to the marriage. It merely testifies that the marriage is dead,
stating that nothing is working between the spouses. Something
should be done at a much earlier stage.
In this regard, we are poorly equipped because-it always come
back to this-our famous 1867 Constitution, the British North
America Act, divided powers between the federal government and
the provinces. Thus, under subsection 91(26) of the British North
America Act, marriage and divorce matters come under federal
jurisdiction while, under subsection 92(12), the solemnization of
4926
marriage and, under subsection 92(13), property and civil rights all
come under provincial jurisdiction.
How can we have a standard policy when we have legislators
setting their policies in different places? Quebec has long
demanded a standard family policy to be set by a single
jurisdiction. And it had done so.
(1305)
Bill 89 passed by the Quebec National Assembly in 1981 even
contained divorce provisions, an integrated policy they have never
been able to implement because they never got the powers back.
The famous 1982 patriation of the Constitution has made it
impossible to amend the Canadian Constitution.
Quebec's civil code being one of the criteria for recognizing
Quebec as a distinct society, according to the minister, Bill C-110
passed by this House supposedly recognized Quebec as a distinct
society and thus it should have recognized Quebec's primacy or its
exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce matters whatever
the solemnization and background may be. But all these
considerations are not mentioned when this bill was introduced,
just as they were not mentioned in Bill C-110, which is not worth
much more than the paper it is printed on.
This is unfortunate if not regrettable because, under Bill C-41 as
it now stands, some provinces will end up with provincial payment
grids that will have to be approved by the governor in council,
while other provinces will not set their own grids so that the federal
grids will rightfully apply. There is no real standard policy. Why
should the payment grids now being finalized by Quebec not be
recognized?
I simply suggest that the bill should be amended in committee in
light of the fact that some provinces already have their own
payment grids. In the eyes of the federal legislator, these grids may
not be sufficient, but it is not up to the federal legislator to judge
what provincial legislators are doing. It is up to the voters in each
province.
If the voters in New Brunswick are not happy with what their
provincial politicians are doing with regard to family law, they only
have to vote for a new government; the same goes for every other
province and for us as federal legislators.
Since we are now sharing our time, let me close by saying that
we will support Bill C-41 in principle for the reasons listed by my
colleagues, the hon. member for Québec and the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm. We will work on improving this bill in
committee.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there was one comment that perked up my ears with
regard to recovering those powers related to divorce. When did
Quebec ever have those powers under Confederation?
Second, the hon. member should be telling Quebecers that the
Reform Party, if it were the government, could deliver those kinds
of things to Quebecers in a looser and more flexible Confederation,
and that separation is not the answer for Quebecers to achieve their
aspirations in social policy. There are other ways to negotiate, to
opt in to a better arrangement.
I wanted to comment on those two points. The hon. member is
talking about looking back to another day when Quebec had those
powers. When did Quebec in Confederation have those powers of
divorce? As an alternative for looking at future social policy the
hon. member ought to be telling Quebecers that there is a way
besides separation.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the comment made
by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, who asked
the right question. However the problem goes back to 1867, when it
was decided to have a horse with two heads. It was decided then
that some powers, such as the solemnization of marriage, would
come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while others, such as
divorce proceedings, would be federal matters.
Couples living in Canada are subject to specific rules. When
things go bad between them, should they have to deal with two
different sets of laws? Should they have to deal with different
courts? The whole system would be a lot simpler if only one level
heard all the issues relating to family law, instead of having judges
from various courts intervening in the process.
(1310)
This would be one way of streamlining the process. Even if we
take into account the assumptions made by the hon. member and
assume that the current federal system will not change and that the
issue of sovereignty will be set aside, letting the provinces look
after the administration of local justice would still be an
improvement.
Who is in a better position than the provinces to implement the
policies relating to family law? I submit that this power should be
given back to the provinces or, to be more accurate, that it should
have been left to the provinces in 1867 and never have become a
federal matter.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, often it is posed that if we get back to it, separation is
really the answer. If the member is talking about one house dealing
with matrimonial matters and family law, we have the opportunity
now.
4927
All the provinces have to do is simply establish a unified family
court. I have had assurances from the justice minister's department
that it is prepared to appoint judges who could fit into a unified
situation so that the provinces would have all their appropriate
support workers to emphasize mediation under one house. One
might call this a one-stop shop where both the provincial powers
and the federal jurisdiction of a provincially appointed judge and
a judge appointed by the federal government who has inherent
jurisdiction could also be in this one building.
That experiment has been going on now for some 20 years in
various jurisdictions within Canada. There is real opportunity to
make Confederation work and deliver exactly what he is talking
about. We do have those situations in Canada. It is only up to the
province to just simply assign the money and get on with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, we do not need the delegation of
federal powers to the provinces, we do not need the federal
government to have its programs administered by the provinces.
What we need is a vesting of power. This means that a government
gives up a field of jurisdiction to another one, and that such process
is enshrined in the Constitution.
There is a major difference between the hon. member's vision,
which I respect even though I do not share it, and that of the Bloc
Quebecois, to the effect that these powers must be recovered by the
provinces.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was listening to the debate. My wife and I will be
attending a couple of weddings in the next couple of weeks. We
attended weddings over the summer, as I am sure many members
present and many Canadians watching did. As we are talking about
amendments to the Divorce Act, running through everyone's mind
are weddings that they have recently attended or perhaps a wedding
of their children or of a niece or a nephew. Many of us at our stage
in life are going through this. It seems they come in batches.
I was struck by the fact that maybe we are closing the barn door
after the horse has already escaped. Perhaps we should be
discussing a new marriage act. Perhaps, as many of us have said to
others or to ourselves in admonition, it should be a whole heck of a
lot harder to get married. Perhaps we are putting our emphasis in
the wrong place.
As we look at our society, as other speakers before me have very
rightly pointed out, the foundation of our society is built around
family. If we look at families or at particular societies such as
religious or ethnic societies which place a very strong value on
family, on commitment and on the responsibility to comes from
that, we find that the divorce rate is substantially lower than it is
among the general population.
(1315 )
I am not standing before the House and Canadians pontificating
from a holier than thou perspective. I stand here as a person with
considerable experience in these matters, having been twice
divorced. My mother was divorced. Carrying on a long line of
family history, my grandmother was divorced in 1932 in Alberta.
That was not a small feat in those days.
I have said many times than it is better to be from a broken home
than in one. However, I do not in any way diminish or denigrate the
importance of family and how much better it is for children to be
raised within a strong and supportive family. There is nothing more
important in a child's life. Having said that, we know statistically a
good percentage, perhaps even a majority, of marriages are going
to end unhappily in divorce. The product of that unhappy
circumstance will be children who will suffer in varying degrees
from the effects of the divorce. Some children, depending on the
maturity, wisdom and good faith of their parents, will suffer
significantly less and, in fact, may benefit.
From time to time as members of Parliament we deal with
constituents who come to us because there is nowhere else to go.
Many of these people are single parents who are struggling to
support a family. Some are non-custodial parents who feel
grievously wronged because although they have lived up to every
aspect of their agreement, they find themselves not able to be with
their children. This legislation does not address that. In my
opinion, that is a grievous error.
When we delve into the reasons for which families break up or
why we have such acrimony over visitation, very often that is
driven by retribution. Very often it is the chicken or the egg. If the
non-custodial parent pays support regularly, he or she will get
visitation rights regularly. In my experience, the amount of money
that is awarded to the custodial parent is perhaps not as important
as the consistency of receiving that money. It is important, but it is
not nearly as important as the custodial parent being able to depend
religiously on receiving that money every month.
That brings me to my perspective on this particular debate. I
come to this perspective from the position of having paid
maintenance payments virtually all of my adult life. There has not
been a month that I have not made maintenance payments for as
long as I can remember. Having made those payments, I was able to
subtract from my income, which was generally speaking higher
than my ex-spouse's income, the amount that I paid in support and
my ex-wife paid the tax on it. This created a fairly big problem for
her at the end of the year. She did not pay tax on it when she
received it and the net result was that at the end of the year she had
a tax bill she had to pay.
4928
(1320)
I discussed the matter with her and asked what she thought was
the best way to handle it. Should it be taxable for her, should it be
taxable for me or should we split it in the middle? We decided the
best way to do it was to arrive at whatever the payment was going
to be and I would pay tax on half and she would pay tax on half.
That is not what is going to happen with this bill. The
non-custodial parent will be paying the tax and the receiving parent
will not be paying the tax. It will not affect maintenance
agreements that are already in effect. I am sure that the courts will
take into account who will be paying the tax when they make their
judgments.
This legislation envisions a grid. The grid is a schedule of the
amount of maintenance payments per child that will be paid to the
custodial parent, usually the wife, based on the income of the
non-custodial parent or generally speaking the husband. That is not
necessarily a bad idea. However, it does not allow for judicial
discretion. In my experience, very often family break-ups come as
a direct result of financial pressures. When the family breaks up
there is not a whole lot of money to go around anyway. Very often
the father pays support to a family where the custodial parent, the
wife, has remarried and has a standard of living far beyond
anything that the ex-husband has.
These things are not black and white. We tend to make these
laws based on our experience with the extremes. Very often the
extremes are horrid. The fact is that if a husband is not going to
make support payments, no amount of legislation in the world is
going to force him to do it. He has to do it because he accepts the
responsibility and it is the right thing to do.
I guess this is where our society has kind of become unglued.
When a couple makes the decision to get a divorce, when did it
become their right to absolve themselves of the responsibilities that
were incurred in the marriage and they brought children into the
world? When, because I decided to be divorced, did it become
someone else's responsibility to be financially responsible for my
children? If I am divorced, for whatever reason, and I cannot afford
to look after the financial responsibilities that I incurred of my own
free will in my first marriage, it does not give me the right to take
on new responsibilities in a subsequent marriage and then claim
poverty and say: ``I can't afford to look after my first
responsibilities because I have taken on a second batch of
responsibilities''.
When we make decisions we have to be big enough to accept the
responsibilities that come with those decisions. We are not saying
not to do it but are saying: ``Having made the decision, for
goodness sake, be big enough to live up to the responsibilities that
you have''.
I would suggest that because the receiving spouse is depending
on the maintenance payments, it is entirely appropriate that the
government, representing all of the people, take whatever steps are
prudent to enforce maintenance payments. We understand that
maintenance payments are legislated federally and are enforced
provincially. It has to be done with a foundation of fairness. If
someone is going to have his or her wages garnisheed, certainly
notice should be given. I do not know about other folks, but as an
employer when I saw a garnishee notice coming for anyone who
worked for me, it raised an eyebrow.
(1325)
What happens if the person who is on the receiving end of the
garnishee is living up to the obligations but is involved in some sort
of a messy dispute?
Not all lawyers get up in the morning and ask, ``how can we do
the right thing?'' It is possible that some of them do not have a clue
because they did not do their homework. Some of them might
decide they are going to make life miserable for someone and do
not use due diligence before they issue a garnishee notice. The
notion of being able to garnishee without notice is wrong.
Similarly, I have real difficulty with the ability to go back into
tax records subsequent to a divorce. In my view the only reason for
this could be in order to try to have the amount of maintenance
payment increased.
When people decide to divorce, it seems to me that should be
that. Each spouse should know the income of both spouses to
determine what fair support should be. After that has been
concluded, why should either party have the right to open the
closed files five years down the road? It does not make sense to me.
Some of the criticisms of this bill, both constructive and positive
and negative criticism, are that it takes the judicial discretion out of
the awarding of payments. It does not necessarily consider the
ability of the non-custodial parent to make the payments that have
been determined, nor does it take into consideration the financial
circumstances of the custodial parent.
Although the vast majority of divorces end with the female being
the custodial parent, it is possible that the husband is the injured
party in the case. It is possible that the female who ends up with
custody is also the one who initiates the divorce. There are
circumstances where in such situations the female goes from one
marriage almost directly into another. I know of some that have
resulted in the wives not having any negative financial
consequences whatsoever. However, the ex-husband has been out
of house, home and hearth in order to support the new marriage.
I am really nervous about setting arbitrary rules that do not allow
for judicial discretion. That is why we have divorces that go before
judges.
4929
Another concern about the guidelines is this. Are they to be a
ceiling or a floor? What about the situation where a parent is
capable of paying a lot more?
(1330)
Third is the notion of reopening cases which have already been
closed.
In 1977 Betty Jane Wylie, author of Beginnings: a book for
widows, wrote that in the dim dark dark days before antiseptics
women often died in childbirth and it was not uncommon for a man
to outlive two or three wives. A man can still have two or three
wives today but it is because of a thing called divorce. It is a lot
more messy and a lot more expensive. There is absolutely no
question it is far more expensive to get a divorce than it is to tough
it out.
I will conclude my comments in the debate with the notion that it
is perhaps much more important for us as a society to put our
emphasis on the marriage and making it more difficult to get
married rather than making it easier to get a divorce. Sometimes,
and I speak from personal experience, the tougher thing to do is to
work through the problems and tough it out. Therefore, the notion
of a unified family court, the notion of arbitration and mediation
and a proactive effort would be a very worthwhile exercise for
Parliament to consider.
As the great Canadian Charlie Farquharson said, statistically two
out of five marriages end in divorce; the rest of us stick it out until
the bitter end. Therein might be a pearl of wisdom all of us might
learn from. As we discuss the ramifications of divorce and family
law on children, there is absolutely no question that those
Canadians who are able to tough it out to the bitter end are probably
going to find that what they have done for their family will pay
great rewards in the long run.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member referred to a joke which with all due respect I do not share.
Toughing out a marriage unfortunately is an attitude which has
become far too prevalent in our society. The member well knows
that when a couple splits up one thing is true, and that is that a
second residence will be necessary. In the absence of any changes,
the income levels of those two people, in terms of their
accumulated revenues and the costs going out, are going to
deteriorate. In fact, as a result of divorce many families live in
poverty.
My question has to do with squaring the member's statement. I
thought I detected some contradiction in his statements. He
described his own unfortunate circumstance and I am sorry to hear
that he has been divorced twice, but he said that we have to be big
enough to accept our responsibilities and tough it out. I did not hear
the member comment on the impact on the children and whether or
not there were circumstances where even if the relationship had
deteriorated that it was important enough, especially during the
early years of a child's life, that the member should have been big
enough to live up to his responsibilities which he undertook in his
marriage vows.
(1335 )
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it is a very fair statement. When I
made the comment about living up to responsibilities, I was talking
about living up to the financial responsibilities. It is absolutely
essential that once we have accepted our responsibility for making
maintenance payments for our children, it is our responsibility.
The member opposite did not point out that I said often it is
better for a child to be from a broken home than in one. That is
exactly the case. I do not think there is any question there are
families that are able to stick through it. Obviously, had I been able
to for whatever reason, but because I did not do it does not make it
right.
Statistically, the point I made was that when we look at the
consequences of divorce, when we look at the consequences of
family breakdown and single parenting as a direct consequence of
divorce, it is fairly evident that families that do not suffer the
consequences of that, for whatever reason whether it is alcohol or
some other reason, are probably going to stand a better chance than
families that do. It is self-evident.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
appreciate the candidness with which the member for Edmonton
Southwest expressed his comments. It is an issue most of us will
deal with. I too would like to reflect a little on a personal note. A
very personal friend of mine and his spouse are going through the
trials and tribulations of a possible breakdown.
Given what the member has said in terms of suggesting that this
bill might expedite the possibility of bringing about divorce or not
providing an adequate remedy, I seem to get the impression at least
from my constituents and many others who solicit all members of
this House of Commons that the judicial system tends to lean more
toward the interests of the female custodial parent as opposed to the
male custodial parent.
Could the member clarify for me and for this House what his real
objections are? There seems to be a contradiction in his statement
in terms of suggesting that the legislation would not allow the
judicial process.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, this legislation and the
application of a grid for suggested payment guidelines was, as I
said earlier in the budget debate, a fairly responsible and good step.
The reason is that it sets out an amount whereby the custodial
parent can expect to receive approximately that amount for each
child.
Where I said that in my opinion it was perhaps weak was that we
still must have judicial discretion. This has to be part of any
payment that is made. It is very likely that while judicial discretion
4930
is allowed in the bill, in other jurisdictions where a grid is in place,
the grid has taken precedence over judicial discretion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Lévis, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As a man, I felt it
was my duty to do so, because anything to do with child support is
wrongly seen as being a subject that is primarily of interest to
women.
(1340)
This is based on the fact that, in reality, unfortunately, it is
women who, as things now stand, more often find themselves
responsible for families after a divorce.
I can understand the Reform Party member for Edmonton
Southwest, who is one of the more moderate members of his party
in many respects, including social issues. Nonetheless, I am not
happy to hear him say that it would be better to tough it out than to
get divorced. Toughing it out means, in certain cases, for many
women and children, and perhaps for men too, putting up with
intolerable suffering.
There is one statistic we cannot ignore. In 1990, in Canada, there
were 78,152 divorces, and there are undoubtedly more now.
Naturally, these divorces involve men and women, so if we
multiply this number by two, we see that they affect 150,000 men
and women. Furthermore, if we presume an average of two or more
children per family, we are looking at 300,000 children affected by
these divorces in Canada, and that is just for that particular year. It
is not cumulative. Therefore, there were so many instances of
divorce that affected 300,000 people in 1990, and probably 300,000
people and up were affected in 1991, and the numbers continue to
rise.
We also know that an overwhelming majority, 98 per cent in
1988, of those receiving child support payments were women. The
percentage is lower today, but it is still very high. That is why I say
that I, as a man, and the men that I represent, should also be
concerned about the situation. We can, however, have different
points of view, depending on the party line and depending on the
objectives of the various parties concerned.
I am a former member of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and a current member of the Standing
Committee on Health, together with the hon. member for
Mississauga-South. We both know how important the first years of
life are and how economic and social conditions may have a
subsequent effect on health and also create problems, I was going
to say with respect to delinquency, but also for a person's social and
individual development.
Ideally, and I am sure we all agree, everyone would have a father
and mother who stay with their children until they reach the age of
majority or even beyond that and who pay for their education. That
is the ideal situation we would all wish for.
However, there is one factor we cannot ignore and I am referring
to those 78,152 divorces that occurred in 1990. This does not
include people living common law, who separate without first
having been married and who have children. That is why when last
year I saw the Minister of Justice table his plan, and we even saw a
glimmer of hope in the last federal budget, something that had
changed following the Thibodeau judgment. Basically, the
well-known debate on deduction of support payments was no
longer about considering one parent or the other, but about what
was best for the children.
Twenty per cent of the children in this country live below the
poverty line, and the vast majority are in single parent families.
(1345)
We can say quite confidently that most of the time, in 80 per cent
of the cases, these families are headed by women. That is a fact. I
must say I am particularly sensitive to the situation of these
mothers. In the final instance, children will suffer if we do not deal
with the problem in the best possible way. And they will suffer for a
long time.
If the economic situation gets worse, with all the psychological
and other stress this entails, and this goes on for a number of years,
the impact on the children can be catastrophic. Sometimes I hear
members of this House, especially members of the Reform Party,
say that the rate of juvenile delinquency is terrible, the crime rate is
terrible and what is happening in our society is terrible. People
often say they do not feel safe any more. I am willing to believe
that, but we must try and understand how this happens.
Certain megastudies, which take into account the results of every
possible analysis have discovered that these problems are often due
to socio-economic problems that affect children when they are
young and are not even aware of what is going on in the world.
Stress is not always transmitted in an explicit and verbal way. It
may be expressed through family tension, bickering, the tension
that may exist between spouses, whether they are living together or
not.
When spouses take legal action against each other, that affects
the children. I am not saying this is so in all cases because some
couples divorce amicably. Some men meet their responsibilities
properly.
We are not accusing those who are acting properly. But there is
one social fact the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest ought to
understand: regrettably, a good proportion of people do not meet
their responsibilities toward their children properly, and most of
these are fathers. Sometimes they may feel that since they did not
obtain custody, or joint custody, they are justified in making their
ex-wives suffer without realizing that the ones suffering the most
are their children. And that is intolerable.
4931
I do not want to sound too critical. Let me take a different
approach, since I feel that it is important for this debate to be held.
It is important for we men to shoulder our responsibility, just as
women responsible for single-parent families must. We must be
aware that single parents need our help, be they women or men.
Recently, I attended a function of a single parent association in
my riding. It was celebrating its 15th anniversary. There was a time
when no men were seen in such associations, but I could see that
now there are. Men are also heads of single parent households, and
they find that incredibly difficult, as indeed it is.
I do not want to get into details of the private lives of the people
here in this House, but I am sure that some here are single parents.
Their duties here demand a lot of their time, and they may not have
as much time as they would like to devote to their children, who
may well have complaints about this.
I know that similar discussions go on in other professions, where
there are also heavy responsibilities, where much is demanded of
single parents, not just financially, but the financial aspect is a very
important one, and ends up being intolerable. As I have already
said, 20 per cent of the children in Canada, a country said to have
one of the best standards of living in the world, 20 per cent of
Canadian or Quebec children, are living below the poverty line.
(1350)
Among the leading causes of this poverty is the situation of
single-parent families and people not fulfilling their
responsibilities properly.
While agreeing with the objective pursued by the minister and
finding relatively few faults with his bill, I cannot help but notice
that the bill shifts away from the strategy announced last spring.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, were afraid there would be
discrepancies in the bill or that some of the provisions might be
harmful.
Speaking as a former member of the human resources
committee, I also notice through all this, good intentions and all,
the excessively paternalistic attitude of the federal government in
this area. I am also speaking as a Quebecer. Since last year, we have
had in Quebec a scheme providing for all the conditions regarding
support payments, including provision for support payments to be
automatically be collected from spouses who are in default. It is
complicated. It is all new and already there are growing pains. The
scheme is still in its infancy.
The strange thing is-I can hear you from here, saying: ``Here
goes the Bloc, the official opposition, again with their line'', but
spouses who do not fulfil their obligations are in fact not honouring
their marriage contract or commitments. And in wanting to
interfere in this area, the federal government is interfering in an
area of provincial jurisdiction. Let me elaborate.
Marriage comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while
divorce is a federal matter. There are also those who are not
married. When they separate, it is not a divorce. These people form
a different group and they are not in any way subject to this bill,
which only deals with the issue of divorce. However, the fact is
that, in Canada and in Quebec, more and more people are involved
in common-law relationships.
Again, the paradox with the current federal system is that people
get married under the laws of the province but divorce under
federal laws. This is somewhat odd, but such is the situation right
now.
In this area, the federal government displays a committed,
pervasive and embarrassing paternalistic attitude, as it does in the
education and health sectors. In this area, as in the other two which
I just mentioned, the federal government introduces guidelines in a
bill, presents the whole package to the provinces and tells them:
``Sure, you can get involved in this, but provided you do this, that
and the other thing. If you do not accept our guidelines, then we are
sorry but the federal system will prevail as regards the issue of
divorce, because it comes under federal jurisdiction''.
This creates a strange situation. For example, if a married couple
with two children divorces, the federal legislation will prevail.
However, the same situation involving common-law spouses
whose children have the same financial needs will be dealt with
under provincial law.
Given all the differences in treatment that can take place, I ask
you: Is this a fair and balanced situation that will promote
consistent social development? This is one of the flaws of the
federal system. We have no choice but to say it again: the federal
government, the federal ``big brother'' feels compelled to get
involved, with its not so subtle approach, in issues that come under
provincial jurisdiction.
(1355)
When one province does not agree, it is punished, it is not
entitled to the benefits of the federal system, or, when there are no
benefits, the federal government carries the day.
That, therefore, is the opposition's opinion of this bill. I hope
that debate goes well. It is possible that the Liberal government,
which has the majority, will decide not to make any concessions or
compromises, but that would not be conducive to harmony. At the
outset, I hope that government representatives agree to the
compromises that will be proposed by official opposition members,
who are trying to make a constructive contribution, because these
are situations affecting human beings, individuals on whom the
decisions made will have important social repercussions,
particularly for children, and therefore for everyone's future.
4932
I know that the member for Mississauga South is a sensitive
man. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health. As
I know the influence he has over his colleagues, I challenge him
to try to convince them to think about the health of children, given
that we want to see more harmonious relations between men and
women who have responsibilities with respect to children, and,
although there has been a softening of their position, to convince
them to be receptive to the compromises we are proposing.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we may have time for a
30-second question and a one-minute answer.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
just a brief comment and a question. The comment has to do with
common law relationships. The member commented about how
prevalent this is in our society.
The member might be interested in studying some research
about the incidence of family violence in families and those living
common law. I think he will find that the incidence of family
violence is more prevalent in common law relationships.
My question has to do with prevention versus dealing with the
problems after they happen. The member says Quebec has a good
system in that it garnishees or takes away the payments so that
orders can be enforced. The member spent all this time talking
about how to deal with the problem after the problem exists.
I want to ask the member whether he does not think that a system
like the one they have in some of the states in the United States,
where couples with problems are required to take a 12-week
program as a reality check before contemplating divorce, should
occur before divorces are granted in Quebec or Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am not very familiar with the
American system the hon. member is referring to. Frankly, when I
do not know a subject very well, I do not usually talk about it
because I am not convincing. And when I am not convinced
myself, I am even less convincing.
Having said that, I have not closed my mind to this idea. We will
consider it together. The hon. member for Québec sitting in front of
me is our critic on the status of women. If this is a good idea, she
will surely give us some advice after thoroughly reviewing the
issue. So we will have to wait for that.
One last thing. I do not know what it is like elsewhere, but in
Quebec, for example, CLSCs, local community health centres, or
private organizations provide services to attempt reconciliation
before a couple separates; they try to help the spouses patch things
up while looking after the children's best interest. There is a long
tradition associated with this. Things do not always go smoothly
because there are unfortunately cases of extreme violence in which
people even manage to kill their former spouses, which is
deplorable.
Finally, Reformers often talk about criminals on the streets,
dangerous offenders who make people feel unsafe, but 85 per cent
of crimes are committed by people who are oftentimes very close,
like family members, and who are often former spouses. The hon.
member talks about prevention. I pay close attention to this and I
will support any measure he may propose when-
The Speaker: We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
4932
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay
tribute to several people from my riding of Cambridge who have
volunteered their professional skills to help developing economies
in Russia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Poland and Hungary.
Through CESO International Services, Steve Meissner, Donald
MacLeod, Dirk Booy and Al Galusz have at the grassroots level
exemplified the time honoured Canadian tradition of international
co-operation and responsibility.
CESO volunteer advisers are professionally skilled men and
women, usually retired, who share their years of experience with
companies and organizations in developing countries.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge, I welcome back these
volunteers who have done Canada proud. I urge them to continue
playing a role in assisting developing economies of our global
village.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
International Music Day, I would like to draw attention to Nil
Parent's initiative and the fulfilment of his dream, which is called
``Ronde et Bleue''.
To keep a promise he made to his son suffering from an incurable
disease, this determined musician from Quebec composed an ode
to peace. At 10 minutes past 10 this morning, Quebec time,
thousands of men, women and children in America, Europe and
Africa, in schools and on the streets, sang together in a single
voice.
4933
This event was a rehearsal for the great rendezvous on
December 31, 1999, when a global choir will sing the hymn to
peace.
This megaproject conveys a message of hope that, on the eve of
the next millennium, peace will become a common goal and
flourish all over the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
subpoenas are not issued on a whim and politicians are not above
the law. We are all citizens of this country called Canada. The rule
of law is fundamental to our democracy. Therefore, it is essential
that we as Canada's lawmakers be subject to the laws passed by this
Parliament.
A Saskatchewan court is calling upon the deputy leader of the
Conservatives in the Senate to testify on corruption charges in the
Devine government where he was second in command. He is
avoiding court by invoking a little used privilege of MPs and
senators that excuses them from answering a subpoena for 40 days
before or after a session as well as during a session.
In avoiding the court order, the Tories' deputy leader is
breaching Canadians' trust in a place where trust should be raised
to the highest level. The Senate remains an anachronism yet it has
continued to be supported by this Prime Minister.
The actions of the Tories' deputy leader has tarnished the image
of all politicians. There is clearly no need to invoke immunity. It
exhibits a serious abuse of privilege.
Resign Senator Berntson.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
like a growing morning light in a political landscape darkened and
dreary by years of uncritically accepting corporate Canada's
pathetic platitudes about what Canada needs, we see the political
pendulum start to come back in 1996.
From the provincial byelection in Halifax-Fairview where the
NDP got 65 per cent of the vote, to the federal byelection in
Hamilton East where we came second getting more votes than the
Tories and Reformers put together, to the re-election of the NDP in
B.C., and now the NDP Government of Yukon, we see Canadians
rejecting what the right-wing Liberals, Tories and Reformers have
been telling them.
There is another way. It is not an easy way, but the way of
solving our problems on the basis of community and co-operation
rather than competition and concessions to the powerful.
Congratulations to Piers McDonald and the Yukon NDP for
giving Canadians hope. The next federal election is just around the
corner and more and more Canadians appear to know just who the
real opposition is.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to inform the House that St. John's,
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian Red Cross are
playing host to the world this week.
Sixty high-ranking officials of the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent movement from around the world are gathering in St.
John's for a three day convention. This is the first time in the
group's history that it has met outside Europe. The choice of St.
John's for this year's meeting shows the support that the Canadian
Red Cross and the Canadian government have given to the
International Red Cross movement over the years.
(1405 )
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the humanitarian
services provided by the Canadian Red Cross to the world. Their
service and dedication to those less fortunate is well known around
the globe.
I am honoured that they have chosen St. John's for their meeting.
I want to extend on behalf of the government greetings to the
participants.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last week hundreds of prospectors have come to
the Temagami region in my riding in what may be one of the
biggest prospecting rushes ever.
Not only has the opening of almost 6,000 square kilometres of
land for exploration created much excitement for prospectors and
mining companies, but it has created great hopes in communities in
the area that new, high paying year-round jobs will follow in the
future.
[Translation]
Of course, all operations must be environmentally viable. Since
the Canadian mining industry is a world leader in the development
and implementation of environmentally sound practices, I am
convinced that all mining development in the Temagami region
will meet Canadian standards.
4934
[English]
I look forward to working with local groups, aboriginal leaders
and the mining industry to ensure that any development in the
Temagami region is managed in a responsible way.
[Translation]
I will gladly work together with local groups, aboriginal leaders
and the industry-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has
expired.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a
ceremony in Borden-Carleton last Friday, the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services announced the official name of
the bridge which will soon connect Prince Edward Island with the
Canadian mainland.
The fixed link will now be known as Confederation Bridge. This
name recognizes the important role P.E.I. has played in Canada's
rich history which has lead to Canadians calling the province the
cradle of Confederation.
For all Canadians the name celebrates our rich past and our
promising future, a future based on the kind of ingenuity and hard
work that is making the construction of Confederation Bridge a
reality.
Canadians from throughout the country participated in naming
the bridge. The number of submissions as well as the quality and
creativity of the suggestions demonstrate the pride that we
Canadians feel not only for this incredible engineering feat but for
our great country as well.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, the advisory committee and all Canadians
who participated in the bridge naming process. Thanks to them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
respect that the members of the Bloc Quebecois salute today the
Quebec and Canadian athletes who participated in the Olympic and
Paralympic Games in Atlanta.
We join with all those who spoke before us in saluting your
courage and determination. Whether you brought a medal home or
not, you are winners. You have made your dreams come true and
you are an inspiration to us all.
Some Olympic feats will be forever remembered. For instance,
we salute with pride Chantal Petitclerc, who won two gold and
three silver medals. Through her efforts and perseverance, she has
become an example to all young people, like Donovan Bailey,
Annie Pelletier and all the others.
We offer each and everyone of you our deepest thanks for your
brilliant performance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada I would like to thank
the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and
Yukon for their constitutional challenge of the Liberal
government's flawed national firearms registration system.
Last week the provincial justice ministers argued publicly that
the registration of rifles and shotguns will not be effective in
reducing crime; that gun registration does nothing to reduce crimes
involving firearms or smuggling; that gun registration is an
inappropriate use of scarce resources right across the country. They
said that the federal government has repeatedly failed to produce
evidence of a correlation between a firearms registry and reduction
in crime. They said it is time to target criminals who use weapons
to commit crimes, not penalize law-abiding citizens under the
guise of gun registration.
If this court challenge is successful, then the hundreds of
millions saved will be able to be redirected to fighting real crime
and real criminals by putting more police officers in our
communities rather than keeping them back in the office
processing useless bits of paper.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under
this Liberal government our economy has dramatically improved
over the past three years.
(1410 )
Who would have believed in the early 1990s when interest rates
were over 10 per cent that today they would be reduced to less than
6 per cent? Mortgage rates have declined 4 per cent putting $3,000
in the pockets of the average Canadian family. Interest rates have
helped small businesses and the housing market show great
improvements and move forward.
Our monetary policy allowed the dollar to drop from 90 cents to
73 cents. This shift, along with Team Canada trade missions, has
4935
increased our foreign trade by 38 per cent, creating some 680,000
jobs in this country. Unemployment has dropped from 11.2 per cent
to 9.4 nationally and under 9 per cent in my area of southwestern
Ontario.
The government has and will continue to provide positive
leadership.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that October is Breast
Cancer Awareness Month. It is symbolized by the pink ribbons
worn by some of my colleagues here today.
Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths
among Canadian women. Approximately 18,600 new breast cancer
cases will be diagnosed this year and 5,300 women will die.
In 1992 Health Canada implemented a major initiative on breast
cancer totalling $25 million over five years. Our partners in this
initiative include the Medical Research Council, the Canadian
Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, the
provinces and territories.
There are other activities under way. Health Canada supports
provincial breast cancer screening activities, the development of
care and treatment guidelines, research, five information exchange
projects, and strategies for the continuing education of health care
professionals.
I applaud the efforts of those who are fighting this disease.
October will provide us all with an opportunity to support breast
cancer initiatives.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
language issue continues to rattle the Parti Quebecois.
Yesterday, minister Serge Ménard plunged into the fray, stating:
``I would not want this country we will be building to be a country
that does not treat its minorities as we wished we had been treated
in Canada''.
The minister is in no position to teach anyone anything about
how francophones should be treated in Canada. In this respect, I
remind him that, in Canada, we have two official languages and,
although they are few in numbers, francophones have successfully
made their presence felt and done well at every level of Canada's
social, cultural and political life.
By the way, Mr. Ménard, when will an anglophone from the
West Island become premier of Quebec for instance?
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on September 9, 1996, fourteen leaders of Quebec's
Italian community representing various political stripes, including
the director of Montreal's Italian women's centre, three past
presidents of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the
president of the Italian-Canadian business people and
professionals, and even Liberal senator Pietro Rizzuto, have signed
a manifesto asking, in regard to Quebec's future, that a clear and
responsible political debate take place, in keeping with democracy.
These people support the position held by Quebec and they feel
that all must accept the majority decision reached democratically.
We must be grateful to these leaders for stating a clear position in
saying that ``Quebec's Italian community will remain an integral
part of Quebec, regardless of the outcome of the constitutional
debate''.
I ask Liberal members from Quebec to follow the example set by
Quebec's Italian community and to publicly dissociate themselves
from their government's legal action.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask you not to use the
names of senators when you make statements in the House.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to think
that when in opposition the Liberals were against free trade.
Today we are honouring Olympic athletes, some of whom are
with us today on Parliament Hill. The value of their participation
and contribution to Canada should not be underestimated or
unrecognized.
In my opinion, athletics are as important in one's life as is
academics. In some way or another sports have been or will
become a part of every Canadian's life. Athletic competition
prepares the individual for life and the real world.
An Olympic athlete reaches the epitome of success by not only
striving to be the best in a particular sport, but also in wanting to
represent his or her country. Hours of practice go rewarded by
making the Olympic team and the height of ecstasy is reached if the
athlete manages to win a medal for themselves and their country.
(1415)
To all who aspire to be an Olympic athlete, to all who dream,
past, present and future, and to all those who represent their
country, congratulations.
4936
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's history and political tradition have provided
few opportunities for a consensus as strong as the one recently
reached regarding the issues of employment and economic
recovery.
All of Quebec's stakeholders in the socio-economic and political
fields share these two objectives. All, except the Bloc Quebecois.
Believe it or not, the party's general council just adopted a plan
of action which seeks two objectives: ``To allow the Bouchard
government to spend most of its energy on the economy'', while
the Bloc will ``tend the flame of sovereignty''.
The Bloc Quebecois has just demonstrated that it does not give a
hoot about the economic problems of Quebecers. The only
priorities of its members are to get re-elected and to achieve
separation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all Canadians understand and appreciate that law, order
and respect for the individual are important components in a free
and democratic society. I believe Canadians would react very
strongly to anyone or anything that would threaten our quality of
life which is based on, among other things, our respect for law and
order.
It is true that not all laws are popular with all Canadians.
However, by respecting these laws we guarantee order in our
society. Anyone who intentionally encourages defiance or
disrespect for these laws would be acting irresponsibly and should
be denounced.
Last month the Reform member for Yorkton-Melville visited
my riding of Souris-Moose Mountain in order to advise people
not to respect Bill C-68. I find this action irresponsible and now
wonder if the leader of the Reform Party agrees with the member
that it is not necessary to respect the law. If not, he should say so.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTIONS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has just realized that he is unable to
keep the referendum promises he made to Quebecers, and is
therefore hoping to gain time by seeking the Supreme Court's
opinion on the question of Quebec's sovereignty.
Will the Prime Minister admit that a reference to the Supreme
Court will take 12 to 18 months, until after the next federal
election, and that this will gain him enough time to be able to
appear before voters without having kept his promises, using the
excuse that he is waiting on this opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I must say that, in December, the House of
Commons voted in favour of a distinct society, and I hope that the
National Assembly will follow suit as rapidly as possible.
Here, the government has assumed its responsibilities and voted
in favour of a distinct society. We also promised that we were not
going to amend the Constitution without the consent of Quebec.
Parliament assumed its responsibilities in the month of December,
and we passed a bill giving a regional veto in Canada, which means
Quebec has a veto. But the Constitution cannot be amended without
the approval of the government of Quebec.
So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants changes, let him tell
head office to pass a resolution on distinct society, and accept the
veto which they are being offered and which the government of
Quebec is turning down.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister can talk about the distinct society
resolution, but the best proof that this resolution of the House of
Commons is not worth the paper it is written on is that at no time
has the government asked the Supreme Court to consider it in the
opinion it is going to give the provinces.
(1420)
If the Prime Minister believes in what he is doing, there is still
time to ask the Supreme Court judges to consider the resolution
passed in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society. Let him do it.
Will he at least admit that not only will the reference to the
Supreme Court gain him time, but that also, in his mind, it will
allow preparations to be made for a possible federal intervention in
Quebec's next referendum, an intervention that would otherwise be
viewed as completely unacceptable by Quebecers, and that the
Prime Minister wants the Supreme Court to pave the way for?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition voted against the distinct
society resolution. In addition, the bill was passed by the
Parliament of Canada and challenged by no one. A reference is not
possible.
Furthermore, in the throne speech, we proposed a series of
adjustments to the federation, including our withdrawal frommany areas. We offered the provinces a new manpower agreement,
4937
which the minister is in the process of negotiating with the
provinces.
We said that we were not going to use our spending authority
without the consent of five provinces. We spoke about a series of
things to change the federation. Since February, once again, the
Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to keep the status
quo, while we are in favour of change in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to hear the Prime Minister say
that he did not mention the House of Commons resolution before
the Supreme Court because the Leader of the Opposition voted
against it. I had no idea I was so powerful. I would remind the
Prime Minister that this was not a bill, but a resolution of the House
of Commons.
With respect to the Supreme Court's opinion, the government is
using this reference to create a false sense of security in the rest of
Canada, telling people not to worry because it will be a powerful
tool against sovereignty. In Quebec, he says that it will not stand in
the way of sovereignty, but will merely provide a legal framework.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his reference to the Supreme
Court not only gains him time and allows him to pave the way, but
that it also allows him to change his tune, depending on whether he
is in Quebec or in the rest of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak in the House of Commons every day. Through the
House of Commons, I am heard across Canada, both in Quebec and
in the rest of the country.
When the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that this was just a
resolution, here again he is demonstrating his failure to understand
the facts. We passed a bill on the right of veto. It is a bill, not a
resolution. It is a bill and the member voted against a bill giving
Quebec the right of veto with regard to any changes to the
Constitution.
Speaking about promises, we are in our twelfth day of question
period and the Leader of the Opposition said in Le Devoir not very
long ago: ``When we go back, the priority will be on the problems
our people are experiencing, particularly in Montreal and in
Quebec. We will be talking about jobs, about the economy. We
have suggestions to make''.
Because he is unable to attack us on our economic policies, all
the Leader of the Opposition can talk about is the Constitution.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In his
Le
Canada et le Québec après le référendum: explications d'une
quasi-défaite, written when he was an academic, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs accused the Prime Minister of having
contributed to the sovereignist cause and of having lacked clarity in
his promises during the last referendum. To quote him: ``Ironically,
these promises made in desperation probably did not help the No
cause. On the contrary, the contradictions within the No camp, and
the lack of clarity in the promises, probably convinced voters to
vote Yes.''
(1425)
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated yesterday
that he was proud that, since entering politics, he has never had to
back down from anything he wrote as a university professor, does
he still maintain that severe judgment of the man who is now his
leader?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have never blamed the Prime Minister for the
referendum victory by the No. I have simply said that the promises
made came too late to have a positive impact on the vote.
That is why prompt action is necessary. That is why it is
important to clarify things rapidly, and not to let the separatist
camp exploit the confusion, and we are going to clarify a number of
things.
It is, for example, incorrect to say that this federation is
centralized. It is one of the most decentralized possible. It is
incorrect to say that Quebecers do not have a share in this
confederation. This is one of the most generous federations there
is, and it is wrong to say that this federation cannot change. We
shall improve it by working with all of our partners who believe in
Canada. It is wrong to spread a whole pack of falsehoods, as the
opposition and the independentist movement are constantly doing,
and we are going to clarify things as soon as possible.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in that
same book, the minister wrote that the Liberals ought perhaps, and
again I quote: ``to consider the opinion of the leader of the Reform
Party by passing a law clarifying the conditions under which a
province can separate from Canada.''
The Minister having stated yesterday in this House that he denies
absolutely nothing in what he has written, are we to understand that
his thoughts are the same today, that the government ought to
follow the plan of the Reform leader, and that consequently he is
giving his blessing to the holy alliance of Liberals and Reformers
against Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what Quebecers see is certainly all of the efforts being
expended to cloud the issue.
4938
The opposition is well aware that confusion can help it win out,
and that a clear question, a clear process relating to secession, will
bring Quebecers and other Canadians to a reconciliation and will
reinforce the solidarity that joins them, rather than breaking it
down. They are aware of this, and that is why they fear the
undertaking we have begun.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the military justice system was brought under a cloud
because of the Somalia inquiry.
Last night CBC reported another example of the apparent failure
of the military justice system under this Minister of National
Defence.
Commander Dean Marsaw was court martialled and found guilty
of verbal and physical misconduct. However, transcripts and videos
of the investigations show the witnesses being badgered, called
liars and being accused of not co-operating. Before Marsaw can be
dismissed from the forces the minister must confirm the dismissal.
Will the minister show some support for the morale in the forces
and immediately suspend the dismissal of Commander Marsaw?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the
hon. member shows his absolute contempt for due process in the
Canadian justice system.
We have a case here of a court martial. I cannot talk about the
details but the individual concerned has the right to appeal to the
court martial appeal court. That court is composed of three civilian
justices, usually of the Federal Court of Canada or the superior
courts of the provinces.
I think the hon. member would serve the cause of justice well if
he would let the process take its course, allow the individual to
make up his own mind as to what to do and not to second guess
once again individual cases on the floor of the House of Commons.
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, why will this minister not show some competence and
just do what is right for once?
The minister refuses to act on what appears to be a gross
injustice. Time and time again we keep coming across instances
where the military justice system goes on a witch hunt. Corporal
Pernelle is being court martialled for telling the truth to the
Somalia inquiry. Dean Marsaw has already been found guilty and is
about to be kicked out of the forces. The whole investigation has
been called into question.
To restore the integrity of the investigation of Commander
Marsaw, will the minister bring the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police in to conduct an investigation into the botched
investigation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member admits to coming to certain conclusions based on
appearances from some television program.
The fact is we see clearly once again that Reform Party justice is
vigilante justice, and that is not Canadian justice.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister forgets that he himself this past summer
suggested that the military justice system needs to be reviewed.
The military justice system is in shambles under this minister.
There are double standards applied. General Boyle got special
treatment when he was interviewed and he was handled with kid
gloves. In Commander Marsaw's case witnesses were grilled and
accused of lying. It appears that Marsaw was railroaded and the
justice system has failed him.
It is time for a complete overhaul of the judge advocate general's
office. This is the only way to avoid repeats of events like
Marsaw's case.
To restore morale in the Canadian Armed Forces and to
demonstrate leadership, will the minister commit to an immediate
overhaul of the justice system in the military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): The hon. member knows that
I have said we are reviewing all procedures and practices at
national defence and one of them will be the military justice
system. I hope Parliament will take part in that review and I hope
the hon. member will make some reasoned and informed
comments instead of the ones that he has been making.
The hon. member talks about shambles. The only thing that is in
shambles is the Reform Party of Canada. Day after day its members
come here and they castigate people in the military. They reflect
upon the judicial process, the commission on Somalia. They have
nothing to say on national unity, nothing on the economy, nothing
on agriculture, nothing on social justice, nothing on pension
reform. The Reform Party has nothing to say.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I thought there for a minute I missed a day
this week.
4939
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech that
when new and significant savings were realized with respect to
unemployment insurance, it would be possible to reduce premiums
even further, and he would make sure that this happened. Well, this
morning we are told that the minister is seriously considering
raising the unemployment insurance surplus to $15 billion.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why does the
minister want to accumulate a surplus of $15 billion in the
unemployment insurance fund instead of reducing premiums, when
he himself said that a reduction of seven cents would create 40,000
jobs over two years and that he would be able to reduce this payroll
tax to a significant extent?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the report to which the hon. member is referring is a report by the
chief actuary of the Department of Human Resources
Development, who prepared a study that found that if we want to
accumulate a surplus in the account, to avoid going through what
the last government did, we would need a surplus of between ten
and fifteen billion dollars.
That being said, I would like to point out to the hon. member that
when we came to power, the previous government had intended to
raise unemployment insurance premiums to $3.30. We froze them
at $3.07 and then reduced them to $3 and reduced them again last
year to $2.95. Last year, we reduced premiums by $1.8 billion,
which saved taxpayers money on unemployment insurance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when the Liberal government came to power, it
deliberately increased unemployment insurance premiums. It was
the first thing it did as far as economic policy was concerned.
We are accused of not asking a whole lot of questions about jobs.
I accuse the government of never having an answer on the subject.
The Minister of Finance is more concerned about his millionaires
than about the unemployed.
Here is my question, and I expect a reply. Does the minister
realize that by wanting to accumulate a surplus of $15 billion in the
unemployment insurance fund and by refusing to reduce premiums
for employers and employees, he has deliberately ordered a tax of
$15 billion on employment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, the report to which the hon. member referred was drafted by
an actuary, by an expert who said: ``If you want a surplus, it will
take from ten to fifteen billion dollars''.
Now the hon. member is talking about jobs. Since we came to
power, more than three quarter of a million new jobs were created
by Canadians. At the beginning of the year, more than 200,000 new
jobs were created by this government. During the month of August,
more than 82,000 jobs were created by Canadians. Yesterday, we
saw that Canada's economic growth is not only very strong but that
the IMF says that next year, Canada will have the strongest
economic growth rate of any G7 country. Canadians are doing very
well, thank you!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the
Globe and Mail reported that Captain Alvis, a U.S.
Green Beret officer, ordered a Canadian soldier to fire on a Somali.
Later Captain Alvis denied even being in Somalia at the time of
the incident even though his interview had been taped. However,
later last night he said that basically the report was accurate but to
disregard the part about the shooting.
Will the minister of defence please tell us exactly what happened
at that bridge in Belet Huen?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was confused
when I read the Globe and Mail yesterday morning. I was confused
when I saw the individual on television last night. I am even more
confused with the interpretation of events by this hon. member in
the House today.
The fact is certain allegations were made in a newspaper. They
have been called into question. That is not a matter for me to
debate.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all I asked was to get to the bottom of the facts of what happened at
the bridge at Belet Huen. I cannot believe this minister is refusing
to answer.
An individual is dead from a Canadian soldier's bullet. We know
that the military tried to cover up the murder of Shidane Arone in
Somalia. It has misreported and misrepresented the death of
Corporal MacKinnon at Suffield. Now the minister refuses to give
the Canadian public the facts on what happened in Somalia in this
instance. Why does he not come clean?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
4940
has given the Canadian people a commission of inquiry to look
into all the matters of concern to the hon. member. Let it do its job.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for many years, the official opposition has been accusing
the government of favouring the carrier Canadian at the expense of
Air Canada, which employs 7,000 people in Quebec. We are not the
only ones to say so. Last week, the international executive officer
of Cathay Pacific Airlines, the main carrier in Hong Kong, stated:
``There is a lot of politics behind this decision-I think that Canada
is trying not to put too much pressure on Canadian International''.
Mr. Young: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duceppe: If the Minister for Human Resources
Development could be quiet, I could carry on. Mr. Speaker, could
the minister please stop talking? He is being insolent.
An hon. member: He is not even polite.
Mr. Young: He knows what he is talking about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has
the floor.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Transport
realize that, by favouring Canadian over Air Canada, he is
contributing to the loss of jobs in Quebec? Why do they keep
undermining Air Canada and favouring Canadian?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is the one who is somewhat mixed up.
He forgets that both Canadian International and Air Canada are in
competition with Cathay Pacific. He quotes a Cathay Pacific
spokesman who was quite happy to give that information because
of course he knows full well it serves his interest and not the
interest of the Canadian airlines.
Asking Cathay Pacific what to do with the Canadian airlines on
the Pacific is bit like asking a crocodile where to go swimming in
the river. It is not a very bright move.
With respect to the issue of jobs, we are not trying to reduce the
number of flights. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois who think this is a
zero sum game, what one must gain the other must lose, we are
trying to expand air traffic.
The new air traffic routes that have been established, including
open skies with the United States, incidentally the world's largest
international market, have created 1,000 jobs for Air Canada, 700
for Canadian International and in addition, there is-
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to please make
their questions and answers shorter.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to ask a crocodile to look after swimmers is like asking a
friend of Canadian to be Minister of Transport.
If the minister will not talk about Cathay Pacific Airlines, let me
put this question to him. Air Canada itself complained, the
chamber of commerce complained, all the stakeholders in Quebec
complained. Did the Minister of Transport hear away out west
about what was going on in Quebec with Air Canada and about all
the complaints regarding his actions in the area of air traffic?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has conveniently forgotten that this big
expansion in air traffic, generated by the government over the last
three years, directly results in jobs throughout the country,
particularly in Quebec with Air Canada's head office in Montreal
and where Bombardier makes the RJ jet, for which there is, I
believe, some 60 orders outstanding at the present time.
The hon. member forgets that our policy of expansion of air
travel dramatically improves the situation. I have to assure him that
we want to maintain the policy of choice for the Canadian public.
In addition, we do not want to give in to the demands of the Bloc
Quebecois and Air Canada to destroy a system that we have set up
so carefully over the years and which is so much to the advantage
of the Canadian travelling public.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that
fear is spreading within our justice system. Madam Justice Barbara
Reed has expressed her fear of making a court decision that goes
against the whims of the government.
Justice Reed states in a letter to the Toronto Star that: ``I am
shaken by the thought of the vitriolic attacks I must expect to
endure if I make a decision unfavourable to the government''.
(1445 )
What has the justice minister done to create such unprecedented
fear in the mind of this judge?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I must concede that
there is very little I can teach the hon. member about spreading fear
out there. I think he has to figure things out for himself.
4941
The hon. member has referred to a letter written by Madam
Justice Reed to a reporter with the Toronto Star. I was sent a copy
of the letter. I did not respond to the letter. I do not intend to
respond to the letter, nor to comment on it.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to
anyone who understands the circumstances that Judge Reed's fear
is a direct result of the justice minister's failure to exercise his
authority to protect the judicial independence of the courts.
The minister should have immediately suspended Ted Thompson
and launched a complaint against his senior official as well as
Chief Justice Julius Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council for
their unprecedented interference into the independence of a sitting
judge.
Why did the minister not take every reasonable action to
immediately assure judges that any interference into their
independence would not be tolerated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could usefully
take an hour or two out from spreading fear in order to look at the
facts of this case. When he does so, he would discover that some
months ago I appointed the former chief justice of Ontario, the
Hon. Charles Dubin, a person whose experience and integrity in
such matters is beyond question, to look into all of the
circumstances surrounding the incident referred to by the hon.
member.
That report was received and made public in August. It made
clear that the Department of Justice well understands the
importance of judicial independence and acts every day on its
principles.
The Hon. Mr. Dubin also made recommendations concerning
Mr. Thompson and as a result of the report, as the hon. member
well knows, Ted Thompson voluntarily relinquished the position he
held.
The fact of the matter is that the report established clearly that
there was no interference by the Department of Justice with the
independence of the Supreme Court.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week, federal officials met with the mayors of the towns in
Quebec's asbestos-producing region and the main stakeholders in
this sector. During this meeting, no federal official was able to
specify what financial support the government could provide to
fight the French decision.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to financially support
Quebec's strategy to defend the safe use of chrysotile asbestos?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I made representations to the
European Union and also to the French government with respect to
the matter of asbestos. Rather than a total ban, we are suggesting
that they look at controlled, safe uses of asbestos. There are some
that are not, but there are some that are. I think the health minister
and the Department of Health could verify that.
We have offered to send experts to France to assist them in the
use of asbestos that can be done safely. We believe that there are
some controlled circumstances where it can be used safely. We
want to help them in that regard to ensure that the industry survives
in Quebec and continues to provide employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would have liked an answer from the Prime Minister himself since
this issue affects 2,000 jobs in my region. Furthermore, it is the
Prime Minister himself who should be holding talks with the
French President.
Since the World Health Organization recently pointed out the
risks associated with the use of asbestos, will the government
finally wake up and take vigorous action to promote within this
organization the safe use of asbestos, as provided for in Directive
161 adopted by the WHO in Geneva?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned about this employment as
anybody in Quebec is. We want to make sure that these jobs
remain. We want to make sure that controlled and safe uses of this
substance continue to be allowed in the countries to which we are
exporting.
The Prime Minister said in the House in the last week or so that
he was quite willing to make representations, as indeed is my
colleague, the Minister of Health. All of us are concerned about
this matter. We are doing our utmost to make sure we maintain that
industry.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the
opening of a liaison office in Punjab, India. I would like to
congratulate him and let him know that this is being greeted with
great enthusiasm.
Could the minister inform the House how the opening of this
new office will serve both nations?
4942
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to convey my appreciation to the
hon. member and to the hon. member for
Bramalea-Gore-Malton for their strong interest in this file.
I would like to confirm that yesterday, in co-operation with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for India, we were able to establish a
new liaison office in the Punjab. This follows on the Prime
Minister's Team Canada trip to India where we dedicated ourselves
to broadening our area of relationships.
The office will open in January. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
for India was good enough to invite myself and a delegation of
Canadians to the opening, where we will focus on trade, investment
and the facilitation of immigration.
It is a very good initiative to broaden and deepen the nature of
our relationship with that very important country.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister had the power to fire Ted Thompson and he refused
to do it. Is it any wonder that Canadians are fed up with our system,
the government and the justice minister?
Now three alleged war criminals are walking free because the
justice minister, through his senior lawyer, Ted Thompson, tried to
make a backroom deal with a Federal Court judge.
Today Madam Justice Barbara Reed's letter to the Toronto Star
clearly has brought the entire Federal Court system into disrepute,
thereby unduly influencing three deportation cases against alleged
war criminals now living in Canada.
Will the justice minister directly refer these cases against the
suspected criminals to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision,
yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question is a shocking mixture
of misunderstanding and misstatement. It is absolutely shocking.
We took the trouble to have a person of unquestioned reputation
look carefully through all the facts of this matter. When the Hon.
Mr. Dubin reported in August he did not say there were grounds for
firing Ted Thompson. What did the former chief justice of Ontario
conclude? Unlike my hon. friend, he took the trouble to look
through all the facts carefully, speak to the people involved,
examine the documents and consider them carefully in accordance
with appropriate principles. He concluded that there was no basis to
fire Ted Thompson. It was his recommendation that Mr. Thompson
should not continue in his present role and Mr. Thompson, as a
result, resigned voluntarily.
The report speaks for itself. It establishes that the Department of
Justice well understands the principles of judicial independence.
My friend should educate himself before asking the next question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
is shocking is the fact that this minister cannot even clean up his
department.
War criminals are walking free in Canada today because the
justice minister refuses to honour the principle that judges and
courts must be free of interference from politicians and
bureaucrats. This is not the first time the justice minister has
crossed the line which separates the courts and politicians.
Why does the minister not do the right thing, pack up his bags
and go home?
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a better idea. I will send my
hon. friend a copy of the Dubin report and ask him to read it. After
he has read it, maybe he can come back and ask a question that is
relevant.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, a coalition of 130 organizations asked the Prime
Minister to take immediate action in the fight against tobacco use.
Although the health minister's predecessor promised last
December that a bill regulating tobacco products would be
introduced in the spring, no such bill has been tabled so far.
Will the minister honour his government's commitments and
immediately table a tobacco bill?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for the question. The subject
matter has received some public attention in the last number of
weeks.
I wish to share with the House that, since we issued the blueprint
in November 1995, there have been over 2,300 different
submissions from Canadians from different regions of the country.
We are in the process of examining our proposals as they relate
to the charter to make sure that we are not back in court as we were
on a previous occasion with the legislation. When we do come
4943
forward, we will have comprehensive legislation that will address
the needs, not only of the health groups across the country but the
young people of this country as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister justify the fact that, while his department is spending
millions of dollars on an anti-smoking campaign, the Minister of
Agriculture is subsidizing research on tobacco production in
Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that
the vast majority of funding that is provided by the Department of
Agriculture with respect to tobacco is related to agronomic matters
and is highly focused on alternatives to tobacco production so that
tobacco producers may find ways to diversify away from a
dependence on this crop.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals soft on crime approach has skewed our judicial system.
Politics is tipping the scales of justice.
The RCMP, while investigating a Quebec senator and her
daughter suggested that she be charged with fraud. All Canadians
are supposed to receive the same treatment, but it appears that
some are more delicate than others.
Why did the justice minister not prosecute the senator for
defrauding the Government of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have now heard from all parts
of the fearsome trilogy on justice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: I am standing here wondering if we put them all
together, do we come up with a sensible question? I do not think
even then we can do it.
In the case to which my hon. friend has referred, we have to
distinguish between law on the one hand and politics on the other.
Let us talk about law for 30 seconds. For law we have a very
competent prosecutor, a lawyer in the Montreal office, who looked
at the facts, applied the usual criteria and decided that no
prosecution should be brought based on legal principles. It was
taken to his superior who reviewed the same facts and came to the
same conclusion. That is law. That is the way the system should
work.
Now let us look at politics. That is politics, a man who does not
know the facts, does not know the law and comes to the floor of this
House with that outrageous question and tries to make short term
political hay. That is politics.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad
part of all the rhetoric that is coming from that side of the House is
the fear that Canadians have because these social engineers are not
in justice. They do not know anything about it.
(1500)
This senator, the deputy chairman of the Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, made a speech on UI. She knows the rules. Why is it
that the rules apply to every ordinary Canadian whether they are
ignorant of the law or not, but do not apply to a politician or a
senator if it was not for social engineering by this minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is frightening at
the moment is the hon. member.
I think what we should do here is remember that we are talking
about a legal system which functioned properly in this case;
responsible people applied the correct criteria and produced the
appropriate response. All of the huffing, puffing and carrying on is
not going to change either the legal principles or the facts of the
case.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since French-speaking communities from coast to coast are an
essential element of Canada's social fabric, can the minister tell us
what the Canadian government does and intends to do to support
French speaking minorities in the education sector?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in St. John's,
Newfoundland, I was very proud to sign, on behalf of the
Government of Canada, an agreement that has the support of every
province, including Quebec.
The agreement provides that up to $1 billion will be allocated to
help finance education for minority language groups across
Canada, that is anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside
Quebec.
This means that more than half of young Canadians study in the
second language of their choice, either French or English. We are
proud to help them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. It concerns the desperate job situation of young
people in Canada with a real unemployment level of close to 20 per
cent. Despite this the Liberal government has not even allocated,
according to a briefing note, some $45 million of funds budgeted
4944
for youth programs and still has not established a promised $20
million program to help youth repay their student loans.
When will this Liberal government finally show some leadership
and come up with a solid strategy to attack youth unemployment in
this country? How many more young people must be added to the
unemployment rolls before this government finally takes action?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already advised hon.
members that the budget that was allocated for youth employment
had a couple of components to it. One was directed specifically to
students who are still in academic institutions or returning to them
in the fall. We did that over the summer, doubling the amount of
money that was available.
With respect to the amount the hon. member is referring to, the
$45 million, when this money was allocated in the spring we were
aware that a lot of young people in this country are not in academic
institutions. They require a different kind of assistance in order to
find jobs in a very difficult environment.
We understand the member's commitment to youth
employment. I hope he will understand that we wanted to make
sure we were doing the right thing for those students who do not fit
into the traditional strategies of the past where we were simply
looking at them during the summer.
That money will be allocated and it will be spent well and on
young people looking for jobs in this country.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Inder Kumar Gujral,
Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505 )
The Speaker: This is a rather special day for Parliament and a
special day for Canada.
We are going to be doing a few things differently in the next few
minutes. The House will now go into committee of the whole to
recognize Canada's 1996 Olympic Summer Games and Paralympic
Games athletes.
(House in committee to recognize Canada's 1996 Olympic
Summer Games and Paralympic Games athletes.)
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Colleagues, as I said, today is a special day for us here in the House
of Commons. For the first time in the history of our country, we are
going to bring on to the floor our Olympic athletes. When they
come on to the floor they will be coming in through the Canada
door at the far end. When they come in, of course you will receive
them in a manner befitting Olympians.
[Translation]
Once they are all on the floor of the House, I will say a few
words on your behalf and mine.
[English]
After that, I am going to introduce them to you by the events
they are in. I will call out their names. I would ask you to hold your
applause until I have finished a certain section.
Following that, the athletes will leave the Chamber and you and
I, my colleagues, will receive them in the Reading Room for a brief
reception. At that time, all the pictures that need be taken can be
taken there. The athletes will be very happy, I know, to meet all of
you.
With that, remembering always that this is the House of
Commons of Canada, the heart of our nation, I invite in your name
and in the name of all Canadians on to the floor of the House of
Commons our Olympians and Paralympians.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon Canada's 1996 Olympic and
Paralympic athletes entered the Chamber.]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1510)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Olympian compatriots and dear colleagues, this
summer, the whole world was watching the games in Atlanta. A
record number of athletes gathered to participate in the Olympic
and Paralympic Games.
These games are a stage for human achievement and friendship
among nations. They also promote the participation of nations in a
friendly competition and they allow athletes to reach the lofty goals
they set for themselves.
[English]
The men and women, some of whom are here, the men and
women who represented us the Canadian people in Atlanta were
Canada's finest athletes. To have competed there is a remarkable
achievement. And you the medal winners, you are recognized as
the best of the best in the world.
4945
Some of you surpassed all records of achievement in the history
of sport and we in this room and we looking at you on our
televisions now across Canada, whether we were in St. John's,
Vancouver or Whitehorse, you had us all on the edge of our chairs.
Now we Canadians do not usually make a lot of noise but when
you won those medals, there were 30 million people up here in
Canada pretty ecstatic and pretty noisy. Maybe you heard us
cheering all the way down there in Atlanta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1515)
[Translation]
The Speaker: All Canadians shared in your victories. We are
very proud of you. You captivated our imagination. You became the
heroes of a new generation of Canadians. You are the pride of
Canadian sport and you represent the best that Canada has to offer
to the world.
[English]
We do not usually have guests here on the floor of the House of
Commons but this is an extraordinary day and we wanted to bend
the rules just a little because we here in this chamber and we 30
million Canadians want to pay tribute to you and to congratulate
you. Most of all, we want to thank you for bringing such great
honour to our nation.
I am going to read out each of your names. I ask you, my
colleauges, to hold your applause. I know it will be difficult. At the
end, please do not all run on to the floor. I want to get there myself.
You will have the chance to meet our Olympians in the Reading
Room following this introduction.
I am going to call out the sport and, because we are a bit
crowded, I would ask you, when I finish with your section, to
please raise your hands and at that time we will receive you in our
own Canadian way.
In Athletics: Jeff Adams, Dean Bergeron, Collette Bourgonje,
Nick Cunningham, Clayton Gerein, Carl Marquis, Jacques Martin,
Colin Mathieson, Brent McMahon, Marc Quessy and Joe Radmore.
That is the athletic group.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next category is basketball/wheelchair
basketball: Marni Abbott, Jennifer Krempien, Kelly Krywa, Linda
Kutrowski, Kendra Ohama and Marney Smithies. These are the
wheelchair basketball athletes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is wheelchair rugby: Garett
Hickling, Kirby Kranabetter, Brian McPhate, Al Semeniuk, Daryl
Stubel and David Tweed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is yachting: David Cook, Ken
Kelly and John McRoberts. These are our Olympians for yachting.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is athletics: Donovan Bailey,
Carlton Chambers, Jason Delasalle, Robert Esmie, France Gagné,
Glenroy Gilbert, Kris Hodgins, Ljiljiana Ljubisic, Stuart
McGregor, Tracey Melesko and James Shaw. These are our
Olympians in athletics.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is basketball/wheelchair
basketball: Chantal Benoit, Renée DelColle and Lori Radke.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is cycling: Curt Harnett and Gary
Longhi.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is diving: Annie Pelletier.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is goalball: Jeff Christy,
Jean-François Crépault and Dean Kozak.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is lawn bowls: Vivian Berkeley
and Lance McDonald.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is rowing: Laryssa Biesenthal,
Gavin Hassett, Kathleen Heddle, Alison Korn, Silken Laumann,
Theresa Luke, Maria Maunder, Marnie McBean, Heather
McDermid, Jessica Monroe, Diane O'Grady, Lesley Thompson,
Tosha Tsang and Anna Van Der Kamp.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is swimming: Tony Alexander,
Rebeccah Bornemann, Andrew Haley, Garth Harris, Marianne
Limpert, Curtis Myden, Joëlle Rivard, Elizabeth Walker and
Walter Wu. These are our Olympians in swimming.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is synchronized swimming: Lisa
Alexander, Janice Bremner, Karen Clark, Karen Fonteyne, Sylvie
Fréchette, Valérie Hould-Marchand, Kasia Kulesza, Christine
Larsen, Cari Read and Erin Woodley.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is yachting: Kirk Westergaard.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we have been concentrating of
course on our Olympians, but for the people who guide them, who
4946
teach them, who encourage them, we have with us in our galleries
the coaches of the Olympians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Olympians of Canada and my colleagues, there
are not many moments when a country can feel as proud as we did
during the Atlanta games. You have given us moments we will
remember for a very long time. You see, you belong to us and we,
the Canadian people, belong to you. On this day we claim you.
Merci d'avoir fait honneur au Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Editor's Note: After the singing of the national anthem
Canada's 1996 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the Chamber.]
* * *
(1535 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a statement that was
made by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain during question
period. I did not say what the member alleged.
In point of fact, it was the opposite. I did not tell anyone to break
the law. I clearly said that Bill C-68 should be repealed so that
people do not have to pay for or comply with useless legislation.
When asked directly, I did not dodge the question but said that I
will obey the law. We must work hard to repeal Bill C-68-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With the greatest of
respect to the member for Yorkton-Melville, I would rule that is
not a point of order. The matter he is engaging in is debate.
Does the hon. member have a question for the Chair, not about
the ruling? The ruling is clear, it is not a point of order.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, would this
be appropriate as a point of privilege in that it hampers my ability
as a member of Parliament to do my job properly if someone makes
a misstatement about me?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): No, again I would rule. I
guess the suggestion I would make is that he possibly would want
to seek counsel from our senior table officers, but my initial answer
to his question is no, there is not a question of privilege. Then
again, being the frail human that I am, please, as I have done in the
past, seek the good counsel of our table officers. They are all here
at our service.
4946
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and
Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot say that I am particularly pleased to rise today to
speak to Bill C-53. In fact, I am quite astounded that such a bill has
made it this far in the House of Commons.
On the one, hand members are debating bills which concern
tougher sentencing, stricter parole legislation and capital
punishment for criminals because that is what Canadians are
demanding. On the other hand, the Liberals have brought forward
this proposal out of left field which makes it easier for prisoners to
get out of jail on temporary absences.
The weaknesses of the justice system in our country are
becoming more and more evident to the majority of Canadians and
quite frankly they want something done about it. Seventy per cent
of Canadians want first degree, cold blooded murderers sentenced
to death. They do not want killers or any criminal let out on parole
before completing their sentences and they certainly do not want it
made easier for a criminal to get a temporary absence or a longer
temporary absence from prison.
I will guarantee that if members asked most Canadians they
would tell them that they do not think convicted criminals need to
spend more of their sentences outside jail walls. They would
simply ask what for. That is what I want to know. What for?
The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general attempted to
answer this in the House last week. He claims this bill will allow
provincial prisoners leave for a specified period of time with or
without an escort for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative
purposes, all in an effort to help offenders reintegrate into the
community.
(1540 )
He continues his justification of Bill C-53 by telling us we have
nothing to be concerned with. After all, these are not hardened
criminals but only the ones who are serving sentences of less than
two years.
I would like to know if the hon. parliamentary secretary has ever
heard of deterrence or even justice. Does he realize that many of
those convicted of sexual assault receive such ridiculously short
sentences? Are their victims going to be reassured when the hon.
member tells them they have nothing to worry about, that their
4947
attackers are not a threat and deserve a helping hand in rejoining
those very same victims in the community? Is concern for the
convicted felon's reintegration supposed to comfort the victim
when she bumps into him in the neighbourhood grocery store?
The length of the sentence or even the offence is irrelevant in this
case. The truth of the matter is the Liberals are showing their
blatant disregard for the courts by encouraging legislation that
circumvents the decisions of judges and juries.
As we are aware, they are particularly attached to section 745 of
the Criminal Code which allows murderers the opportunity to have
their sentences reviewed after serving only 15 years. The Liberals
have steadfastly refused to listen to Canadians who are demanding
the repeal of section 745. So I suppose it only follows that the
Liberals would be fond of having more criminals out on more
temporary absences.
Why listen to the judges or juries that understand the
circumstances behind a conviction and have chosen to send these
criminals to jail for a specified period of time? There are many
reasons why I believe the Liberals introduced this legislation. And
while the reasons are valid, I submit the solution is not.
Like most every breathing individual in this country, the Liberals
actually do recognize that there is a crisis in our justice system.
They are being told by citizens and organizations across the
country that violent crime is increasing, that people do not feel safe
on the street or in their homes. They also know that Canadians want
longer and more strict sentences for criminals. We all know this.
So why is this government introducing such ludicrous legislation
contrary to all of the concerns I have just mentioned? Is it because
it is also aware that there is severe overcrowding and financial
constraints in prison systems across the country? Do the Liberals
imagine they should make space available by letting criminals go
free?
Of course this logic directly opposes the reduction of
overcrowding in the prison system. What would really reduce the
number of criminals sitting in jails at the taxpayer expense is
deterrence. Deterrence is what the justice system is based on.
I am not saying that rehabilitation should be discounted but it
should not be the focal point of all our correctional programs.
There is a direct correlation between prison overcrowding and the
leniency of parole and temporary absence programs.
How is it that prisons are straining their capacities when
according to Statistics Canada 80 per cent of the 154,000 people
under the care of the correctional system were out on some form of
community supervision in 1994? There was also a 40 per cent
increase in the number of people out on probation between 1990
and 1994.
These two opposing trends, overcrowding and a greater number
of parolees, are rather ironic indeed but make perfect sense unless
you are a Liberal who believes that pampering prisoners will bring
an end to crime. Their idea of rehabilitation is to provide those
inside with all the amenities those on the outside have to work for.
The point is a prime reason why people commit crimes is there is
no element of deterrence left in our justice system. When someone
in our society does something wrong they must pay the price, and
in this case that means prison time. What sort of deterrence is
reinforced through increased temporary absences or early parole?
It is unfortunate for the Liberals but fortunate for Canadians that
the Reform Party can offer better solutions to remedy our justice
system than lenient parole and absences.
(1545 )
I note in Hansard of September 23 that the member for Kingston
and the Islands spoke on sentencing reform. He said: ``The jail term
is what the public looks at as the measure of punishment. I suggest
that we have to change that. I invite hon. members opposite to think
of changing it and look at alternative measures''.
Reformers have suggested alternatives to the present justice
system for three long years. It is just that members on the other side
seem to be deaf not only to Reformers' alternatives but the wishes
of Canadians as well.
We now know that the Liberal alternative of indulging and
rehabilitating criminals is only resulting in more crime and
overcrowded prisons. It has been estimated that the total cost of
criminal acts to Canadian society is $46 billion a year. It costs
around $10 billion just for law enforcement, prisons and courts.
The cost of legal aid has been skyrocketing. There has to be a better
way.
I believe we need to focus on two separate issues: prevention,
and deterrence. Prevention must begin at home early in life.
Preschoolers must be taught right from wrong. Society must do
everything possible to provide the best possible environment for
youngsters but there must be respect for the consequences of
wrongdoing as well.
Reformers believe that individuals as well as governments must
be held accountable and responsible for their actions. As an
alternative, how about reinstating capital punishment as an
alternative to life imprisonment? For the record let me be very
clear about this. I am speaking about the death penalty for first
degree, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. I am speaking about
appropriate punishment for the likes of Clifford Olson, Paul
Bernardo and Karla Homolka.
As an alternative, how about that four letter word ``work''? I do
not mean whenever the convict feels like it, I mean a mandatory
requirement. A big part of the problem we have in society today-I
stress that some believe they do not have to work-is this new age
4948
philosophy which seems to be reinforced even in our nation's jails.
In our parents and grandparents' times the work ethic was simple,
work or starve.
Prisoners should be required to work a minimum number of
hours per week. If they are sick they should have to make up their
hours later. If they are unfit, work should be found for them
commensurable with their capabilities, but they should work.
As an alternative, why not bush camps? You will note I did not
specify boot camps, Mr. Speaker. However, once again I am
speaking of a structured, highly disciplined work environment. I
believe this is particularly appropriate in the case of young
offenders. Last weekend when I was home and attending a meeting
in my riding an elderly gentleman made a suggestion to me about
how we can help the young people to become more disciplined. He
was suggesting mandatory military service. I have heard this many
times from a number of people and I am sure other colleagues in
this House have heard this as well.
Canadians and Reformers have been suggesting alternatives to
the present system whereas the Liberals want to pamper those who
break our laws, call them rehabilitated, then parole them only to
see them reoffend. This kid glove approach is not what Canadians
are demanding. Canadians want to see criminals held responsible.
They want punishment that fits the severity of the crime. They want
consequences for criminal acts that provide real deterrents.
Sitting out the coldest winter months in idleness in a warm
environment with all amenities provided at taxpayer expense is no
deterrent. An example fresh in my mind was visiting the new
provincial correctional facility in Prince George. It is quite a nice
facility with all the amenities for a convict's use.
We are looking at another example of piecemeal legislation by
the Liberals. What is driving their confused and disjointed actions?
I submit that first and foremost the Liberals are thinking about the
next election. It is fast approaching and they have been sitting
around doing nothing except celebrating their good fortune for the
past three years.
(1550 )
Canadians have begun to ask what the government has done to
improve the economy, our society, our justice system. Suddenly the
Liberals are scurrying to pass quick fix legislation so they can tell
Canadians that they did do something. They are hitting all the hot
buttons concerning homosexual rights, crime and child support.
The issue of child support was debated just this morning.
In another example of piecemeal legislation, the Liberals
propose getting tough in enforcing child support payments without
understanding the issue. The entire system of child custody laws
and the Divorce Act must be reviewed and corrected by legislation
but the Liberals are going for the shallow, quick fix approach that
they think will be enough to appease the voters in the next election.
The proposed legislation we are debating right now is another
example. The disarray and inefficiencies in our justice system, in
conjunction with rising crime, is now and will be a major issue for
Canadians during the next election campaign.
The Liberals will go to the voters rhyming off their justice
legislation such as Bill C-53 and Bill C-45. They do not care if this
legislation completely ignores the changes that Canadians want.
What is important to the Liberal campaign strategy is that they can
say they did something, no matter how irrelevant and destructive or
how vaguely related to crime and justice.
It is not good enough for the Reform Party and it is certainly not
good enough for Canadians. They expect and they deserve better.
This country needs fundamental changes to its justice system to
help people feel safer, to recognize the rights of victims and to state
loud and clear that criminal activity is not acceptable in our society.
I can assure members that Bill C-53 will not do that. It will do
the exact opposite.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Wild Rose.
Before I give my comments on the legislative initiatives
proposed in this bill, I want to make clear to my constituents that
the Prisons and Reformatories Act only applies to persons
sentenced for a federal offence and are being held in a provincial
correctional facility. This would mean any convict sentenced to
less than two years.
On the surface, the measures proposed in Bill C-53 seem to
make sense. Apparently the new provisions have been requested by
the provinces and territories. I have not had a chance to check with
any of the provincial ministers about the measures the federal
government has proposed, however I trust that the Standing
Committee on Justice will do this during the clause by clause
review of the bill. I hope the Liberals will allow the committee to
do its job. Its previous record is not very good.
As I worked my way through the bill, I noted some obvious
omissions. I do not know whether these were by design or by
bureaucratic oversight. Before I could give my wholehearted
support for Bill C-53, a number of amendments would have to be
made.
Let me explain. Clause 2 of the bill, which amends section 7 of
the act, states that the purpose of the temporary absence programs
would be to contribute to the maintenance of a just and peaceful
and safe society by facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders and
their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.
4949
If I had been given the job of writing this bill, the stated purpose
of temporary absence programs would go something like this. To
reward convicts who have served the majority of their sentences
in an exemplary fashion, to demonstrate to other prisoners the
value of good behaviour and the fairness of the merit release
process, to permit offenders to participate in work programs or
get a job in order to make restitution to their victims, to
compensate the state for the costs of their incarceration and,
ultimately, to deter them from committing crimes in the future.
(1555 )
It is refreshing, I will admit, to see a government bill that started
out by including a statement of principles. This is the first thing I
look for because if the government does not get the principles right,
then the resulting legislative measures will never be right.
The first thing I noticed was the absence, and hopefully it is just
a temporary absence, of the most important principle, namely that
the protection of society is to be of paramount consideration in the
determination of any case. Why was that paramount principle
omitted? The government included such a principle in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Why is it missing from
the Prison and Reformatories Act?
Even the legislative summary prepared by the law and
government division of the research branch of the Library of
Parliament states: ``This bill seems to give less importance to the
protection of society than does the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act''. That is a serious deficiency.
I have dealt with the most important missing principle. I would
like to note some other deficiencies in the other principles in Bill
C-53. As it is currently worded, the second principle states that:
``All available information relevant to the case be taken into
account''. Here is the key question. What does the government
mean by all available information? Does it include victim impact
statements? Does it give victims the right to be heard at any review
to consider release of an inmate under the temporary absence
program? If it does not, it should.
I also recommend that the bill include a definition of the term all
available information and a list of the types of information that
should be taken into account by the designated authority during any
review process.
The third principle states that prisoners be provided with
relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review
of decisions. Does this mean that only prisoners are to be provided
with relevant information? If the Liberal government is as
concerned about the victims' rights as it says it is, then why are
they not included in this principle?
I know that the fourth principle says that the designated authority
may provide for the timely exchange of relevant information with
other participants in the criminal justice system and make general
information about temporary absence programs and policies
available to prisoners, victims and the public.
However, I am sure even Liberals will agree that the victims'
rights are at least as important as the right of prisoners. If so, then
the third principle must be amended to read, and I quote what
should be in there: ``That prisoners and their victims be provided
with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the
review of decisions''. Unless that is included I cannot support the
bill.
I also have some concerns about the new power being given in
this bill to the provinces, that is, the power to appoint any person or
any organization as a designated authority. If Bill C-53 is passed
into law, then any person or any organization so designated by the
province would be responsible for authorizing temporary absences
for prisoners in that province.
In the current legislation the province has the power to appoint
an officer to make decisions regarding temporary absences. At
least an officer paid by the government can be held accountable.
How can the government hold any person or any organization
accountable? That is a key question.
Citizens are already concerned about the lack of accountability
in the corrections system. Citizens are attacked, injured, robbed,
maimed, murdered by convicts out on temporary release and no
one is to blame. The new victim is not even allowed to sue the
government for its mistake. This a concern for me as well, not just
my constituents.
I recommend that the wording of the current act be retained. At
least if the designated authority is an officer, then some form of
direct accountability can be guaranteed. If the designated authority
is a sentencing circle or some do gooder or some prisoners rights
society, then how will accountability be guaranteed by the
government? Canadians are asking for more accountability, not
less. This bill is moving in the wrong direction. This is a serious
flaw.
(1600)
The next section deals with the reasons for the so-called
designated authority to authorize a temporary absence. The reasons
do not list the most important reason for a temporary absence. That
should be, and I hope that this quotation will go into the bill, to
participate in work programs, to make restitution to their victims
and to compensate the state for the cost of their incarceration and
ultimately to deter them from committing other crimes in the
future. That is common sense. That ought to be in there. It is a
serious flaw that it is not included.
Finally, there should be a section in this bill which deals
specifically with the accountability and liability of the government
4950
and the designated authority if a convict they let out on temporary
absence commits another crime.
I do not need to remind members on this side of the House, but
maybe the Liberal members on the other side need a little reminder.
Daniel Gingras was on a temporary escorted absence to the West
Edmonton Mall when he escaped, subsequently killing and raping
several citizens.
I understand that dangerous criminals like Gingras should not be
held in provincial institutions. In this job I have come to realize
that a lot of things happen that just do not make sense. Therefore I
think it is absolutely essential that victim rights come before
prisoner rights and that the protection of society come before the
rights of a prisoner to temporary release.
There is only one way I know to put these principles first, give
Canadians the right to sue the government for its mistakes. If given
this right to sue the government for injuries and damages caused by
its mistakes I guarantee there would be a lot fewer mistakes.
In conclusion, this bill looks good on the surface but we need to
go beyond impression and make sure we get it all right. It must
promote responsibility and accountability. It must give victims
more rights than criminals.
The Liberals always say they listen and they want constructive
suggestions. I hope they are listening and will take these
constructive suggestions into account. I hope the proper
amendments will be made so that I can support this bill.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to indicate how pleased I am to speak to Bill C-53. The
protection of criminals obviously seems to be very important to
this government. It seems like every time we pick up a bill that is
presented to this House there is something in there regarding what
can we do for the prisoners, what can we do for the convicts, what
can we do for the criminals.
As we search through the document it just gives a person a clear
reason why it is difficult to support these bills. It places the
rehabilitation and the reintegration of criminals way ahead of the
protection of society; in bill after bill.
The Liberal government under this social engineer we call the
justice minister might be able to convince some people that it is
doing a wonderful job. When we look at the things that have been
put in place we see actually what is happening. Maybe the people
across the way can explain to me why we have criminals, rapists
and all other types of criminals being bailed out, being released on
passes, who are given alternative measures to crime.
However, we have a hard working farmer who raises a crop, who
tries to sell it to get as much money as he can. He breaks the law.
He sold his own produce against the law. We are going to lock him
up and boy, we do not talk about release there or bail or anything.
That violent grain producer is not going to get a temporary pass or a
leave of absence. That is the Liberal mentality.
(1605)
However, on the same day this farmer was sentenced in court,
there was fellow who went to a farm and burned up tractors and a
couple of trucks, stole a truck, beat some dogs to death and
ravished the farm house and, guess what, he is going to receive an
alternative measure. He is not going to have to go to jail.
We keep picking these things up. This reminds me of Mr.
Gingras from Edmonton. He had a birthday. It was felt that
something should be done for him to get him out of prison because
he had been a pretty good boy. Two more people are dead because
of the Liberal philosophy and the Liberal way of doing things.
However, those things happen and nobody has to be accountable.
When they come up with a bill like this that is going to provide
different things, why do they not write some accountability into it?
Why do they not take the time to say that this is what they are going
to do and if they fail or make a miscue or if they err, they as the
government will hold themselves accountable to the people of
Canada? If they do not repeal section 745 maybe they should make
a new law which says they will be responsible if they release a
killer in 15 years and he kills someone. The Liberals will not dare
do that. They do not want to put their necks in any noose. But they
do not mind jeopardizing the safety of all Canadians by making
decisions that make absolutely no sense.
Right in my own community today a rapist who was charged on
three counts was picked up by breakfast and bailed out by noon. Yet
we have a grain farmer who sold his crop and received more money
than what the wheat board could have got for him and we are going
to lock him up and sock it to him and he will not get any bail. This
is Liberal philosophy, a lot of bunk. Social engineering.
This justice minister ought to be back on Bay Street where he
belongs. That is what he knows best. He does not know anything
about law and order and the protection of people.
All we ask for when legislation comes down, all any of us want
and all any Canadian would like to see is a little focus on the
victims of crime. Every time we pick up legislation, and Bill C-53
is no different, it just is not there.
The Liberals put legislation out and ask us to support it because
if we do not we are not much help to anyone. They tell us they are
trying to accomplish something here. They have to get these guys
out of jail and get them back on the street. They say we have to
rehabilitate them if we are going to do anything about crime,
regardless of the fact that crime has increased drastically in the last
4951
15 years. It is mostly because of Liberal feel good, fuzzy
philosophy that is not working.
The Liberals do not have brains enough or will not open their
eyes to understand that it is not working. They do not understand
why we have thousands of Canadians across Canada who are in
groups like Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, CRY, all kinds of
victims across the country organizing. Do members know why they
organize? Because this government is failing the people of Canada.
They have to organize to try to wake up these guys on that side of
the House to say it is not working.
Let us talk about the good old gun control legislation, the one
that is specifically designed to go after the law-abiding person.
They are also going after the law-abiding person. They say ``we are
going to do something about smuggling''. Yes, I guess we did.
Look what we have done about smugglers. We caught a grain
farmer selling grain across the line as the boats with drugs,
refugees, guns and all the other crap they are smuggling into this
country just go and go and nothing is being done.
I am sorry, but when we pick Bill C-53, like all the other bills I
have seen, this fuzzy, feel good attitude is not cutting it with the
Canadian people. One of these days they are going to wake up.
When they go to the polls, maybe people like the justice minister,
this social engineer, will realize they have made a mistake and do
not care enough about the Canadian people. I would vote against
this right now if I had the chance simply because it ignores the
victims of crime. It is time to quit ignoring them.
(1610)
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the hon.
member.
In his diatribe he mentioned that every piece of legislation put
forward by this government protected the rights of anybody except
that of society, or words to that effect. I do have a question with a
number of parts that I would like to ask him.
I would like to know how these things protect criminals and
ignore society. How can increased sentences for young offenders
who commit violent crimes help criminals and not society? How
can a new mandatory five year sentence for those convicted of
using violence to force children into prostitution be helping
criminals and not helping society?
How is the classification of first degree murder to any murder
committed while stalking helping criminals and is not helping
society? How is increased sentences helping criminals and not
helping society? How is the fact that we have provided the basis
upon which police can serve warrants on suspects to take samples
of DNA helping criminals and not helping society? I would like to
know how our outlawing of the so-called drunken defence is
helping criminals and not helping society.
The government's agenda, the government's record on criminal
issues is one of protection for Canadian society, one of recognizing
the need to protect the rights of victims. We have done a good job
on the criminal justice system in this country and the member
opposite is absolutely wrong in suggesting that our legislation
helps only criminals, not society.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I call it tinkering. I call it tinker,
tinker, tinker. That is what you do with your laws.
The member is saying the government has done this and that, yet
is it going to kill section 745 as the Canadian people want? No, it is
not. It is still going to let killers out in 15 years. Is that looking after
the interests of society? I think not.
There is bail set for violent offenders right on the same day as
they are arrested. It is possible through this government. Is that
protecting society? Oh, there are a few little tinker spots the
Liberals have put in the Young Offenders Act. Mr. Tinkerbell, the
social minister, whom we call the justice minister, has fixed a little
spot here and a little spot there. It sort of reminds me of when my
mother used to put a little sugar into medicine so I could drink it.
There is not enough sugar in this to even look at it. The member
across the way failed to address this particular bill. I will try to get
back to it. He was not on that. There are 100 things.
If the member is so confident that the Canadian people are happy
with what the Liberal government is doing, would the hon. member
or anybody on that side please tell me why we have thousands and
thousands of Canadians who are joining organizations to fight the
government on issues of crime because they say it is doing a lousy
job. They are called victims. The hon. member ought to hear them,
to meet a few and maybe they will wake up over there. Once they
do wake up maybe they will listen to what the Canadian people
want instead of this warm and fuzzy Liberal baloney.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
4952
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1615 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote is deferred until the
end of Government Orders this day.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment,
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
resume debate on Bill C-41, I will explain a bit about the bill. It is
an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and
Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment,
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping
Act.
The purpose of Bill C-41 is first, to establish federal guidelines
for child support; second, to open Revenue Canada databases to
searches in cases of payment default; third, to deny passports and
certain licences to individuals whose support payments are in
persistent arrears; fourth, to provide for the garnishment and
attachment of federal public service pensions and wages of
individuals working at sea.
Unfortunately, in today's world, between 40 and 50 per cent of
marriages end in divorce. Even more unfortunate is the fact that
when a divorce occurs, children are often the last to be considered.
In spite of the fact that our courts and our laws use the phrase in
the best interests of the child, all too often the outcome is actually
what is in the best interests of the custodial parent. We need to
change this situation to ensure that the outcome ends up being what
is in the best interest of the child.
Many non-custodial parents either do not pay their child support
payments or are in arrears. Since non-payment of support hurts the
children and the families, this situation must be remedied by some
type of penalty for the offender. Bill C-41 addresses this situation.
The non-payment of fair child support should not be tolerated.
Last year the Reform caucus called for nationwide guidelines
and for increased enforcement of maintenance orders. This bill
addresses these two issues. However, like many other pieces of
legislation introduced by the government, Bill C-41 only goes part
way. The bill represents a piecemeal approach to amending the
Divorce Act. Once more the Liberals have given Canadians only
part of the loaf, not the whole loaf.
While the Liberal government has continually stressed the need
for comprehensive family law reform, the bill once again only
deals with one small part of this large problem. Canadians need a
comprehensive approach which benefits the children of divorce.
I would like to speak briefly about what I believe a
comprehensive approach to amending the Divorce Act would
include. First, it would include compulsory mediation as a first step
in the divorce process rather than going straight to the courts.
In a court battle, parents through their lawyers and often
encouraged by their lawyers so often attack each other in
adversarial combat over who gets the property and who gets the
children. Eventually, neither parent wins the battle. Inevitably the
lawyers are the only winners in these cases. In too many cases the
children are the big losers. Mediation would lessen the bitterness of
divorce as both sides attempt to compromise. Most parents truly
want to do what is best for the children but emotions get in the way
in adversarial combat such as we see through the court system.
(1620)
With mediation, parents are encouraged to put bitterness aside to
do what is in their children's best interest. The result is often a less
hostile relationship between the parents. A good relationship
between the parents is essential since children exist through and
thrive on the relationship that exists between their father and their
mother. Even after divorce, the well-being of a child is directly
related to the continued shared responsibility of the two parents for
their child.
This morning, some members opposite said that having two
parents is idyllic. I am not talking about an ideal situation. I am
talking about the best possible situation under a very difficult
divorce procedure.
The second element that I believe should be included in
comprehensive reform is the access of grandparents to
grandchildren. Children need to know that they are loved by both
sets of grandparents, regardless of the divorce.
One of my constituents sent me a copy of her letter to the
Minister of Justice in which she stated: ``I am a victim of your
indifference to the rights of grandparents. Your rock solid image
has been eroded by your unwillingness to uphold the very
principles you pretend to stand for. You have shot down the
inherent rights of innocent children to have and to know their
immediate families. You have disregarded the voices of countless
grandparents who have personally experienced the pain caused by
the flaws in our present justice system''.
4953
That is from a constituent to whom I talked on several occasions
and who, unfortunately, I could not assure that there would be
something done in this place that would improve her situation.
What is said by the experts in this area? I quote Jim Gladstone,
an associate professor of social work at McMaster University who
has studied the relationship between grandmothers and
grandchildren after divorce. He said: ``A grandparent can offer a
grandchild sanctuary from divorce materially and emotionally. The
grandparent's role is especially important considering the child's
parent is likely preoccupied with his or her own healing''.
Not only my constituent but the so-called experts in this area
stress the importance of grandparents having access to their
grandchildren. Common sense also says that. Children whose
parents are divorced are no less deserving of maintaining family
ties. In fact, during these difficult times, children need even more
to have these ties maintained.
A third factor to be considered in a comprehensive approach to
amending the Divorce Act would also include access provisions
that are enforceable. In talking about enforcing access, I would like
to speak about a situation that happened to me over the last year
and a half or so. It happened without one knowing what the other
was doing. I had both the mother and the father in a divorce case
come to me with their grievances which were quite different.
First the mother came. She was the custodial parent. Her concern
was that she was having an extremely difficult time in paying what
was necessary to raise her children. Part of the reason was that the
non-custodial parent, the father, was not making child support
payments. As I listened to her, I could see the difficulty, the stress
that she was under. I could see also the less than friendly way that
she talked about the non-custodial parent and the fact that he was
not paying support. My heart went out to her. She was in a very
difficult situation and in fact it was very difficult even for me to
hear what was happening. I could not understand how the
non-custodial parent, the father, would withhold child support
payments.
(1625)
Then it happened. I do not believe the father had any idea that the
mother had been to see me. Some time later the father came to me
with his concerns. He was torn apart because he had been denied
access to his children even though the court had granted access.
The mother, the custodial parent, had denied access even though
the court had said that it was a requirement of the divorce
settlement. I heard the other side. This father, who so desperately
wanted to be in touch with his children, had withheld support
payments because he so desperately wanted the access that he was
being denied.
It is clear that the government, dealing with legislation on child
support, should not only look at one part of this issue. It is critical
that it also consider the issue of access. It has been completely
ignored in this legislation. Once again, it is piecemeal legislation
when comprehensive legislation is needed. That really makes this
legislation of very little value.
The issue of access by the non-custodial parent is crucial, as the
example which I used pointed out. As I said before, children exist
through and thrive on the relationship that exists between a father
and a mother. I would like to add that children also thrive on the
relationship that they have with each parent individually. These
relationships need to be continually strengthened as the child grows
and matures. This is every bit as important in a situation where the
parents are separated by divorce and where both parents do not
have continual access to the children.
The relationship between the children and both parents is the
fundamental building block of our society. It is how values and
culture are protected and transferred from one generation to the
next. The maintenance of these ties is crucial not only to the child's
development but to the social stability of our society. It is that
fundamental.
Family ties have a profound impact on our economy, culture and
social structure. I do not think we can overstate the importance of
these family ties.
It is therefore just as important that children whose parents are
divorced continue to have access to both parents unless the courts
have determined that there is some substantial particular reason
that one or both parents should be denied access.
Unfortunately Bill C-41 does not deal with the problem of the
lack of fairness in enforcing maintenance orders. I am getting back
to maintenance orders and away from access. One of the major
flaws with the bill is that Bill C-41 does not deal with the problem
of the lack of fairness in enforcing maintenance orders.
On April 5, 1995 the Reform caucus approved an issue statement
on child support, payment and taxation. It called for nationwide
guidelines and for increased enforcement of maintenance orders.
As I previously mentioned, this bill provides for both these points
to some extent. However, the Reform Party stressed that provisions
must be fair. The child support issue is not simply a woman's issue.
It is a family issue.
(1630 )
While Bill C-41 imposes and enforces support obligations on
non-custodial parents, it does nothing to ensure that custodial
parents meet their obligations for example on visitation rights. That
is unacceptable.
Many non-custodial parents who do not make payments refuse to
do so because they are denied access to their children. It is not
uncommon. This denial of access produces anger and weakens the
ties between the non-custodial parents and their children. I know
that with improved access many more non-custodial parents would
4954
meet their obligations in full. This in fact has been verified by
people with considerable experience in tracking down
non-custodial parents for non-payment of child support. My
colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, this morning
documented that very well. It is clear that most parents do want to
do what is best for their children.
Besides these issues, there are other issues which were ignored
by the legislation which I will not go into in detail.
The process of putting the legislation in place through order in
council is typical of the government. It happens all the time. It is a
non-democratic process which I have spoken of before so I will not
get into it at length now.
Another concern about the legislation is that it could invade the
privacy of the non-custodial parent. The bill makes data banks at
Revenue Canada available to be searched for information regarding
addresses and possible payment sources but does not provide
protection for other information in Revenue Canada files. That is a
concern under the present system and it will be even more of a
concern when this legislation passes.
There is the issue of revoking passports. Bill C-41 contains
clauses which allow for the revocation of a passport of a person
who is in default in their child support payments. The revocation
places such a person in jeopardy if he or she must travel outside
Canada with their employment. How can a person earn money and
meet child support payments if they are being denied access to their
place of employment?
A constituent of mine spoke of the problems which he had and
how much more serious the problems would be because of this bill.
He went to work outside the country. He could not get a job in
Canada and could not afford to make the payments but he could
with the job outside Canada. He was concerned that the legislation
would completely cut off child support payments.
By opposing the bill, the Reform Party is not supporting people
who do not pay child support. Clearly that is not our intent. The
problem is that Bill C-41 lacks meaningful substance and in
particular it lacks fairness.
What Canadians need is a comprehensive approach which
focuses on change which benefits the children of divorce. By
opposing the bill the Reform Party is attempting to force the
government to adopt a comprehensive reform of the Divorce Act so
that matters such as compulsory arbitration and access are also
included. With respect to child support, as in all government
decisions, Reform believes that the well-being of the family should
be the top priority.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to take the opportunity to speak on Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement
Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension
Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, at second reading.
Throughout most of the debate today the commentary has been
more on family values than it has been on the substance of the bill.
The last speaker raised some interesting points about the bill, about
whether or not it goes far enough in certain aspects. There are
aspects such as the garnishee without notice, the ability to open up
the support arrangements and of course the grid for the
determination of support payments. The member spoke about the
issues of fairness and the need for change in the Divorce Act.
(1635)
In listening to the debate I was saddened that so many members
talked about the demise and breakdown of the traditional Canadian
family. They tended to talk casually and lightly about the situation
of divorce and family breakdown and how prevalent common law
relationships were. There was very little support in this place for
the traditional Canadian family. I was a little concerned that maybe
Canadians were wondering if there was anybody in this place who
was speaking on behalf of the family. I want to make a few
comments about the family.
When I first came to the House of Commons and joined the
Standing Committee on Health, one of the reports we received was
on the strategy of our health care system. One of the most
significant statements that was made in that report from Health
Canada was that we spend approximately 75 per cent of our health
budget on curative measures for problems and only 25 per cent on
prevention. The issue of prevention versus dealing with the
problem after it occurs is applicable in the case of this bill and
many other items that come before the House.
I can recall giving a speech in this place on Bill C-10, the
borrowing authority legislation. It was just after the Thibaudeau
decision had come down. There was a lot of talk at the time about
the family and about issues relating to family breakdown. That was
the first time I rose in the House to give a speech without notes. I
know many members have experienced the hesitation to speak
from their hearts on what they believe. We have prepared texts and
members will stand in their places and sometimes read canned
speeches. I think that night I spoke because I really believed in
something and in my own heart and mind I knew what I was talking
about. I can remember a particular quote from that speech. It was
that if the family were strong, the deficit would be gone. It is a little
bit of a cliche.
Having heard all of the debate from time to time in the House
about the family, there is no question in my mind that there is
something terribly, terribly wrong taking place in our society. The
respect for the family continues to erode. The respect for families
4955
who choose to provide care for their children in the home is no
longer there. When we talk about bills like this one dealing with
divorce and enforcement of support orders and access orders, it is
about things that we can do to take care of something that has gone
terribly wrong.
This morning a member rose to say that according to Statistics
Canada anywhere from 3 to 3.9 marriages out of 10 end in divorce.
That is 30 to 39 per cent of family breakdowns end up in divorce.
The member also went on to say that maybe it should be 50 per cent
because of what she sees in the family. It really got to me and
saddened me that there was someone in this place who actually
thought there should be more divorce to take care of family
problems. It seemed like an ironic solution to a problem and it
caused me some concern.
(1640)
Strong families make strong countries, there is no doubt in my
mind. Although this bill has to deal with certain aspects where
families have in fact broken down, it is important to have fair rules
to ensure that the needs of the children involved in those family
breakdowns are paramount in terms of the rules of care for them.
There must be no compromise in terms of that priority.
There is a lot of talk in this place about child poverty, how
terrible it is and that we have to do something to solve the issue of
child poverty. All members will know that if a couple with children
decide to break up, assuming there are no other changes in their
economic circumstances, one significant thing will change: when
two people living together decide for whatever reason to live apart,
there will be the cost of a second residence.
Residences cost most families about 30 per cent of their
disposable income. We are all aware there are certain levels of
principal residences one can acquire, but even a simple apartment
could cost even in this city $500, $600 or $700 a month. Who in
this place could absorb that additional cost with no change in their
family income, or at least the incomes of two people who have split
up?
There are undoubtedly cases where family breakdown is a direct
cause of child poverty because quite simply there is not enough
income for those two people to support an additional residence. We
cannot get blood out of a stone. There is no amount of legislation,
court enforcement or coercion that could be imposed to make more
economic means available for the care of those children.
We are fighting a losing battle on child poverty if we do not win
the battle with the family. The family that stays together, the
strong, basic economic unit of our society, is the solution to child
poverty. I honestly believe that.
Child poverty is a function of social decay. We have the means
and we have the right.
Earlier today a member rose in his place and said that we have to
be big enough and tough enough to tough out our responsibilities to
our children even when the marriage is having some difficulties.
Today it seems it is just too acceptable and far too easy for people
to get a divorce in our society. There is no respect for the family.
If we think it through, there is no question that a strong, healthy
family in our society is less of a burden and a cost to our social
programs, our criminal justice system, our health system and the
productivity of our businesses than families which break down.
There is no question about that.
We are losing the battle on child poverty. We will lose the battle
on child poverty and make no progress on it whatsoever if we do
not first make some progress with regard to the family.
We have had far too many casual comments in this place about
the state of the family, the prevalence of divorce and the prevalence
of common law relationships. We have to reaffirm the social value
system we have in this country.
Our income tax system was originally structured to recognize the
fact that families play a predominant role within our society. There
were various deductions and family allowance. There were all
kinds of provisions to ensure that the family had the flexibility and
the options to provide the kind of care to children and to relieve the
stress and pressures on families so that things such as divorce and
separation would not occur as often.
(1645 )
But as we had changes in the mechanics of the Income Tax Act,
things have changed to the point that it discriminates against
families. Members will know, I present a petition almost every day
about managing the family home and caring for preschool children
being an honourable profession which has not been recognized for
its value to our society.
The Income Tax Act discriminates against families that choose
to stay together. It discriminates against families that choose to
provide for their children and be responsible, to tough it out in
those tough times.
This summer I had a great opportunity to reflect on my own life.
My wife and I celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary in August.
We sat together. We went through the albums. We talked to our
children. One has moved out and has a job. One is away at
university and the other attends high school.
We did take the opportunity to get together and talk about what
has happened in our family. We concluded that family is memories,
making memories. Family is making sure you are with your family
members in good times as well as bad. Lord knows we have all had
4956
our problems. Lord knows we have the ability to tough them out.
But it is far too easy to say no.
As a matter of fact, in many states of the United States-it might
even be a federal requirement-before someone can even have a
divorce there is a requirement that they go through some sort of 12
week program. It is almost like a reality check for couples who are
contemplating divorce. It is that reality check that says to them did
you know that if you do this, here are the economic implications; if
you do this, here are the implications to your child, to your
lifestyle, to visitation, to access, to support payments. Your entire
life is going to be affected, and that is the least of it.
Everybody in this House agrees that family breakdowns with
children involved affect no one greater than the children
themselves. That is the issue here.
Social assistance for single parent families accounts for, subject
to check, about 80 per cent of the income of those families. That
means it is hard to defend the situation that family breakdown is
somehow a solution to something. In fact, it is going from one
problem probably to a more serious problem.
I am not naive. I understand things like spousal abuse. I was a
board member of Interim Place, our shelter for battered wives, for
five years. I know about spousal abuse. I know about abusive
relationships and child abuse and I know the best thing to happen in
most cases is for that marriage to stop.
It is our responsibility to make sure the custodial parent and
those children are properly taken care of regardless of the impact to
the at fault party, as it were. If we have an aggressor in the
relationship who is the source of the problem and causes that
family to break down, that is the party who must bear the
responsibility for their actions.
It really comes down to a principle and a value that is extremely
important to our society, that we must start again to be responsible
for our actions and our inactions.
The issue of spousal abuse is a very important one to me. I spent
a lot of time in my former life working in a shelter as a treasurer to
raise money. We tried to understand the problem. One of the things
I found as a man in that situation was that I was not often accepted
by some women who were advocates on behalf of other abused
women. It appears that there is this bias on behalf of some that all
men are bad.
It was very difficult for me to be on that board. It took two years
before the others even asked me what I thought about certain
situations. But I learned a lot and I learned a lot when I drafted the
bill on health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic
beverages. My research, which was based on the 1995 report of the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, showed that 50 per cent of
family violence in our society is caused directly or indirectly by the
misuse of alcohol.
(1650)
In the summer there was a bilateral forum on women's health in
Canada and the United States. One of the facts that came out of this
was that spousal abuse in our society in Canada costs us some $4.2
billion.
When we get a situation like that we have to ask ourselves
whether there is something we can do, where are the other things. I
think I hear that from members in the House that we have to do
more. I do not think the more that we can do is within the context of
this bill. It certainly does make the argument that we have to look
for better ways to prevent problems from occurring, to be
proactive, to intervene and do whatever it takes to make sure our
families, our friends, our acquaintances do not become tragic
statistics. That is a value that I have. That is a value that I think
many members have in this place.
I heard a member say that common law relationships are more
prevalent now and everything is fine. One of the things I do know is
that if we look at the incidence of spousal abuse in common law
relationships versus married couples, a two to one ratio, almost 66
per cent, of family abuse situations occur in common law
relationships. We have to ask ourselves the rhetorical question why.
Is there a reason? We have to look at those things.
When this place has the opportunity, I hope all hon. members
will remember this premise or strategy about prevention versus
dealing with problems after we have them.
We have situations raised by hon. members in this place which
have identified, even though it is outside of the context and the
scope of this bill, that we do have problems that we can deal with. I
hope all hon. members if they care will do what they can to make
sure that family breakdown, divorce and the need to have stronger
laws to support enforcement, garnishees, support payments and
access rights will not be as large a priority as it is in this place
today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to
Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at
third reading of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(judicial review of parole ineligibility).
I therefore give notice that, at the next sitting of the House,
pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I will be moving a time
allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number
4957
of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings
at that stage.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
Reform Party members could stop talking, perhaps we could debate
this bill.
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-41 regarding child support.
As all the members of this House know, the safety, well-being
and health of our children should always come first. As a single
parent of two myself, I am qualified to speak on the issue being
debated today.
We must realize that things have changed considerably these
past few years and that more and more couples divorce; it is a fact
of life. I heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga South talk
about divorce as if it were inevitable. Personally, I think it is a
choice you make.
(1655)
When two people can no longer live together, they are better off
separating than continuing to live under the same roof and putting
their children through hell. True, there are more divorces but
divorce is a free choice made by the man, the woman or both
partners. They decide to go their separate ways for their own good
and also for the good of their children. This is 1996, not 1930. This
is my personal opinion, but I think that a number of my colleagues
may share my views.
We must accept that life has changed a great deal. Divorce
already comes as a terrible shock to children. No argument there.
Some children even take full responsibility for their parents'
decision. They feel responsible for the divorce, which makes their
lives terribly difficult.
If, on top of that, these children do not have all the resources
they need to grow up in a healthy environment, they end up in the
kind of situations we are all familiar with. Juvenile delinquency has
reached enormous proportions. The parent, who is generally a
woman, does not have enough money and, as a result, she may
suffer from depression and make her children's lives miserable.
I have seen cases that were totally unacceptable. One mother of
three in my riding found herself without money before Christmas.
She was looking for ways to give them presents, to feed them
during the holiday season. Such situations occur when the former
spouses decide they do not have time to pay child support, because
they are too busy or because they are travelling. This is a terrible
situation.
I have seen many such cases. One December 24 in my riding, I
had to go looking for resources for a mother and her four children
as she needed milk, bread and other staples. Her former husband
had decided that he would not pay child support, but he had gone to
Florida. He saw nothing wrong with this. It is not always like this
but in many cases, this is the reality. One must be able to deal with
these situations.
I think that all parents have a primary obligation to support their
children financially. Last year, Quebec passed legislation to ensure
that, as soon as child support is awarded, the court orders for child
support are automatically recorded by the clerk of the superior
court in which the case is heard. In the case of workers not earning
regular salaries, the program requires the deposit of a guarantee
equivalent to three months' support. In the case of salaried
workers, a deduction is made on their pay cheque. These measures
aim to make child support more accessible.
Let me quote an article published in Le Droit, on February 6,
1995, and which concerns Quebec. The minister responsible for the
status of women, Jeanne Blackburn, did not wait long to introduce
a bill at the National Assembly whereby child support will be
directly deducted from the pay cheques of former spouses. This
will not happen next year or in six months, but this April. This
measure has nothing to do with feminism, machismo or sexism: it
has to do with elementary justice and plain common sense.
Only 45 per cent of former spouses-let us not forget that, eight
times out of ten, men are the ones who have to pay support-are
considered to properly fulfil their obligations. As for the other 55
per cent, it is estimated that they represent about 25,000 deadbeat
fathers.
When there is a divorce, more often than not, the mother gets
custody of the children. The mother's hard life becomes miserable
when her former spouse does not pay support, or only does so on an
haphazard basis. Why do so many men become irresponsible,
considering that most of them are perfectly able to pay? According
to Quebec's council on the status of women, it is primarily for
personal reasons. The person providing support lacks interest in a
family life he is not involved in; he ignores, or wants to ignore, the
reasons why support was awarded; in addition to the deep feeling
of resentment generated by the divorce, there is a very tenacious
grudge, which is partly due to the conditions applying to visiting
rights.
(1700)
The automatic collection system is still the most effective way.
One of the advantages is that the person owed money does not have
resort to the government's collection service. Although the latter is
generally reliable, few women use it: in 1993, fewer than 6 per cent
of those owed money used this service. Why? There are probably
4958
many reasons. However, fear of retaliation by an ex-spouse,
especially if he is violent, is certainly a factor. The bill will make
life easier for women who live in poverty and fear.
Predictable feelings of frustration and anger may arise among
those who are forcibly reminded of their responsibilities. These are
self-centred individuals who, although they know they are wrong,
want to punish their ex-spouse. They tend to forget that in 94 per
cent of these cases, children are the only ones to benefit from the
support system. And besides, they could hardly demonstrate their
disagreement by demonstrating with placards and the rest: they
would merely attract the opprobrium of 88 per cent of the
population. That is the percentage of respondents to a poll who
spoke in favour of the bill.
The new provisions will not be sufficient to catch all individuals
who default on their payments. But they will increase the
effectiveness of a system which women were afraid to use. Besides,
the new legislation should modify the behaviour of these new
debtors. This change in course is not revolutionary at all: three
other provinces in Canada, including Ontario, have also introduced
a deduction at source system.
The reason this bill has become so urgent is above all because of
the children. It will give thousands of children a chance to have
better health, better food and, in a word, receive all the necessities
of which they are deprived. Too many children live on the margins
of society in sometimes sordid conditions. Without being a
cure-all, the new legislation should improve their situation.
This is the provincial legislation we have in Quebec.
I have another report here which appeared in La pauvreté des
enfants au Canada, and I would like to read a few excerpts.
It says here that the number of poor children has increased 55 per
cent. A record number of children in Canada, 1.47 million, live
below the poverty line. Today, more than one child out of five lives
in a poor family. [-]
[-]With a poverty rate of 60.8 per cent, children in single parent
families are four times as likely to be poor as children in families
with two parents. [-]
[-]In more than 70 per cent of the cases, women become single
parents as a result of separation or the decease of their spouse.
The number of children living in families that need social
assistance has increased 69 per cent.
More than 1.1 million children live in families that at some time
or other in 1994 needed social assistance. The increase of 69 per
cent since 1989 can be explained by higher unemployment rates
and an increase in the number of poor workers. The number of
families with an income below $40,000 per year has increased by
26 per cent.
Looking at all that, and saying ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' does nothing
for the cause of the children, who are again paying the price.
We are therefore in agreement with the principle of the bill, but
again existing provincial legislation must be taken into account, in
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick among others.
The federal government has brought in this bill in order to, if I
may put it that way, complement the actions of other governments
in the battle against poverty.
In 1990, there were 78,152 divorce decrees in Canada, which
gave rise to 48,525 judgments concerning child custody. In 1988,
98 per cent of those receiving child support payments were women.
Two thirds of divorced women with three children live below the
poverty line. One child in five does not have enough to eat. I could
go on and on.
(1705)
I have said we are in agreement with the substance of this bill,
but-and I must emphasize this, and hope I have time to do
so-there are some negative aspects to it as well. I feel this needs
to be pointed out. There ought to be amendments made to it, if we
can reach agreement with the government. It might be worthwhile
to have an act which, one day, just for once, would work for
everyone. But of course I doubt that is possible.
First of all, if a provincial government decides to put guidelines
in place for its province, these would take precedence over the
federal ones only if the governor-in-council designates by order
that the provincial guidelines are the applicable guidelines.
Subclause 1(4) reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of
the definition of ``applicable guidelines'' in subsection (1)-
What I wish to point out here is that ``may'' ought to be changed
to ``shall''. When the word may is used, this does not mean it is
absolute, whereas when an order is involved, there is a notion of
``shall'', or an obligation, if you prefer.
The provinces therefore will have to meet the criteria designated
by the federal government in clause 26.1, if their guidelines are to
be accepted as the applicable guidelines. In this way, the
government retains an absolute discretionary power as to the
acceptance or non-acceptance of the order. Once again, the usual
paternalism of the federal government is evident. Great care must
be taken here.
In conclusion, as I said, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour
of this bill at second reading. However, some major amendments
are required to bring the bill in line with what they call flexible
federalism, as usual, and with existing provincial legislation.
4959
Any overlap between a federal law on child support and existing
provincial legislation would penalize women, children and
families because we will end up fighting over whether it is a
federal or a provincial jurisdiction. This will create confusion.
I would like to close on this and say that I am happy to see that
the federal government has taken such an important initiative. As I
said earlier, if we can come up with amendments that satisfy all the
parties in this House, we may be taking a big step for the future of
our children and women, as well as their safety and everyone's
well-being.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member made a statement that this is 1996 and not the 1930s. With
that statement, notwithstanding her other comments, she
summarily dismissed the family as the basic unit of society. We are
changed. Get with it. Divorce is a regular thing, no big problem.
People in this place should know in this place, in the gallery and
who are watching the debates on their televisions that there are
more members in this place who honour, respect and need the
family than that member has demonstrated in her speech. Strong
families make strong countries and the member should not be
dismissing the family in this place.
My question has to do with another statement the member made.
That was her assertion that in Quebec the payments grid, the
formula, goes a long way to solving the problem of child poverty.
The member will well know that if two people making a certain
level of income separate and continue to have the same level of
income, their economic circumstances are deteriorated for one
reason and one reason alone. Two people living apart need a second
residence, a very expensive proposition in terms of the utilization
of disposable income.
(1710 )
How does the member rationalize that somehow any formula to
distribute the income of two people is going to improve the
situation of children when another major liability has been
assumed by those two people for the rest of their lives?
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, there must be a bad connection with
the hon. member for Mississauga South's interpretation channel or
something because I never said that divorce was normal. It is
however an integral part of our culture. It is part of our reality
nowadays.
Should parents be forced to stay together in this day and age
because they have children or because it makes economic sense?
What about their feelings? What about those who are really
incompatible? What about women battered by their husbands?
Should they be told: ``You must not leave, stay with your husband,
you will be better off''? Come on, Mr. Speaker, let us get real here.
In real life, people go through divorces, and no one in this House
has the right to pass judgement on a divorce case. Divorce is a
decision made by two individuals, and I respect that decision. I did
say that we had a frightening high divorce rate, but we are in 1996,
not in 1930.
I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Mississauga
South has been married for 25 years and that he is happy with his
children. That is great, and I congratulate him on that because this
really is a rarity today. There is a growing number of single-parent
families. Changes should be made to this bill. And I am convinced
that, if we come to an agreement, this bill will go a long way to
reassure our children, and women in particular, since they are the
ones who are home with the kids and have to provide for them after
a divorce. They have to go to their ex-husband and beg for money
to support the kids.
Having children is a decision we make, a decision parents make
together.
I am sorry the hon. member misheard what I said. Perhaps there
was a problem with his interpretation channel, but divorce is a fact
of life today and we have to live with it.
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, again I concede to the member that
family violence is a situation which in the majority of cases the
property course is probably for charges to be laid and for the
relationship to stop because no one should be subject to that kind of
abuse. I am very familiar with that.
The member asked what about emotion; a friend said they split
up because the love went out of their marriage. Yet the member
also said as a result of family breakdown there are children who do
not have enough food to eat.
I would like to ask the member very directly, what is more
important to the member. Is it the equality of emotion in the
marriage or the food in the mouth of a child? It cannot be both
ways. The member must make a choice.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for
Mississauga South is really lost today. He definitely has a
comprehension problem. I am not here to preach. We are here to
discuss concrete issues; we are talking about family, about women
with children. Sure, feelings are important for couples. They are
important because they affect the whole family, particularly
children. When a woman is abused in a home, children often are
abused too and the family lives in a violent environment day after
day.
The hon. member says we will put a stop to this, no problem.
These things are not so easy to stop. Do you know a woman who
relishes the idea of getting beat up every day? To be sure some
choices and decisions will have to be made. I do not understand
4960
why the hon. member almost sounds like he is opposed to this bill
from his own government. There is something wrong somewhere.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak to Bill C-41, which addresses some of the issues surrounding
divorce and child support payments.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The Chair forgot to do
something which was supposed to be done before five o'clock. Will
he permit me to read something that has to be put directly?
(1715)
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka,
Justice; the hon. member for St. Boniface, French language
communities; the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, Gasoline
pricing.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to
Bill C-41, a bill which addresses some of the issues surrounding
divorce and child support payments.
I listened with interest as the member for Mississauga South
spoke with some eloquence and certainly directly from the heart
about how important the basic family and family values are to him,
which I appreciate very much. However, he represents a party that
is in the majority in this House and is able to do something about
reinforcing family values and indeed they are the building block of
society.
There are things that are not covered in this bill such as the way
the Income Tax Act discriminates against married couples. The
very high tax burden discriminates against couples in that a second
job is no longer a choice but a necessity. We think that is a deterrent
to keeping families together. Also, of course, there is the failure to
recognize the very important role that one of the partners would
play in staying home to look after the children.
Therefore, while I acknowledge and appreciate his support of the
family, it is a voice in the wilderness and the views are not shared
by the majority of the people on that side. He even made reference
to the fact that in debate today a member rose and suggested that
the divorce rate perhaps should be even higher. What he did not
mention is that the comment came from a member of his party and
certainly did not come from my party.
I believe it is important to recognize that whenever we address
this issue we are dealing with a great personal tragedy. It only
becomes necessary to discuss child support when divorce is
occurring. A broken marriage is one of the most painful situations
in life that people must go through.
Unfortunately, Bill C-41 is only one small step when what is
required is a major overhaul of government policy with respect to
families. Federal tinkering with this largely provincial area of
jurisdiction may satisfy some vocal special interest groups, but the
proposed changes will not deal with the root problem of family
breakdown.
We have identified some specific problems with this bill which
we believe should be addressed before this legislation is given
approval. It is clear that all parents want what is best for the
children. Even though their marriage is falling apart, the child's
best interest remains central to the parents. It is therefore extremely
important for us as legislators to understand the emotional impact
and do our best to remove unnecessary tension and aggravation
from the legal system.
This is one reason why the Reform Party has expressed its
support for developing the concept of a unified family court.
Rather than having to visit two and even three different courts in
the course of divorce proceedings, all family law matters would be
dealt with in one court with a greater emphasis on mediation.
We believe that in these difficult situations the law should be a
servant to the parties and not a further frustration. Unfortunately,
the minister has not even begun to address this important aspect of
family law.
A troubling aspect of Bill C-41 is its insistence on rigid payment
levels for support. A full year in advance of this bill, the Reform
Party recommended the publication of guidelines for support. We
said that Statistics Canada could be relied on to provide basic data
about the average cost of raising children in the cities, towns and
rural areas. Judges and interested parties could then use the data as
a benchmark or starting point in their negotiations for support
awards.
We believe the federal government should keep out of provincial
jurisdiction and continue to allow judges the right to make the final
decision about awards based on the long established legal
principles of demonstrated need and ability to pay.
The justice minister's Bill C-41 imposes a made in Ottawa
formula without giving judges the ability to serve just awards. The
formula is inflexible and fails to take into account the differing
needs of different families.
(1720 )
Just one example of where the formula falls short is that it fails
to account for direct expenditures made by non-custodial parents
on their children. These include transportation, food,
accommodation and entertainment on access days. The minister's
formula and
4961
many bureaucrats fail to recognize these considerations, a judge
would not.
Children need both their parents. The jurisdiction for custody,
access and support is a provincial jurisdiction. Under Bill C-41,
however, the federal government is going to assist the courts in
matters of information gathering and enforcement of court orders
for support.
Although we endorse this initiative, we believe it is important
for the legislation to reflect that assistance in the area of access in
custody as well. When parents use the children as tools against
each other, the biggest losers are the children. It is vital for our
legislation to reflect a concern for the access of a child to the love
of both parents, not just the money of both parents.
We have said that we oppose this bill because of its failure to
deal with significant aspects of the results of divorce. More
disturbing than this is the complete lack of response to the deeper
social problems of divorce and family break-up that have caused
the need for us to deal with the child support issue. These
underlying issues have been aggravated by well meaning but faulty
government policies stretching back decades.
Progressive taxes that discourage hard work and high taxes that
lower real family income are an impediment to financially stable
families. Day care subsidies restrict the choice parents have when it
comes to child care. Tax credits that discriminate against stay at
home parents, including the expanded working income supplement
proposed as part of these measures, are examples of government
making choices for parents but not always in the best interests of
the child.
The government has affirmed other relations as equivalent to
marriage, even granting some of them taxpayer funding in the form
of benefits. This new policy has demeaned the special status that
marriage should enjoy in society.
The government has opened the borders further to the
importation of increasingly graphic and violent obscene materials,
materials that demean persons and relationships and strip them of
their dignity. Our cultural institutions, many of them taxpayer
funded, teach a false stereotype of love and marriage as being
purely physical relationships. It is no wonder that so many of our
young people have such difficulty in making a success of
relationships because relationships require so much more.
Reformers believe in lower, flatter and fairer taxes. We believe
in supporting marriage as a special institution and as the best place
to raise children. We believe in subsidizing parents, not day care
centres, and we believe in a civil society where activities,
behaviour and material that undermines strong families are
restrained or prohibited.
Leadership in society on this issue is sorely lacking. I cannot
remember the last time we heard a member of the federal cabinet
get up and extol the virtues of marriage and family and the vital
importance of parents in bringing up the next generation. They
have spent a lot of time talking about the value of other types of
relationships, but not one word about marriage.
During the past year I have had the honour and privilege of
attending many 50th wedding anniversaries. The end of the second
world war was in 1946 and those brave young Canadians who
returned were getting married and starting a new life. Through hard
work and perseverance they managed to develop a successful
relationship that should be a model for our young people. We can
all learn a great deal from the love and commitment these couples
demonstrated one to another.
Perhaps for a few there is no possible alterative to divorce, but
for many others the worth of marriage has been so devalued by our
modern throwaway society that divorce has appeared to become an
easy and reasonable option. All too often, however, those most
important damaged by this newly casual option are the children.
(1725 )
If we believe in the value of strong families, then we need strong
leadership to stand for what we know to be right. Over the past
three years I have heard many members of this House talk about
child poverty. Today I stand to agree with them. There is a massive
problem with child poverty in Canada.
It is not, as some claim, an economic problem. In fact our society
is quite wealthy. There is no need for even the lowest income
families to do without the basic necessities. The child poverty I am
talking about is the emotional and spiritual poverty that a child of
divorced parents suffers. With only one parent at a time children of
divorce suffer from a love deficit.
This is borne out by the myriad studies which prove conclusively
how much harder life is for these youngsters. Children of divorce
have an increased likelihood of failing or dropping out of school,
using drugs, committing crimes, suffering depression, mental
illness and suicide and having interpersonal relationship problems,
including a greater likelihood of divorce and family violence
themselves.
Child support needs to be about more than just financial
payments. It is about meeting all the needs of children including
their need for both parents' love and attention.
Reformers are exercising leadership on the child poverty issue
by attacking the root of the problem: family breakdown. If the
Liberal government and the justice minister think that the Canadian
people do not care about this basic problem, that Canadians only
want to apply a band-aid solution like Bill C-41 to one of the
symptoms of the problem, they had better think again.
4962
Canadians care about families. They care about child poverty.
They care about their neighbourhoods and communities. What
they do not care for is impersonal big government, its high taxes
and the social manipulation and interference it brings.
More programs and more spending are not the solution to this
problem. Exercising leadership and making the necessary
legislative changes are part of the solution. I ask all members to
join me in opposing Bill C-41.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I commend
my colleague for his presentation on this issue.
I have a question. We heard a little earlier today from a member
of the governing party bragging about the number of justice bills
that the government has brought before the House. In this area of
reforming the Divorce Act what we were looking for was some
substantial, comprehensive legislation which dealt with a wide
range of issues. All we have had is piecemeal legislation which
deals with only one aspect. I would like to ask the hon. member to
comment on that.
As well, the member for Halifax was suggesting that the divorce
rate should be higher than it probably is, if more people would give
up on marriages which they should give up on. Then we had the
member from Mississauga saying that there should be much more
substantial change in this area. Yet those members are all from the
governing side.
The government has the power to make the changes that are
being recommended and not just to tinker with so many different
bills which really do so little. I would like the hon. member to
comment on that also.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague from Vegreville for the question.
What is demonstrated in this bill is a lack of commitment on the
part of the government to deal with the real issue of divorce and
family breakdown. Like so many bills, it is a halfway measure,
trying to walk down the middle of the road and be all things to all
people. The tragedy of course is in the failure to deal with the root
problem.
We had on the floor today in excess of 100 of our Olympic
athletes. Those athletes are living testimonials to commitment and
dedication in what they have done to overcome obstacles to make
them the very best in the world. The commitment and dedication
which was demonstrated on the floor of the House today by those
Canadian athletes is what is missing across the aisle in government
members. They should show the same commitment and dedication
to the basic family unit and the important role it plays in this great
country of ours. Sadly it is lacking and I wish we could instil it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are debating Bill C-41. The title of the act is rather long and boring.
It is an act to amend four other acts. The real purpose of the bill is
to deal with the enforcement of child support, to ensure that
non-custodial parents continue to support their children financially.
The main provisions of the bill are to set guidelines for child
support so there is more certainty and uniformity in the manner in
which child support awards are handed down. New access to
Revenue Canada databases will be granted in order to search for
and locate defaulting parents. The bill will allow public service
pension benefits to be garnisheed. Finally, the bill provides for the
withdrawal of federal licences. Federal licences are defined so as to
include passports.
The purpose of the bill is to give some teeth to the legislation and
to provide greater certainty that parents who are ordered to support
their children financially do so.
Those are the four main points about which we are talking today
and I would like to address them. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not
believe I have the time to get into those four provisions, so with
your permission perhaps I could speak to them tomorrow. This is a
sensitive matter. We are dealing with children, families, divorce
and all the difficulties which that entails. We need to be very
balanced and careful when we talk about these issues. I will
certainly attempt to do that tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary North will
have the floor tomorrow when we return to this matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from September 27, 1996, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-44, an act for making the system of Canadian
ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing
for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain
harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence
Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime
trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending
and repealing other Acts as a consequence, be referred now to the
Standing Committee on Transport.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion by Mr. Anderson regarding Bill C-44.
Call in the members.
(Motion agreed to on the following division:)
4963
(Division No. 131)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Wood
Zed-161
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)-51
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Asselin
Bakopanos
Caron
Cauchon
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Fontana
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lebel
Loubier
O'Reilly
Patry
Peters
Pomerleau
Young
(1800)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53,
an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on second reading of Bill C-53, an act to
amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
4964
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House. Liberal members will be voting yea.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting for this bill.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats in the House
this afternoon will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yea on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 132)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-178
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Robinson
Schmidt
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-36
4965
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Asselin
Bakopanos
Caron
Cauchon
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Fontana
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Lebel
Loubier
O'Reilly
Patry
Peters
Pomerleau
Young
(1805 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
_____________________________________________
4965
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian government should bring all
appropriate political pressure to bear on the government of Egypt to ensure the
immediate return to Canada of Karim Noah, son of Mrs. Micheline Tremblay, a
resident in the riding of Rosemont, who was abducted illegally, on January 17, 1993,
by his father, Mr. Moustafa Nouh, and taken illicitly to Egypt.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since my name is Tremblay as well, I
would like to say right away, for the benefit of my colleagues and
all those who are listening, that Mrs. Micheline Tremblay is not in
any way related to me.
She is, however, a resident of the riding of Rosemont, and the
reason I presented this motion on February 28 this year and the
reason why we are having this debate today is that I hope to
convince the Canadian government to provide some real support
for what a mother, Mrs. Tremblay, is doing, a mother who has been
fighting for almost four years to find her son and get him back to
Canada.
Mrs. Tremblay earnestly hopes that the Canadian government
will intervene politically, because she is convinced that the legal
action she has taken and has continued to take in Egypt will not be
enough to bring her son back.
(1810)
The fact is that her ex-spouse, Mr. Moustafa Nouh, by abducting
his child and taking him to Egypt, has simultaneously violated the
Canadian Criminal Code, the Quebec Civil Code, the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and The Hague
Convention on International Child Abduction.
Despite these patent violations of the law, Mrs. Tremblay has
been unable to see her son again for more than three years, her
ex-spouse was not arrested and the Canadian government has said
repeatedly that it could not intervene in this case. Incredible but
true, and I am convinced that the people who are listening will find
it hard to believe and wonder how a country like Canada can let its
laws and the rights of its citizens be trampled in this way.
I am also sure they wonder how a country like Egypt can agree to
be a safe haven for a child abductor, a place where the law cannot
reach him.
In fact, this can be largely explained by the legal context of the
relations between Egypt and Canada with respect to this kind of
situation and by the lack of political will on the part of both
governments to change the situation.
Let me explain the legal context in a few words. I will then get
back to the urgent need for the political will to do something in this
case.
The ex-spouse of Mrs. Micheline Tremblay, Mr. Nouh, is a
Canadian citizen of Egyptian origin. In fact, he is both a Canadian
and an Egyptian citizen. When in Egypt, he is treated like an
Egyptian citizen, which provides him double immunity against the
charges brought against him: first of all, immunity against criminal
charges, because Canada has not signed an extradition treaty
against Egypt. Under the circumstances, the police find themselves
virtually incapable of arresting the accused. Let us examine those
circumstances.
After an investigation into the circumstances of the kidnapping
of Karim on January 17, 1993, criminal charges were laid against
the father, Moustafa Nouh, in Canada. A warrant for his arrest was
issued, and the Canadian police asked Interpol to co-operate with
them. This standard procedure does not, however, necessarily lead
to an active search for the accused. The bulk of the work has to be
done by the local police force, in this case the Montreal Urban
Community force, which called for the co-operation of other police
forces when there were any real clues.
Yet, since there is no extradition treaty between Egypt and
Canada, it is impossible for the Canadian police to bring the
accused to justice when he is in Egypt. Moustafa Nouh must,
therefore, be identified and arrested when he is in another country,
one with which Canada had an extradition treaty.
The investigation leading to such an arrest is a very long and
difficult one, because it involves a knowledge of the international
movements of the accused. The whole thing has to be done without
the co-operation of the Egyptian authorities.
It is easy to understand how, in these conditions, Moustafa Nouh
is still free to move around with total impunity in Egypt, and
probably in other countries as well, despite the criminal charges
brought against him in Canada.
4966
In fact, Mr. Nouh is also immune from the laws of Quebec and
Canada in another respect, namely the legal custody order. Child
custody matters come under civil law, in this case Quebec's civil
law, and the same goes for every country.
(1815)
But there is an international convention to honour custody orders
whenever a child is taken illegally away by one of the parents. This
convention provides for the child's immediate return to his or her
usual place of residence and recognizes that the courts in that
location have jurisdiction over all legal custody matters.
Egypt has not signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction, and Canada has not yet
compensated for this by negotiating a bilateral agreement with
Egypt. Even though Egypt has not signed this international
convention, some countries, including France, have an agreement
with Egypt and all French nationals are covered by this treaty.
This is what the Canadian government should do. This is what
the Canadian government has promised to do on several occasions.
They tell us they are trying to do so but we are still waiting and in
the meantime people like Micheline Tremblay still have to deal
with these tragic situations.
If Egypt had signed the international convention or if Canada
simply had a bilateral agreement with Egypt, proceedings would
have been fairly simple and inexpensive as well as speedy. In fact,
Karim would have been returned to his mother in Canada after a
few weeks, because Moustafa Nouh would have been required to
assert his custody rights in Canada in accordance with the laws of
Quebec and Canada.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Mrs. Tremblay found
herself in an absurd situation in that the police were unable to arrest
the kidnapper for lack of an extradition treaty with Egypt while the
Canadian government said it could do nothing because it had
signed no treaty or convention with Egypt.
All they could do was suggest to Mrs. Tremblay that she try on
her own to assert her rights before the Egyptian courts in
accordance with Egyptian laws. It must be pointed out that such
proceedings entail substantial legal and travel costs as the mother
has to travel to Egypt every time she must appear before the court
and there is no financial support program for the victims.
Fortunately, Mrs. Tremblay's co-workers at the National Bank in
Montreal organized a fundraiser so she could initiate legal
proceedings. But this is a long and expensive battle that no one can
take on alone.
On the other hand, Egypt is a Muslim country whose laws and
customs are very different from ours, which makes it almost
impossible, in Karim's case, to obtain an order to have him
returned to Canada. Let me give you an example to illustrate this.
Since Karim is a boy and his father is a Muslim, under Egyptian
law, the child must be raised in the Muslim faith. Ms. Tremblay's
son Karim was baptised in the Catholic faith, which is a serious
breach under Egyptian law. That is why her lawyer suggested she
should try to have her son's baptism annulled: to increase her
chances of convincing a court in Egypt to give her custody of her
son.
You can imagine that there are many more customs and
considerations like this one that make it almost impossible to get
Karim back without infringing in any way Egyptian law.
While realizing that laws, customs and religions may vary from
country to country, and we respect that, we must understand that
what we have here is a situation where a Canadian child was born
to a Canadian couple and this child grew up in a setting governed
by Canadian and Quebec laws until he was kidnapped and taken to
his father's country of origin.
(1820)
The law is clear, and international conventions are clear. If the
father wants to return to his country of origin, he may assert the
rights he has over the child before the courts in Quebec and
Canada. In this case, having committed an illegal act on two
counts, the father ends up in Egypt with the child, and the mother is
the one who has to go over there to argue her case before Egyptian
courts. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what should be, and all
this government finds to say is that it cannot interfere.
You know as well as I and everyone who is listening that this is
absurd and just not true.
Mrs. Tremblay is hoping for a political intervention and we
support her efforts. To date, more than 2,000 citizens of Rosemont
have signed a petition to express their support.
In recent years, Canada has taken pride in the fact that it has
made a number of decisions to ensure children a better future. As
recently as last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his
satisfaction at Canada's action in support of children, at the 51st
UN general assembly.
We want to give the minister a small opportunity to follow up on
his nice speeches. We are convinced he can act and we want him to
act now.
Our belief that the Canadian government can act was greatly
reinforced last June. In fact, today's debate could have taken place
on June 12. However, since we mentioned that the debate would
then take place while Mrs. Tremblay was in Egypt, the powers that
be got their act together for the first time in three and a half years.
4967
On June 11, I received a telegram asking that the debate be
postponed. For the first time, Mrs. Tremblay was able to see her
child for a few hours, in the presence of the father. The powers
that be had taken action.
But if we are holding this debate today, it is because the powers
that be have stopped taking action. The initial co-operation is
totally inadequate to settle the issue quickly. After initial progress,
there were no other developments. This is why we will continue to
ask people to sign the petition and to exert political pressure.
We want the Canadian government to act quickly to patriate
Karim and to sign a convention to avoid other such cases.
I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the courage and the
determination of the mother, Micheline Tremblay, who has been
fighting for four years to be reunited with her son. I do hope she
will inspire all of us to show solidarity and to urge this government
to take action.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
would like to thank the member for Rosemont for moving this
motion and this debate on the abduction of the son of Mrs.
Micheline Tremblay. I would like to begin by saying that the
government shares the member's frustration, as well as the distress
of Mrs. Tremblay, who has been trying for so long to see her son
again.
[English]
The Department of Foreign Affairs has been unrelenting in its
efforts since February 4, 1993 when Madame Tremblay advised us
of the abduction of her son. Karim Noah is the son of Madame
Micheline Tremblay and Mr. Moustafa Nouh. He was abducted by
his father to Egypt in early 1993. At the time, Madame Tremblay
and Mr. Nouh were separated from their common law relationship
and had agreed to joint custody of their son who was born on June
14, 1989. Following the abduction, a Canada-wide and then an
international arrest warrant was issued for Mr. Nouh.
(1825)
[Translation]
After her son was abducted, Mrs. Tremblay made the first of
many trips to Egypt, and instituted legal proceedings to have her
right to custody recognized by the Egyptian courts. Throughout this
undertaking, she was assisted by the Department of Foreign Affairs
and staff of the Canadian embassy in Cairo.
She was unfortunately unsuccessful in having her right to
custody recognized by the Egyptian courts, but finally obtained
visiting rights, already a considerable achievement. Thanks to the
many efforts of the Canadian embassy in Cairo, and the
co-operation of Egyptian authorities, the child's location was
finally confirmed and Mrs. Tremblay was able to visit her son last
June 18.
Interpol Egypt, moved by this mother's plight, spared no effort
to find Karim and co-operated closely with embassy staff so that
Mrs. Tremblay could visit her son in complete safety.
[English]
The government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and the Canadian embassy in Cairo have been
directly involved in assisting Madame Tremblay in her efforts to
have her son returned. We are committed to continuing with our
support and assistance.
Over the years of this matter we have made numerous
representations to the Egyptian authorities. Our embassy in Cairo
follows every possible aspect of Karim's well-being. It is always
available to the father and holds ongoing meetings with both the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Interpol Egypt with a view to
reaching a solution.
[Translation]
There are a number of tragic cases similar to the abduction of
Karim Noah by his father, cases where a child born in Canada is
abducted and then taken abroad in contravention of Canadian laws
and without the agreement of one of the custodial parents. This is
an important international problem, which adds to the suffering
caused by the breakdown of the family and the separation. It affects
numerous countries.
Canada is a leading country in the search for a solution. it
saddens me that our efforts and the efforts of all the other interested
countries have not resulted in a satisfactory solution. The
government is determined to pursue its efforts, not only to support
Mrs. Tremblay, but also to put in place a mechanism that will help
us to settle all the other similar cases.
[English]
The international community has provided a partial answer. For
some abducted children that answer can be found in the provisions
of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction. This treaty was negotiated in the early 1980s and
was based on a proposal by Canada. Since then it has been ratified
by more than 40 countries, including Canada.
The treaty in essence provides for the prompt return of a child
who has been wrongfully removed or retained from his country of
habitual residence in breach of rights of custody. It has proven an
excellent vehicle for many parents who have faced situations like
those faced by Madame Tremblay.
The success of the Hague convention is limited by the fact that
only about 42 countries have ratified it. Canada along with other
countries regularly seeks to encourage other countries to sign but
progress has been slow. This is mainly due to the fact that many
countries have difficulty in accepting and implementing the basic
4968
requirements of the treaty due to cultural, religious and legal
differences.
Egypt is not a signatory and therefore the treaty is not available
to assist in child abductions such as that of Karim Noah. The
former Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the current minister
have been well aware of the problem with the treaty in respect of
Egypt as well as the personal tragedy of Madame Tremblay.
I am happy to report that the Egyptian authorities shared our
view that it is a matter requiring urgent action. It was subsequently
agreed to enter into discussions to see if an arrangement could be
established to deal with cases such as that of Karim Noah as well as
other consular problems.
(1830)
A Canadian delegation visited Cairo in March 1996. We are
hopeful that an arrangement can be finalized in the near future.
[Translation]
The government is determined to conclude effective
co-operation agreements that will make it possible to settle cases of
international child abduction. I must add that it is an issue with
complex legal, social and religious overtones.
Mrs. Tremblay has remained steadfast in her efforts to have her
right to the custody of her child recognized by the Egyptian
authorities. We are all sorry that this has not been possible. I can
assure the members, particularly the member for Rosemont, that
we are still determined to assist and support Mrs. Tremblay. I can
only hope that our efforts will bear fruit.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
also speak to Motion No. 169 which deals with the abduction of a
young Canadian from Quebec.
The hon. member for Rosemont is asking the Canadian
government to bring the appropriate political pressure to bear on
the Government of Egypt to ensure the immediate return to Canada
of Karim Noah who was abducted illegally on January 17, as we
have heard.
I would first like to note my respect for the hon. member's
obvious concern for one of his constituents. I congratulate his
efforts to represent his constituent in the House.
Child abduction is a serious and complicated matter in Canada,
as it is in many other countries of the world. Canada has been a
good example to the rest of the world in matters like this, one in
which we have consistently showed our concern for the rights of
children.
It is especially noteworthy that Canada played a leading role in
drafting the process of the convention of rights of children and in
convening the 1990 world summit for children.
Canada is also a member of The Hague convention on the civil
aspects of international child abduction. This convention was
created out of the desire to protect children internationally from the
harmful effects of wrongful removal and to establish a procedure to
ensure their prompt return to their habitual state of residence.
This convention was adopted by the 14th session of The Hague
conference. The convention sets ground rules for dealing with child
abduction cases, both when the harbouring nation is a signatory of
the convention and for those cases when the harbouring nation is
not a signatory.
In this case the harbouring nation is Egypt, which has neither
signed nor ratified this convention. In cases such as this one, when
the harbouring state has not ratified the convention, the Department
of Foreign Affairs can provide some assistance, as has already been
done in this case.
It is my understanding that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke
with his Egyptian counterpart in November 1995. We have been
updated regarding the progress that is occurring there.
Unfortunately because Egypt has not ratified The Hague
convention, this case is governed by domestic law in Egypt.
Therefore the Egyptian government is not solely responsible for the
resolution of this case and the Egyptian courts will also have to
become involved.
The authorities in Canada have also become involved by issuing
a warrant for the father's arrest and ensuring the mother receives
aid from the missing children's registry. While this is not a lot of
help to the mother desperately seeking the return of her son, I have
been informed that the role of the federal government in abduction
cases is rather limited.
Family law falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Canadian provinces, therefore it is the provincial authorities that
deal with the hands on work related to The Hague convention and
associated child abduction cases.
I am sure all members in this House would urge the province of
Quebec, along with the federal government, to work as diligently
as possible to secure the return of this child.
Generally the federal government only acts as a conduit between
foreign authorities and Canadian provincial authorities. The federal
government does play a significant role along with the Canadian
Department of Justice in liaising with the provinces regarding the
access of new states to The Hague convention. Mostly it assists in
general matters requiring liaison between foreign governments and
those provinces.
(1835 )
The Canadian government assisted in this way when the
Department of Foreign Affairs contacted the Egyptian minister.
This was
4969
the appropriate political action outlined by The Hague convention.
Therefore while the motion of the hon. member for Rosemount
clearly shows his desire to help his constituent, I would hope the
Canadian government has done and is doing and will continue to do
everything to help move the case forward.
Because family law falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces
there is not much more that the Canadian government can do,
according to my research of this case. However, due diligence is
required.
While the Canadian government is restricted in its dealings with
this specific abduction case, I would argue that we can become
more involved with the broader issue of international child
abduction.
We can start by persuading other nations to ratify the Hague
convention using whatever pressure we may have, through aid or
other things, to put pressure on countries to sign. For those states
that were members of the 14th session of the conference on private
international law, the convention enters into force between them
and the other member states as soon as they deposit their
instruments of ratification with the ministry of foreign affairs in the
Netherlands.
There are currently six member states at this conference that
have failed to ratify the convention. One of these is Egypt, the
harbouring state in this case.
Those states that were not members of the 14th session can also
be persuaded to ratify the convention. Once they register their
ascension with the foreign affairs ministry in the Netherlands their
ascension will have effect with the contracting states and they will
be quickly accepted.
Once on board, the convention aids in the return of wrongfully
abducted children by setting up the formalities between the
harbouring state and the initial resident state of the child. Under
The Hague convention these two states co-operate with each other
and promote co-operation among the competent authorities in their
respective states to secure the prompt return of the children. The
convention also outlines the appropriate measures to be taken by
both states.
The more nations that ratify this convention, the better the
co-operation will be among nations in abduction cases, allowing
for the speedy return of abducted children. This is an area in which
the Canadian government can get more involved and can put more
pressure on governments.
Too often we do not tie things like this to aid programs, to
co-operative programs. I think it is time we started to do that. This
is a serious problem not just for this one child but for many parents
throughout this country and others. The Canadian government can
also help end international child abduction by encouraging the use
of a preventive method promoted by the convention.
The new ease with which people can move around the globe has
caused an increase in international child abduction. Therefore the
use of preventive methods must be increased. Ultimately
prevention is the only true way to combat this rising phenomenon.
While the motion's purpose seems to have already been partly
played out, the role of the Canadian government in dealing with
international abduction cases has not. I challenge the government
to increase its involvement in the issues of child abduction by
encouraging states like Egypt to ratify The Hague convention and
by promoting the preventative methods highlighted by that
convention.
Again I point out that we write off debts for countries like Egypt.
Maybe we should tie some other requirements before we do that
sort of thing. I believe we can pull some strings so that we will not
have to deal with cases like this in the House.
Being a parent, I can understand the terrible pain the parent is
going through and I certainly sympathize with her.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to join with my colleagues to address what I
would call a tragic question. As a mother I can empathize with this
mother and her specific situation in this case.
My hon. colleagues have addressed some of the issues and I will
also. Child abductions are difficult enough to resolve when they
occur within Canada, but when they occur outside our borders in
other countries it is doubly so.
(1840 )
When they involve other countries and other cultures the
problems multiply. Because each international child abduction is
unique, the approach taken must vary from case to case. What has
to be done in one case may be the very thing to be avoided in
another.
We will continue our efforts to engage other countries in finding
solutions either by encouraging them to sign on to The Hague
convention on the civil aspects of child abduction or, when they are
unwilling, to seek other agreements of a bilateral nature to
safeguard the best interests of children everywhere.
The Hague convention, which we heard a great deal about from
previous speakers, and the United Nations convention on the rights
of the child serve as our base from which to work for greater
understanding and a more complete international response to this
painful problem.
We must use our reputation as a country in the forefront of the
battle for children's rights to save children from the deprivation
and isolation that is the result of these criminal acts. This necessi-
4970
tates our closest attention to both the individual child and the
problem as a whole.
At the same time, we must use our increasingly sophisticated
communication systems and networks of relations to more quickly
locate such children. We must verify their well-being and enter into
informed negotiations with the other parents and country of
residence. I understand in this case we are proceeding to do just
that.
Important, the government strongly believes that in addition to
trying to cope with abductions once they occur, we must ensure that
Canadians are well informed about these cases and that every effort
is made to prevent them from occurring.
The Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
co-operate closely, as we heard from the parliamentary secretary,
with non-governmental organizations dedicated to dealing with this
problem, including provincial social service agencies, legal and
police authorities, the RCMP's missing children's registry, Canada
customs and Citizenship and Immigration Canada in order to
provide advice and guidance to parents facing the possibility of the
abduction of a child to another country.
As a contribution to that effort, the Department of Foreign
Affairs has just published a manual on the subject for parents and
involved professionals. It is being distributed now. It is an excellent
document and copies will be made available to members of
Parliament. As members will note, it provides comprehensive
information, guidance and advice for parents and we are hopeful
that it will be of help in dealing with this very tragic problem.
Karim Noah is both a real person and a symbol. As a child, he is
separated from his mother at an age when this should not happen.
His mother is to be commended for the dedication and zeal with
which she has sought to have him returned to Canada. As a symbol,
Karim is a beacon for all of us to continue the action necessary to
deal with this international social dilemma.
I can assure the hon. member for Rosemont and indeed all
members that the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade will always be there to assist parents such as Mrs. Tremblay.
Equally, the Department of Foreign Affairs will redouble its efforts
for agreements with more countries that would provide for a more
effective way to deal with these tragedies.
Therefore I join with other members in thinking at this moment
of Mrs. Tremblay and the difficult situation that we all face.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to accept the opportunity to speak today in support of the
motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont.
This motion deals with a subject very close to my heart: child
welfare. Even if the wording of the motion refers to calling upon
the Canadian government to undertake negotiations and political
representations in order to ensure the return to Canada of a child
kidnapped by his father, nevertheless the individual really at the
centre of any such matter is the child.
(1845)
I shall therefore focus my speech on that aspect. As I have
already said, we are speaking of a three year old who has had his
mother brutally taken away from him. This is how we need to focus
any discussion on the abduction of children.
The very real consequences, to get down to earth, to get down to
the every day nitty-gritty of it, is that little Karim has not seen his
mother for three years, is growing up without her, without her
presence, without her care, without her love. All this because one
adult has decided that is the way things will be, for reasons that
have nothing to do with the child.
This is a cruel reality, with the risk of very negative
consequences for the child. I am not saying, and am far from
believing, that it would be more acceptable for a child to be
deprived of the care of his father. On the contrary. The presence of
both parents is necessary for a child to develop properly, but that
presence can take a number of forms, depending on the
circumstances. In the case of concern to us today, one of the two
parents disappears completely from the child's life, for reasons that
have absolutely nothing to do with him.
Unfortunately, children are often the victims of the bitterness
and anger which eats up a family during and after a separation.
According to the 1995 annual report of the RCMP'S Missing
Children's Registry, often the abductor tells the child that the other
parent no longer loves him, or worse, that the other parent is dead.
As well, the abductor often neglects the child's education and
health, not to mention that he or she is left alone for long periods of
time, which predisposes him or her to antisocial behaviour. In the
case of Karim, we are told that he is ill. He was seen again this
summer for the first time since January 1993.
Such situations are unacceptable and in fact criminal. They are
criminal and punishable under the law. The Criminal Code
provides a maximum prison sentence of 10 years for a parent who
acts like the father of Karim.
With this legislation, our society recognizes how important it is
for a child to live in a stable emotional environment, irrespective of
the quality of the relationship between the adults who take care of
him. Our society recognizes the importance to the child of having
access to both parents.
4971
Finally, our society feels it is important, in case of a conflict, to
let a third party, in this case the courts, take on the difficult task of
determining how the interests of the child are best served. A parent
who abducts his child and deprives him of the presence of his other
parent is a criminal who only thinks of his own interests and causes
considerable damage to the child.
Little Karim is unfortunately not the only child to have been
taken abroad illegally. In recent years, cases of child abduction and
taking children to other countries have increased. This is partly due
to the greater ease with which people are able to travel quickly over
large distances.
In these cases, dispute resolution procedures are complicated
because of their international nature. Even if one parent has been
given legal custody of the child in Canada, we cannot be sure that
this decision will be respected elsewhere. Consequently, and this is
particularly true in the case before us today, a parent or guardian
may be tempted to abduct a child, expecting to be safe from the
Canadian justice system abroad, as in the case of Karim's father.
There are no statistics in Quebec today that establish with any
accuracy the total number of Quebec children that have been
displaced or are being detained abroad annually by one of the
parents. After checking with the Missing Children's Registry of the
RCMP, it seems the situation is the same at the federal level.
Figures are of course available. However, these indicate the
number of abductions committed by a parent and brought to the
attention of the police, but they do not indicate which of these
abductions are international in nature.
(1850)
In this context, it is still difficult to evaluate how widespread the
problem of international child abduction really is.
However, even if the number of Quebec and Canadian children
who are abducted is relatively low, we should not lose sight of the
hardship suffered by these children.
Again, the real victim of an abduction is the child himself. In this
particular case, it is young Karim, who has suffered and is still
suffering from a loss of balance and stability caused by the trauma
of being separated from the parent with whom he had always been.
He is the one who has to put up with the uncertainties and the
frustrations related to having to learn a new language and adapt to a
new culture.
The ability to make contact with the abducted child and the
chances for a quick resolution vary greatly, depending on whether
or not the country of refuge is a signatory to the Hague
Convention. The convention aims primarily to prevent the
international movement of children by promoting close
co-operation between the legal and administrative authorities of the
contracting states.
However, Egypt, where Karim was taken, is not a signatory to
the convention. We also know that, to this day, a small percentage
of children abducted and taken to a country which is not a
contracting state of the convention have been returned to Quebec
and to Canada. In such cases, the co-operation and legal
mechanisms established by the Hague Convention and by the
Canadian legislation are not available to those parents who need
help.
Locating a child becomes more difficult and may require the use
of private investigating agencies. The parent must also seek legal
representation abroad and pay for the related costs, as is the case
for Karim's mother.
In addition to all these problems, the legal battle is subject to the
national laws of the state, where the rules greatly differ from the
ones that we have here.
Given this situation, I join the hon. member for Rosemont in
asking the Canadian government to really do something about
Karim's plight, and to show its support to the mother by exerting
all appropriate political pressure on the Egyptian government to
ensure the immediate return of young Karim.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with attention to the speeches made today
by my hon. colleagues, and I, too, would like to take a few minutes
of this House to address this issue.
Of course, unlike the hon. member for Rosemont, I do not know
the child or his family personally, but I was closely involved in a
similar case several years ago.
Back in 1982, when my daughter was in kindergarten, one of her
little classmates disappeared. The child in question, Tina Lynn
Malette, had been abducted by her father. A short time later, the
family contacted me. I was then a member of the provincial
legislature. I wrote to all the school boards in Ontario, then to those
in Quebec and finally, in April 1983, we found out that Tina was in
Tunisia. This is somewhat similar to the case that our colleague
across the way has just described.
Like today, there was no extradition treaty covering such cases
and Tunisia had not signed any conventions either.
(1855)
What was difficult for everyone involved, including your
humble servant, is that I knew the child and her family personally. I
lived through this situation; her classmates, including my daughter,
even asked me where Tina was.
4972
We worked for years. I remember going to see the Tunisian
ambassador to bring him petitions signed by 7,000 Canadians
asking him to take whatever steps were required to return the child
to Canada. In the beginning, the ambassador did not know or at
least claimed he did not know where the child was, but later
everyone knew where she was. She was in Tunisia. It was no
secret.
Worse yet, the child's father had no legal authority over her. First
of all, the parents were not married, not that it would have made
much of a difference in this case. Second, the father and mother had
been separated for years, and the mother had sole custody of the
child. Third, he was not officially recorded as the father in the birth
register, although he was the father, a fact the mother did not deny.
So this is an abduction very similar to an abduction by a total
stranger.
Just moments ago, I tried to reach Tina Lynn Malette's aunt on
the phone, seeing that she is a neighbour of mine. I still do not
know if the child's whereabouts have been established yet. I
checked a little while ago. I keep inquiring. Today, my daughter is
19 years old and a university student. She has never seen Tina
again, and neither have I nor my neighbour for that matter-the one
I just referred to, who had custody of the child when her father
kidnapped her, on the pretext of a Sunday afternoon visit. He had
no visiting rights by the way.
In a nutshell, these are the facts of this case. I am sorry for telling
such a sad story, a story that may even sound discouraging to those
close to the child our hon. colleague opposite just told us about.
My goal in bringing this case to the attention of the House is
certainly not to discourage this child's parents, but rather to share
with this House my sadness around this kind of situation and also to
show how frustrating it can be for those involved. In this, I share
the sentiments of our colleagues, who raised this matter today. I
hope that the governments that have not signed such treaties will do
so.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say how important it
is, in the field of international relations, for everyone in this House
to take an interest in this question of extradition treaties and so on.
Some of us in this House, and this happens at certain times, try to
take a somewhat isolationist approach. I am thinking of a certain
political party, and I apologize for being partisan at such a sad time.
They even try to get themselves exempted from delegations of
parliamentarians who are exchanging points of view between
countries. If only there were no other reason, but there are several
others, on which we must reach agreement and come to an
understanding between the countries of the world. It is for the very
purpose of ensuring that there are laws to prevent this sort of
situation from happening again in future.
(1900)
At the risk of being pessimistic, there will probably always be
countries in the world that will refuse to sign treaties and ensure
that there is the good understanding necessary for relations
between countries, of course, but, above all, to ensure the safety of
children here and elsewhere.
In conclusion, we should all work together to put an end to this
sort of problem, to resolve it to the extent that all governments are
interested in doing so, and I hope that ambassadors, emissaries of
other countries who may read the debates of this House, or even
hear them live, will take note of what has been said by all members
today.
I think that it is the wish of all parliamentarians to put a stop to
situations allowing certain stronger parents, in conditions that are
advantageous to them, but not to their children, to carry out
abductions like this, to cause the difficulties about which our
colleague, the member for Laval East, spoke a few minutes ago, the
cultural difficulties faced by Karim Noah, and by Tina Lynn
Malette when she left South Peele, Ontario, Canada, to go and live
in Tunisia, and God knows whether she is still there.
A few years ago, my daughter had an opportunity to correspond
with Tina Lynn, to send her a letter and a photo, although she had
not seen her for perhaps ten years. Today, I no longer even know
where Tina Lynn is.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to rise in
support of the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont and also to
raise another aspect of this question which was mentioned by the
hon. member for Rosemont and the hon. member for Laval-Est.
Aside from the human aspect, it is necessary to give hope for
parents who experience this kind of situation. I just heard the
government whip tell us about what happened to people he knew,
and the situation has not been cleared up yet at this moment, so that
the family, the mother still wonders whether she will ever see her
daughter again.
One would also expect, and this is not intended as a partisan
remark, the government to do more than just being understanding. I
heard what was said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It
is all very interesting to hear the Secretary of State say that he
sympathizes with the family, that he understands the problem very
well, and that he hopes we will find a solution will be found to the
problem now facing Mrs. Tremblay, but I think they should also
tell us-not only tell us but do something-they should also tell us
what they are going to do in concrete terms to find a solution to this
problem.
4973
Unfortunately, I have to say that this government's past record
does not hold out much hope for Mrs. Tremblay and others in a
similar situation. We saw this in the case of Trân Trieu Quân,
which my colleague from Louis-Hébert has raised in this House
on several occasions. As far as the government and the Minister
of Foreign Affairs are concerned, the case is closed.
(1905)
As in the case before us today, no specific action was taken, so
that Mr. Quân is still in prison in Vietnam. For the past three years,
Mrs. Tremblay has taken legal action upon legal action to obtain
the return of her child, of whom she has custody. Unfortunately,
three years later we are asking the same questions and making the
same requests.
I do not want to waste your time, but I want to tell this
government's representatives that they must approach the Egyptian
government in order to find a definite solution. Of course we can
deplore the fact that Egypt did not sign The Hague Convention
concerning this type of situation, but we must find a concrete
solution. The government must stop talking and start acting.
I refuse to believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot
intervene directly with the Egyptian government and make it listen
to reason in this particular case.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Justice I wish to
emphasize my constituents' concern about safe homes and safe
streets for themselves and their families. They have made this clear
during two very well attended forums in my riding to discuss
justice initiatives which gave my constituents an opportunity to
voice their concerns, in particular with reference to the Young
Offenders Act.
The justice minister's initiative about dangerous and long term
offenders is of great interest to me and to the people in my riding
who attended those sessions and others. Tough new restrictions on
high risk violent offenders will make Canadian homes and streets
safer. These new initiatives go hand in hand with a whole series of
initiatives designed to improve the quality of life for Canadians.
The list of these initiative is impressive: the creation of a
national crime prevention council which works on strategies that
address the underlying causes of crime; increased sentences for
young offenders who commit violent crimes; the creation of a
flagging system using the Canadian Police Information Centre to
help provincial prosecutors identify high risk offenders; a new
mandatory five-year sentence for those convicted of using violence
to force children into prostitution; the classification as first degree
any murder committed while stalking; increased sentences for
those convicted of stalking; a specific outlawing of the practice of
female genital mutilation.
We have introduced child support guidelines to help protect
children from financial hardship resulting from marital
breakdowns. We have increased minimum sentences by 400 per
cent for those who commit crimes using a firearm. We have
classified smuggling of firearms as an enterprise crime with a
sentence up to 10 years. We have introduced amendments that end
self-induced intoxication as a defence against crimes of violence.
We have provided the basis on which police can serve warrants on
suspects to take samples for DNA testing. We have improved
legislation with respect to proceeds of crime.
I have reintroduced my private member's bill to establish a
victim's bill of rights in the Criminal Code.
Added to this list are proposals to create a new category of long
term offender. Long term offenders will include those convicted of
sexual assault and other sexual offences. To better protect the
community, offenders in this category will be subject to an
additional period of supervision of up to 10 years after they have
completed their parole and prison sentences.
Further, specialized conditions can be added to ensure close
supervision of the offender such as regular reporting to the
assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in counselling,
electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation programs.
These are all good initiatives but once again, I say to the minister
that it is essential that young offenders also be subject to the
provisions and sanctions included in Bill C-55.
(1910 )
It is my hope that the justice minister will take this view into
account when proceeding with this much needed and important
legislation.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his persistent and
thoughtful efforts at improving and toughening the criminal law
across the land and for making representations on behalf of his
constituents to ensure that our streets and homes are safe.
4974
Bill C-55 is explicitly and unapologetically aimed at high risk
adult offenders with long histories of violent behaviour. The
government has listened to a public demand for Criminal Code
amendments that will effectively target sex offenders, particularly
pedophiles who present an ongoing risk to the community. The
two improvements that are being made by Bill C-55 are the new
long term offender sentencing option along with the dangerous
offender improvements to that designation as well.
The concern with both these issues as with the long pattern of
offending, unfortunately in both these categories pedophiles often
have a very long track record of aberrant behaviour and conviction.
In both these types of procedures, long term and repetitive
behaviour is required in order to bring them into question. The
question therefore arises, are young offenders likely to be a target
group for both these types of sentences?
It is possible, in answer to the hon. member's question, that
young offenders who are transferred to adult court could be subject
to these provisions. There is required to be a pattern of repetitive
behaviour, a serious past record of violent offences for these types
of designations to apply. It is possible that the new legislation
would apply to young offenders.
I thank the hon. member for his question and will take his
representations to the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question of September 24 was as follows:
The French speaking residents of the village of Laurier do not have a facility to
house the students of the Franco-Manitoban school division. In spite of its
constitutional obligations, the provincial government has made no decision
acceptable to the parents.
Will the federal government take action to ensure that section 23, dealing with
minority language educational rights, will be complied with?
The minister replied, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, to be sure the community of Laurier has good reasons to invoke
section 23 of the charter, and I am convinced that the education minister will show
her willingness to settle a situation which contravenes this section of the charter.
From discussions I have had recently, I hear there is a possibility
of this willingness, and I hope that this is so, for this situation has
been talked about for a long time and ought to have been settled a
long time ago.
The question I raised is important, not only in itself, but also
because of its far wider implications. We are still talking about
services for minorities, in this case the francophone minority
outside Quebec.
We are still talking about the roadblocks faced by these
minorities. Despite the protection provided them, the communities
still have to fight for their fundamental rights, in this case the right
to an education in French.
Yes, the government has just signed an agreement, yesterday,
aimed at funding minority language education, and I applaud this
initiative. I am proud of it. But the parents to whom I referred, as
far as I know, are still lacking facilities for their Franco-Manitoban
school division.
What I am demanding for Manitoba, and in all of Canada
moreover, is that, when we are faced with such a situation, the
entire country be considered, the entire Canadian population. What
happens in Manitoba has an impact on the francophone in
Newfoundland, the francophone as far away as British Columbia or
the Northwest Territories, everywhere in the country. What we
require is great willingness and open-mindedness from all.
(1915)
Unfortunately, each time there is an altercation of this nature in
the francophone community outside Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois
and other separatist forces tend to use it to serve their own
purposes.
Does the federal government have a role to play in ensuring that
section 23 of the Charter, which deals with the right to education in
French, is 100 per cent respected in Manitoba and elsewhere? I
believe that the answer to that is yes.
I would add that I also believe that the government must provide
the necessary financial support to these minorities, whether for
education, for television, for radio-everything they require to
improve their situation.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite familiar with my hon. colleague's concerns
about French schooling in Laurier, Manitoba.
It is essential that French-speaking children be provided with
suitable accommodation and access to the necessary services to get
a good education. Discussions were held between the
Franco-Manitoban school division and the Turtle River school
board to find a mutually acceptable solution for this year.
The parties reached an agreement providing for portables to be
installed on the grounds of the Laurier school and for francophone
students to have access to the school's washrooms, gymnasium and
library.
All those concerned realize this is only a temporary solution. We
urge the Manitoba Minister of Education to look into the case so
she can respond to the needs of the francophone community in
Laurier. We are convinced that the problem will be settled to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
4975
I would point out that this government has made a firm
commitment to official language communities and will continue
to support them. We have an agreement with Manitoba,which
provides for assistance in observing section 23 of the Charter and
putting in place structures for school administration. We also have
an agreement with the province for the provision of provincial
services in French.
The federal government also supports many projects which the
community feels are important to its development. For instance, a
federal contribution of $1.5 million was made towards the
construction of le Centre du patrimoine franco-manitobain.
We also concluded an agreement worth $10.2 million over a
period of five years with the francophone community to help with
its development.
All these interventions reflect the federal government's firm
commitment to a flourishing Franco-Manitoban community.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last spring gas prices increased 8 cents to 10 cents a litre across
Canada without justification. When I called for action by the
Liberal government to stop this gouging by their masters, the big
multinational oil companies, the Liberals blamed the provincial
governments which by the way have no jurisdiction to regulate
nationally established pricing practices.
NDP MPs organized a boycott of Imperial Oil for one week in
May resulting in thousands of consumers joining the boycott and
effectively driving down prices in Saskatchewan by about 4 cents a
litre and in British Columbia between 2 cents and 3 cents a litre.
Finally the Government of British Columbia launched an inquiry
as did New Brunswick. In June the federal government, through the
Bureau of Competition Policy, initiated a criminal investigation of
the oil companies' gas pricing practices. The boycott was called off
pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.
During the course of these inquiries being announced, the oil
companies dropped their prices to create the perception that there
was some competition. Yet all companies dropped their prices at
about the same time to the same level. In late August and early
September prices went up again. In Saskatchewan they went up 3
cents to 4 cents a litre.
The reasons given by the oil companies were laughable. In the
spring big oil said prices were up because of the expectation of Iraq
oil coming to market. In the latest increase big oil said prices were
going up because of the expectation that Iraq oil would not be
coming on to the market. Then when people laughed at these
stupid, unfounded bizarre explanations for Saskatchewan's
increase, big oil said that the increase was due to local conditions.
What are local conditions? According to Imperial Oil's own gas
station managers, they were called by their head office in Calgary
and instructed to increase their prices locally. That is what oil
companies call local conditions.
The real reason for the increase is clear. There is a big increase in
spring which is seeding time in Saskatchewan, and a big increase in
the fall which is harvest time in western Canada, in Saskatchewan.
Gouge farmers early, gouge farmers often. That is the slogan of the
oil companies when there is no choice but to buy fuel for the two
crucial business cycles: seeding and harvest.
These silly, stupid antics by the oil companies only hurt middle
class working Canadians and business while increasing big oil's
profits which leave Canada. Imperial oil this year took out $1
billion Canadian by buying Exxon shares which were held by
Imperial Oil. These are reasons enough not to just investigate gas
pricing but to have an energy price review commission which
would have oil companies justify their prices with accuracy and
truth, not smoke and mirrors.
As a result of this latest increase, Saskatchewan is paying 4 cents
to 12 cents a litre more than other provinces. Quebec now is being
charged 54.9 cents a litre; Ontario, 53.9 cents; Manitoba, 57.9
cents; Alberta, 50.9 cents. When the tax differences are factored
out, Saskatchewan is still paying 4 cents to 6 cents a litre too much.
That is in a province where we produce, refine, process and export
our gasoline.
That is why I have asked the director of criminal matters in the
Bureau of Competition Policy to focus its criminal investigation in
Saskatchewan to ferret out the unfair gouging practices of the oil
companies. I feel assured that the criminal investigation into the
pricing practices of oil companies in Saskatchewan will be helpful
in reducing the gouging which currently exists. Hopefully, it will
call on the oil companies to account honestly for their actions.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, on May 13, 1996
the director of investigation and research commenced an inquiry
under the Competition Act into allegations of conspiracy by
gasoline producers and marketers. This inquiry was commenced
after the initiation of a six resident application for an inquiry under
the Competition Act by the member for Ottawa Centre. If evidence
of a criminal offence is uncovered, I am sure appropriate measures
will be taken by the director.
Some people are suggesting that prices should be regulated. The
authority to regulate gasoline prices falls within the jurisdiction of
the provinces. It is not a federal matter. In the member's province
4976
of Saskatchewan it is for the NDP government to take action if it
feels that gasoline prices should be regulated.
As a matter of general principle, the best regulator of gasoline
prices is a competitive market. Prices set by government usually
result in higher prices to consumers. This is in addition to the cost
that taxpayers must bear to set up and administer a regulatory
regime. The decision in July 1991 by the province of Nova Scotia
to discontinue its gasoline pricing regime reflected in part a
recognition that such decisions should be left to the competitive
market forces.
Regulation would also remove the incentive for petroleum
suppliers to be more efficient. Price controls weaken the stimulus
for firms to either swiftly adapt themselves to change in demand or
to develop more efficient methods of distribution. It is easier to ask
the regulatory body to increase the controlled price than to attempt
to lessen their operating costs.
In conclusion, it remains my view that the best interests of
Canadians will continue to be served if gasoline prices are set in the
competitive marketplace. As I indicated at the outset, unlawful
anti-competitive behaviour will be appropriately addressed under
the Competition Act.
Recently my colleague, the minister responsible for FORD-Q,
discussed the issue of gasoline prices with his provincial and
territorial counterparts.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. A
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.23 p.m.)