Paddy Torsney

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the 1996 budget is about the future, the secure prosperous future all Canadians desire. If any group represents Canada's future it is our young people. That is why the Liberal government's commitment to fair, sustainable and secure social programs would be incomplete if we did not include action to assist children who are the most vulnerable and in the greatest need. At long last this budget introduces a new strategy to strengthen protection for children buffeted by divorce and separation.

As the Minister of Finance told Parliament on March 26, and as many Canadians have known for some time, the current child support system has added to the uncertainty and anxiety many Canadians feel. The minister clearly outlined that in our view children should be the first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents; it is not discretionary.

The budget acted on that principle. It announced the child support reforms which take wide ranging action to ensure the child support system is based on what is best for children. To start with, the government is changing the way child support payments are taxed. Until now child support payments have been tax deductible for the paying parent and taxable as income for the parent receiving the payments.

The budget proposes that we move to a system known as no deduction, no inclusion. What does that mean? Custodial parents will no longer be required to include child support payments in their taxable income and support paying parents would not deduct these payments from their taxable income. These new tax rules will apply to court orders or agreements made on or after May 1, 1997.

Child support paid under a court order made before May 1, 1997 would continue to be deductible by the parent and included as taxable income by the recipient until the support payment is changed by a court ruling or the parties add a clause to their agreement providing that the new tax rules will apply, or the payer and recipient file a joint election with Revenue Canada.

Coupled with this important tax change is a second major component of the child support reform. The government is introducing child support guidelines to make support awards fair and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents.

These guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts, lawyers and parents to establish appropriate support payments. They include a payment schedule, a set of tables showing the basic amount of support to be paid according to the number of children and the income of the support paying payment.

The second part of that is that scheduled amounts can be adjusted to recognize individual family circumstances. Special expenses for child care, health care, education or extracurricular activities can be added to the scheduled amount provided that these expenses are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents.

The guidelines allow a court to alter the award in exceptional circumstances where it would cause undue hardship to either parent or to the child.

The third component of the child support reform strategy will be the enhancement of the federal-provincial enforcement measures. Children benefit from fair support awards only if they are paid in full and on time. The numbers are appalling. Far too many children in Canada are left without adequate financial means because one of their parents is willfully ignoring their responsibility to their children. Some one in four children's parents are fully paid up in their child support awards. This is an appalling situation.

As a federal government we must remember that child support is mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility, and so the

measures we are proposing compliment the enforcement efforts and strategies at that level.

It should be emphasized that we are targeting parents who are persistent defaulters on their support payments. How are we to do that? We will start a national public awareness campaign that will aim at changing public attitudes about child support. It is not discretionary; it is the first responsibility of parents.

We will provide provincial enforcement programs with a new enforcement mechanism. Legislation will be enacted that will authorize the suspension of federal licences, privileges and certificates such as passports when someone has demonstrated persistent wilful default.

The federal government will provide up to $13.7 million over five years to help the provinces expand the use of more aggressive enforcement measures and streamline the collection of out of province orders.

Improvements to the federal tracing service will allow the release of certain information from designated federal information banks to help locate defaulting debtors. This will include Revenue Canada to the list of departments whose data bases can be searched at the request of provincial enforcement agencies.

We will also improve federal pension diversions to ensure this measure can be applied to persistent defaulters. This can be done even if the defaulter refuses to apply for pension benefits to ensure the maximum amount of benefits goes to child support.

Improvements to computers systems will allow for on line computer access between federal, provincial and territorial enforcement services. This will enhance the efficiency of the garnishment and tracing service and greatly facilitate the exchange of information.

This is concrete and substantial action, but I am glad to say the 1996 budget plan does not limit new assistance to children whose parents are separated or divorced. There is another very important measure. The budget announces we will be doubling the working income supplement under the child tax benefit in two steps.

This will ensure and encourage employment and self-reliance by helping low income parents meet some of the expenses resulting from membership in the paid workforce, expenses like child care and transportation. It also helps make up for the benefits lost by parents who leave social assistance to re-enter the workforce.

Beginning in July 1997 we will go from the current maximum of $500 to $750, and in July 1998 it will be increased to a maximum of $1,000. When fully phased in this will result in an additional $250 million in support annually to approximately 700,000 low income working families, one-third of which are single parent households.

I am proud to be part of a government that puts children first, that thinks about the cost of not taking care of our children and that makes sure parents understand the responsibility to their children.

I am sharing my time with my colleague from Hillsborough who will take the remaining time.

[International Trade, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very concerned about the Helms-Burton legislation in the United States. Given our government's strong resolve to ensure that the international rule of law will prevail and our unwavering resolve to protect Canadians' fundamental right to freely travel and trade around the world, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs bring the House up to date on the latest actions he has taken to fight the implementation of this U.S. law?

[Petitions, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to present some thousand names on the issue of puppy mills. Under the present sentencing system only two years' prohibition from owning an animal is given to those who are convicted of operating a puppy mill.

The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to include in the Criminal Code a sentencing provision prohibiting those who operate puppy mills from owning or having custody and control of an animal for a period of no less than 10 years.

[International Women's Week, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is International Women's Week, a week to mark progress on women's equality here in Canada and around the world.

Canada is respected as a world leader in advancing women's equality. One of our priorities is the recognition of human rights as the foundation of women's equality. Human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible.

The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development has chosen International Women's Day, March 8, to present the first Florence Bird award. It is an honour that recognizes efforts to promote women's rights as human rights in the media. It is a fitting tribute to the remarkable Canadian journalist and activist who headed the Royal Commission on the Status of Women almost 30 years ago.

[Points Of Order, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to observe one minute of silence in memory of the 14 young Canadian women who were murdered six years ago this day in Montreal, on December 6, 1989.

[Violence On Television, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during this period leading up to December 6 when Canadians are focusing on the issues of violence in our communities it would serve all of us well to review last June's Josephson report on "Television Violence: A Review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages".

Dr. Wendy Josephson's research produced a useful reference guide for broadcasters, producers and parents to help determine age appropriate programming for Canada's children.

All the research from Canada, Japan, Europe and the United States clearly demonstrates a correlation between television violence and aggression at very young ages. Our children are subject to positive and negative role models in the media.

We must ensure that television companies serve all Canadians well, particularly our youngest Canadians. For safe communities, safe streets and safe homes this is a critical issue.

[Fisheries And Oceans, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is fully aware, women are making a significant contribution to the work carried out by his department. DFO is currently integrating the fleets of scientific research, fisheries patrol and coast guard vessels.

Can the minister tell us what steps he is taking to promote a safe and healthy working environment on board DFO vessels?

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, certainly this is a process which is evolving. I am pleased to have her support for the concept and for this bill in terms of self-government.

There is going to be a series of negotiations, but I have outlined already the basic principles on which we are proceeding. It must be within the context of the Constitution and we must ensure the structures are appropriate on the issues they have decision making power on and it is all outlined in the bill and in the process we are going forward with.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary has outlined a number of principles related to self-government, I will identify some of the key principles that I think my constituents would be interested in and those that perhaps are a little greyer to some people than they should be.

Aboriginal self-government will operate within the existing Constitution. It is an important tool which will allow our aboriginal peoples the ability to make a lot of the key decisions which they need to make for themselves. Sometimes it is not appropriate for the federal government or the provincial governments to make all the decisions for this diverse group of communities which have very specific needs and problems that have either been neglected or that government policies at the provincial and federal levels in the past have tried to ameliorate but have only served to exacerbate because we tried this one size fits all philosophy.

The aboriginal peoples in the communities across Canada, particularly in B.C., need to be able to use their inherent rights to make the decisions within the context of the Canadian Constitution that will benefit their communities and see them be empowered.

It is ironic that around the world people are recognizing the rights of empowerment of women, empowerment of individuals to make decisions, to have the tools to ensure they will be productive members of our communities so that we are more economically viable, we are more environmentally friendly and we take care of our population issues. All too often people within our own country do not recognize the importance of those values when it comes to a very specific group of people, the first people of Canada, the aboriginal peoples. Whether it was 30,000 years ago or more, they still were definitely our first peoples and we must give them the tools.

The other aspect, which seems to me to be common sense, but of course common sense is all too often not very common, is that the current system under which we have been operating has not worked. We have seen aspects of the aboriginal communities doing very well. I do not mean to draw from their success, whether it be in the arts, in business or in other areas of our communities. The aboriginal peoples have done very well in many aspects.

However, there are too many problems. There are too many young aboriginal people in jail. There are too many aboriginals who are dropping out of school, who do not seem to feel a part of Canadian society. It is incumbent on us to do everything we can to give them the tools so that they can be the best people that they can be.

This bill, this new approach to things, given that it was proceeded with after 18 months of consultations with the communities and with our provincial and territorial partners, has given us the answers and the policy decisions that they would like to see in here. It will be successful and it will make a huge difference in the lives of many Canadians, particularly our young aboriginal Canadians, to whom we must leave a good legacy.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak on Bill C-107.

In the House we are usually pressured to deal with immediate problems. We get representations from constituents about existing problems and they want immediate solutions. This is one of the rare opportunities we have in this House to pass this bill and build for the long term health of Canadians, particularly young aboriginal Canadians.

It is also fitting to be here with the member for Vancouver Quadra. Both of us were in Beijing. At that meeting a platform of action was adopted. It particularly acknowledged the importance of including the aboriginal communities in decision making specifi-

cally recognizing their knowledge of environmental management, addressing their right to education, to ensure equal access to health care and to acknowledge traditional health care. It is an important step. Around the world people are talking about giving aboriginal peoples the tools to do what they need to do.

One of the key commitments made by our party in the last election was to act on implementing the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. We did so because we saw the place of aboriginal peoples in Canada as a litmus test for our belief in fairness, in justice and in equality. Sadly, it is a test which we as a nation have too often failed.

In the red book we promised to implement the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to govern themselves by negotiating self-government agreements. On August 10 we delivered on that commitment. We released our policy on aboriginal self-government and presented the principles which will guide the negotiations. This is a pragmatic and practical policy, one which we believe will work.

One of the key reasons we think it will work is that it is the product of some 18 months of consultation with aboriginal groups, provincial and territorial governments, as well as others on what they thought our policy should be in this area. In co-operation with provincial and territorial counterparts, our policy aims for direct negotiations with aboriginal people in their communities on issues directly affecting their lives.

As a government we believe the time has come to stop the endless, fruitless debates about how many angels can dance on the head of the constitutional pin and get down to negotiating practical, pragmatic and realistic arrangements that implement the inherent right of self-government. Our approach is new but it is animated by principles as old as our country, principles of respect, of tolerance, of fairness and of compassion.

In the case of British Columbia the policy provides that negotiations on self-government will take place at the same table as discussions on land and resources. The process and structures already in place for treaty negotiations and confirmed by Bill C-107, the British Columbia Treaty Commission act, will also be used to negotiate self-government issues.

These two sets of discussions, self-government on the one hand and land and resource uses on the other, complement each other perfectly. It means that for the first time the parties will be able to have all of the issues dealt with at one table under one set of negotiations. This will be more cost effective, something I am sure members of the third party will herald as a great achievement. It eliminates overlap and duplication and permits a much more comprehensive approach to achieve progress, something I also hope they will herald. We are committed to ensuring that the same principles and practices of openness which have characterized the B.C. treaty making process will also be applied to the self-government decisions and discussions.

There seems to be some confusion on the part of members opposite, particularly in the third party, as to just what our inherent rights policy is all about. Let me lay down the main elements so they can see for themselves how the BCTC process can be utilized to negotiate fair and meaningful self-government agreements.

As a government we propose to negotiate self-government agreements with aboriginal groups and the province or territory concerned. These negotiations and the agreements they produce will be based on a number of principles.

We begin with the premise that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right under the Constitution. What does that mean? It means we will recognize that aboriginal peoples were self-governing before the arrival of Europeans and that they never gave up that right to govern themselves, even though that right has been ignored or suppressed for many years.

Because this right is in the Constitution, it is enforceable in the courts. Litigation, as we know, is lengthy and costly and often serves only to create conflict rather than engender understanding. It can discourage a willingness to work together as Canadians to build a better, stronger future for our country. Is that not what we are here to do?

In the end, it is unlikely that the courts would go much beyond providing broad principles, leaving the details of self-government to be negotiated by the parties who would have to live with those agreements anyway. It is far better, this government believes, to negotiate practical ways of implementing this right at the outset, tailoring each agreement to the unique circumstances of each community or region.

Bill C-107 is not a one size fits all exercise. That approach has been tried and it only led to gridlock and frustration on both sides. What we need is an agreement and a process that is flexible enough to accommodate the diverse needs of diverse communities. This policy will do that.

The second guiding principle in our negotiations is that aboriginal self-government will be exercised within the existing Constitution. As a consequence, the right of inherent self-government does not include a right of sovereignty in the international law sense and it will not result in independent aboriginal nation states.

Our goal is to enhance the participation of aboriginal people in Canadian society, not place them outside of it. The policy will not create little enclaves dotted across the country. It will provide aboriginal people with the tools they need to manage their own

affairs and realize their own potential. It will mean an end to conflict and it will open the door to progress for all Canadians.

Third, the charter of rights and freedoms will apply to aboriginal governments as it does to all other governments in Canada. This of course makes sense only if we are talking about protecting rights within Canada.

The fourth principle is that federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal laws must work in harmony.

While we are prepared to negotiate a wide range of powers, there are some areas that must remain with the federal government. As a general principle, matters which are integral to the aboriginal culture or internal to the aboriginal group are open for discussion. These might include areas such as education, health care, policing, natural resource management, agriculture, the establishment of governing structures, internal constitutions, elections and a leadership selection process.

However there are a number of areas where there is no compelling reason for aboriginal governments to exercise law making authority. Those areas include matters relating the Canadian sovereignty such as international diplomatic relations, foreign policy, national security and defence, international treaty making, immigration and international trade.

It includes as well matters affecting the fundamental national interest such as the management and regulation of the economy, the banking system, currency or broadcasting, postal service, the emergency and peace, order and good government powers and to matters relating to the maintaining of law and order such as the Criminal Code.

While this is a federal policy, we know we cannot go it alone because many of the jurisdictions contemplated by this policy are provincial. It is essential to have the territory or province concerned involved in the self-government negotiations. Its involvement will be crucial to the ultimate success of the process.

Not only do the provinces have jurisdiction over many of these areas, they also bring with them invaluable expertise in their administration. Having the three parties at the same table will allow new aboriginal systems, such as education, to be harmonized with existing provincial structures and minimize conflict down the road so as to create the best possible aboriginal governments. I am sure that is something we all agree with.

Fifth, where all parties agree we are prepared to protect rights and self-government agreements in new treaties. Finally, the government has made it clear that all funding for the negotiation and implementation of self-government agreements must come from existing resources. There will be no new money.

I have outlined the principles that will guide our discussions. As a government, we believe that they are both fair and realistic. We believe they provide a solid foundation on which to build. We believe they advance the rights of aboriginal people in a way which also protect the rights of all Canadians.

I have spent some time discussing inherent right because I am pleased to report that those involved in the B.C. treaty process have endorsed our self-government policy. Chief Joe Mathias of the First Nations Summit said that the new policy "means finally we have an important initiative that will bring First Nations into the 21st century".

Surely that must be our goal. With this bill we can begin to create the certainty that will encourage economic growth. We can provide the aboriginal people of B.C. with the tools we need to create the future they deserve.

We can move beyond the adversarial postures of the past to a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and understanding, a new relationship that reflects the true Canadian values.

Some 50 per cent of all the aboriginal peoples in our country are under 25 years of age. It is an important point if we are to address their needs and make sure they have the systems in place to be the best they can be so that Canada can ensure them a long and successful future. It is an important point because all too often we talk about how we believe our young people are one of our greatest resources. Yet we do not always put our money where our mouth is in terms of implementing policies that will allow them to be just that, our greatest resource. We must do that more and more.

I am pleased to support Bill C-107 and encourage all parties in the House to pass it quickly and to agree with us in our position.