Brian Masse

[Infrastructure, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was that type of complacency that created situations like Walkerton.

The Prime Minister's task force on urban issues concluded its report by asking the government to have courage and vision to work on our cities. What happened? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the chair, the member for York West, is questioning the decisions and the shortchanging? Who is right?

[Infrastructure, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister keeps telling us how much he has done for municipalities, but he knows very well he has failed to do his job. The $1 billion over 10 years for new municipal infrastructure falls short of what is needed.

The minister also knows very well this downloading will mean increased residential property taxes, the privatization of vital public services like the delivery of drinking water and more user fees for Canadians.

Can he tell us why he thinks Canadians ought to pay higher property taxes, pay for-profit operators for drinking water and pay increased user fees on public services?

[Black History Month, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the birthday of the renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass falls on February 14. This is one reason that we observe the month of February as Black History Month.

I had the honour of welcoming Frederick Douglass II last year when he came to celebrate with the community of Windsor the establishment of the underground railway monument on Windsor's riverfront. This symbol is a celebration of the vital underground railway connection that exists in Windsor and Essex County.

On Saturday I will have the honour to share with members of our local black community the 90th birthday of Mother Sylvia Harrison. Born in 1913, mother of 15 children, Mother Harrison was the first lady of Bishop Arthur Thomas Harrison. She assisted the homeless, seniors and those in need.

Black History Month provides us with a time to learn about the experiences of blacks in Canadian society, including Mother Harrison.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague from Algoma--Manitoulin and Bill C-227 which would formally recognize Canada's important role in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during World War I. It was a battle that raged in France from April 9 to 12, 1917.

I support this bill because we should always do everything possible to remember and honour the efforts of the brave men who fought and died in Canada's wars. As a young Canadian I want pay specific tribute to the fact that I owe my freedom and that of my family to the ultimate sacrifice that has been made.

Recently, a paratrooper from the Korean war passed away in my constituency. I had the opportunity to give him a Queen's Jubilee medal, and at the same time we were able to get a Korean war memorial established. Mr. Jim Bradley is dearly missed in our community.

It shows the importance of why I support this bill. It is an excellent opportunity for young Canadians to once again revisit the heritage, the commitment, and the sacrifice that people have made, because we draw connections from that.

My simple message is to thank the member for putting this together, and more importantly, I am thankful for the sacrifice that Canadians have had to make for my personal freedom as well as for my community in this country of ours.

[Taxation, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, three times since February 2001 my colleague from Windsor--St. Clair has raised the issue of Canadians paying unfair tax levels on American social security benefits.

In June 2001, my predecessor, the former deputy prime minister, assured us that the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was looking into the matter. Of course, that member himself failed to give an answer to the question.

Could the Prime Minister tell us if two years is long enough to keep his government's promise to look into this situation? Will he address this injustice or will he continue to build the surplus at the expense of seniors, the disabled and working Canadians?

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As well, she has been very generous in providing French lessons since I have been here. I am still on a slow learning curve. I have had a couple of formal lessons, but I think my colleague has provided the best lessons, during the House of Commons question period in particular.

With regard to her first question on prevention, I think it is important to note that because of the growth of divorce and the lack of the government involvement in focusing on a policy that is inclusive and beneficial to families, it has fostered situations that have become more difficult to contain and it has led to some of the problems we have.

We need a national strategy on how to work with families, whether it be through taxation, housing, employment or any of those things. There has to be a national strategy that would be driven by the House of Commons in partnership with the provinces. We have to recognize that each province is very different. For example, Quebec is different from Ontario in some of the needs that Ontario has. We have to be respectful of that.

There are traditions in the different areas, be they cultural or related to urbanization, rural areas or heritage. All those different things that started with the birth of Canada are still being played out today in very profound ways. We have to make sure that when we look at a national strategy we are very much focused toward provincial needs that are quite different. I know that Ontario is different from British Columbia and, once again, Quebec. All those things are there for good reasons and have built the country we have today, but we must be respectful of them because they will take us even farther.

With regard to curatives and the two spouses not being equal, that is a very important aspect. We know that women have been at a disadvantage or at least have had to fight and struggle to gain the same respect, the same opportunities and the same situations as men, not just individually but collectively. We have seen an actual movement toward some improvement in wages, but women are still not there. Men still earn more than women in many occupations and that is not right.

They also have very difficult problems to face after a marriage breakup. It gets very complicated because they often will have to deal with rearing the child in the home and all the issues that go with that, for example, getting up, getting the child ready, going to work, picking up the child after work and then doing all the other chores necessary at home. Males can be very involved. We have a lot of great fathers who have been very involved in their children's lives. However, they can be the greatest fathers, but if they are not actually on the premises or in the residence, it leads to a further challenge for the parents. It can work both ways.

We know there is certainly a disadvantage for women in our society right now. It certainly is not reflected in any of the statistics. I think we need to be very careful about that. We need to identify that as something to tackle in this proposed legislation when the witnesses come forward.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Absolutely. It makes me feel better, Madam Speaker, because he quantified it as an astonishing statement.

Let me preface this. The reason I feel that way is that my parents divorced when I was at a very early age. A lot of positive things have come out of my life because my parents have dealt with it the way they have and because there have been some community supports.

I can tell the House that those challenging times in my life were when I went to school and there were only one or two children who had divorced parents. There was a stigma attached to me. That was one of the biggest difficulties I had to face in my life, because there were not that many other people out there who were in the same situation, but that has changed now. The stigma has changed because there are community supports out there and I think I am a better person for it.

As for what I referenced when I said that it takes a community to raise a child, I believe that. Parents obviously are incredibly important, the most important asset in a child's life, but it takes everybody working together to ensure that children are safe, have a healthy environment and have the opportunity for education and the opportunity to be included in the community in terms of recreation and all the learning experiences available. That takes a community and that is about taking care of our children.

For the most part, parents in our society today have to go to jobs. They need to have the opportunity to earn a wage to be able to build a family and to make sure they have a sustainable future. That has a cost. The cost is that they are away from their children more. When that happens other support has to be there, whether it is great day care or whether it is the opportunity to be included in the community around them. Regardless of that, those structures have to be in place. That comes from a healthy environment. This is not just left wing propaganda. It is about a community. A lot of people on the right wing believe in strong communities and that is what the issue is. The issue is about communities, but we must have the proper support, resources and planning for our communities. That takes vision and dedication of resources and the ability to see that process through.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not surprised that the member from the Alliance could not understand what I said.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

An Alliance member is asking how that affects divorce? We are talking about creating a strong environment for family units. Members across the way addressed that as one of the major issues relating to breakups and divorce. I was addressing their comments as previously stated in the House.

Those are some of the things that could specifically happen in regard to creating a strong environment for family units. We know that the House has discussed the issue. However, it has not been acted upon and has not led to any action. This is one of the important factors that needs to be addressed.

Legislative changes are happening. I would like to point out that legislative changes are important. We cannot ignore the difficulty with legal aid and legislative changes. We know that women earn less and are less able to purchase effective legal services. Legal aid has been cut quite a bit in B.C. and Ontario is reinstating some of the legal aid cuts. However, legal aid has been a tool that has been reduced in this country.

We need to make sure that legal aid is available for people so that they are able to go through these processes, to make sure that they have strong opportunities to be able to put forth their cases for their actual situations.

Another issue with regard to legislative changes is that the terms of custody and access will be eliminated for the purposes of the act and the new model will be based upon a parental responsibilities framework. It is outlining more of the jurisdictional aspect over the framework. To some extent, I think that is actually good. It is jargon in the sense of the framework tool, but perhaps defining these things more will be very helpful and actually provide some framework and, more important, some obligated responsibilities.

However, like a lot of other issues, the courts cannot always legislate people to do things. We have to provide the proper environments and the proper tools for people to be effective, and that simply is not happening with the set-up we have right now.

In addition to changes to the Divorce Act, amendments will be made to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. They are important in consolidating some of the things we have out there. I have had a number of constituents call me with concerns in regard to being able to access the supports that were given to them through a legal process. Parents not having the ability to get those resources directly affects the child. That is one thing that needs to be addressed, as well as, potentially, the backlogs in the system so that people can actually get the resources that have been derived for them.

I would like to touch briefly as well on the fact that the bill still seems to isolate divorce as being a one-family situation. This does concern me. It is important to start to move toward understanding that it takes the whole community to raise a child, that it is the community's responsibility, not just that of the parents. The parents obviously are very important in this, but bringing children into the world and rearing them requires the support of the community. Just putting the fault on two people, on the fact that they could not get along, is not sufficient in the debate. There has to be a healthy environment and there have to be the tools necessary for them. As well, we have to provide the necessary supports for them.

We know that right now, regardless of who has custody, women have a greater challenge with single parenting. This is an important thing to recognize in single parenting. We know right now that households led by women earn less. We know that. It is an additional challenge that they are going to have to face and society has to have the supports there. We know right now that there is not access to day care. It is very important for single mothers to be able to access affordable day care that is going to be a nurturing environment for their sons or daughters.

There is a fundamental question. Whatever the family structure, a child's adjustment is associated with the quality of parenting and not the structure of the family itself. This is a fundamental question to debate. Once again it goes back to the fact that obviously the parents, in a strong environment, are going to be a great asset, but when that situation does not happen we have to ensure that the proper supports are there.

I believe the government can do that by moving to more comprehensive strategies to eliminate child poverty. That is going to ensure that at the end of the day the children who have to go through the system are going to have the supports there. It will not be whether or not someone is going to pay up somewhere down the line or whether someone is going to show up for the child. There must be proper supports for them. That is going to be very important in the future.

In summary, I will conclude my remarks by saying that it has taken a long time for the government to address the situation of child poverty. Our issue with regard to Bill C-22 is going to be the struggle on how it is going to relate to being able to advance the beneficial elements for children. The struggle will be whether or not it is going to be part of a process to eliminate child poverty or part of a process that is going to further create that problem. I think that is a loss for the country.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about this important bill. Bill C-22 will have important ramifications on the social fabric of Canadian life. It is a good thing that at least we are talking about it. We will go to committee next and that will open up some more discussion, more debate, and potentially bring some improvements. However, the jury is out on that right now and we will see what will happen.

I would like to address a couple of comments that were made by the government side this afternoon with regard to its role, its involvement, and its thoughts on Bill C-22 and what to do next.

The first deals with comments made with regard to prevention. The words that were chosen related to the first person to dare to take this way to talk about the actual prevention aspect of divorce, and front end was also used with regard to that. This is a bigger issue with regard to the family unit and it also touches the front end. However, the government has done a horrible job at keeping families together. It has done a horrible job of ensuring that people have the opportunities to succeed, not only in the family unit but also in the economy.

One of the examples the member mentioned, and I agree it is an improvement, is employment insurance. It enables women on maternity leave to stay at home longer and spend a longer period of time with their infant. As well, there are expansions to parental leave. I think these are improvements, but it goes without saying that the government has robbed workers and employers of these funds for years.

It has taken credit for balancing the budget and deficit cutting off the backs of those very people. It has been very proud in talking about that aspect and at the same time it is offering a crumb back to the people. It is important to note the importance of a strong family unit.

Another issue is day care. Why not universal day care? Absolutely. Where has the government been on day care? We know that most women right now cannot access day care that has a format and actual standards. There are lots of issues with day care.

I recently went through that issue. I have been very fortunate. There is someone who is providing care for my young daughter. We lucked out. There are settings out there that are very difficult to get into. Parents are scrambling around at the last moment and there is a lot of pressure on them, and women in particular, because they must balance the child and the workforce. That gets even more problematic. It is important to recognize that the government has not taken the lead with that.

With regard to the new family unit, there is student debt. I have spoken about this and want to highlight it a bit as well. We are talking about younger families getting involved with procreation and creating the opportunity to start a family. They are doing so over a longer period of time now, from the time they finish their education to the time they enter the workforce. Their undergraduate degrees take them to a certain point in time with a certain amount of debt. Then from that, a graduate degree is often required now.

People are finishing an undergraduate degree, which one almost needs for a minimum wage paying job right now. One needs an undergraduate degree for just about everything now. Then they have that debt that they have to pay back. They are already in their young twenties. From that they go on to a potential graduate degree and from that go into the workforce.

The opportunity for a young couple to start a family is delayed or challenged even further. That is an important thing to recognize because the debt that is incurred, the instability of the workforce, and getting a meaningful job that has benefits to support a family, is becoming increasingly harder in our country. It is becoming more difficult. That is setting people up for difficult problems.

By the government's own admission, it has identified economics as a major factor in the breakup of the family. A number of different colleagues across the way have identified that as an important issue. Therefore, when we are increasing the student debt on students and delaying their families, delaying the years they are able to create and plan out their full lives, we are setting them up to certain conditions which are very difficult.

There was also reference to reuniting families. Specifically, the member was talking about new immigrants. I agree with the member that it is a very important issue. I can tell members from my past experience working with new Canadians that the head tax is a welcome to Canada debt that they have to pay. When they add up their family members they are in debt. We have set them back. They have to find employment, training, understand the community they are living in, and they often have language barriers. All of these circumstances make it difficult for people to move and be able to create a strong family and future.

I think it is in the interests of Canadians to ensure that they thrive during these difficult times, that they prosper and are able to plan. We look at their contributions across the country and it is one of the major reasons why Canada has become such a great country. However, we are delaying and creating problems whereas we could be supporting the family unit a lot better.

Another regressive issue that we have is the GST and how it is applied on all the different things that relate to families. The GST is a regressive tax. I know the government wanted to get rid of the GST. We are still waiting. Nevertheless, regressive tax measures such as the GST are not good and not positive for family units.

I will touch on Bill C-22 and the legislation, as well as some of the other factors that can be improved and need to be addressed. An objective that was identified in the throne speech was modernizing the family justice system. The first objective was to minimize the potential negative impact of separation and divorce on children. Second, to provide parents with the tools they need to reach parenting arrangements that are in a child's best interests. Third, to ensure that the legal process is less adversarial and that only the most difficult cases go to court.

Those were the three pillars. I think there should have been a fourth pillar relating to family justice. Family justice is about poverty, education, social involvement, and ensuring that we are supportive as a government to the family unit.

The government has a responsibility with regard to affordable housing and low income wages. The government must address the fact that Canada's minimum wage is ranked quite low and needs to be improved.

The government is still debating health care. I know the Prime Minister is meeting with the premiers right now. However, he will not attend a meeting including first nations and this is problematic. The reality is that health care is another strong pillar. I know that families have difficulties with regard to affordable prescription drugs and that too is an important aspect when raising a family.

I will now move to the actual bill itself and the services for families. The minister stated:

Services are needed to ease the conflict and stress that come with separation and divorce and help parents while they are making decisions about the care of their children. The Government of Canada will devote $63 million in new funding over five years to the provinces and territories for family justice services.

We have heard a lot about that before. I would like to see the promise fulfilled. However, there are other issues the government could be working on that would address that and one of them is taking care of the affordable housing issue in our country.

Right now we have the opportunity to create sustainable homes and environments that are positive for people that would have a long-lasting benefit to the family unit.

One of the things that campaign 2000 outlined was the creation of affordable homes. It advocated 20,000 new affordable home units each year for 10 years and the rehabilitation of 10,000 affordable units per year, requiring an investment of at least $1 billion per year over the next five years.