Maria Minna

[Division No. 118, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clarified that the report submitted for public consultation is not a government report. It was written by an independent group of consultants. It is not the minister's or department's report. The minister is not bound by any of the 172 recommendations.

The minister has made it clear a number of times that the recommendation with respect to the language issue is not on. I think the hon. member is creating unnecessary anxiety where there is none because there is full consultation. In preparing the report, for example, the legislative review advisory group consulted with hundreds of groups and individuals across Canada.

There were consultations that also took place in 1994, as the hon. member will remember. They have done very thorough work. The minister has no intention of duplicating the work at this point.

The minister, however, has travelled across Canada and has consulted with various interested parties about these recommendations. The public submissions to the minister that took place in seven different cities across Canada were only one part of the broader consultation effort. The minister has also invited all interested Canadians to read the report, look at its recommendations and submit their comments in writing. All opinions and comments will be taken into account in the development of new legislation.

Initially the minister intended to conduct five days of consultation. That number more than doubled to accommodate requests from a variety of groups, allowing for even more voices to be heard on more issues. The fact that the minister extended the consultation days is a clear indication that the minister is listening.

It is the government's desire to develop legislation that will reflect the needs of Canadian society and prepare Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the 21st century while keeping in place Canadian values.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, family reunification has been and continues to be very important for this government. There are no limits. It is strictly on demand. There is not a cap nor is there a quota on family reunification in this country. There was none before, there is none now and there will likely be none.

The report of the advisory committee to the minister is not a government report. The minister has said that she has concerns with aspects of that report. There are also interesting and useful aspects of that report. If the hon. member wants to participate in that discussion it is important that he does so at this time. It is important when the decisions are made that they be the right decisions for Canadians and for immigrants.

With respect to the issue of fees, as we are all aware, certain fees are associated with obtaining permanent residency in this country. The government recognizes that some individuals, specifically refugees, may have some difficulty in paying these fees. That is why a loan program is in place to offer financial assistance to these individuals.

I do not understand my hon. colleague's concern about this program or his implication that it does not work. In every respect it has been a major success story. First, there is no evidence to suggest people are being unfairly penalized by our fees. The loan program ensures money is available to individuals in genuine need. In fact, 95% of the beneficiaries of loans are refugees. Second, we are not simply giving this money to people. It is a loan. I am pleased to inform the House that over 92% of the loans have been paid back. Repayments to this revolving fund in 1996-97 totalled $10.2 million.

This not only demonstrates the government's commitment to helping immigrants and refugees enter Canada, it also speaks well of the integrity of newcomers who are coming to our country to start new lives.

[Immigration, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all this is the first time that a minister has gone out to consult on recommendations. This is not a government report nor is it government policy.

I have talked to the minister during the last 10 days. She is still holding consultations.

There are very good recommendations in the report, but there are sections which the minister herself has said publicly many times this past week that she has some very serious concerns with. She has expressed those views publicly and very clearly. There are sections in the report which also have some good recommendations. The report will be studied by the minister. She is consulting. It is a very good omen for this country.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's comments. It is important that the legislative review committee task force has done a great deal of work.

The minister has made it quite clear that she wants to consult with Canadians with respect to the recommendations and to hear back from Canadians as to the kind of direction the legislation will take. The hon. member is also welcome with his colleagues, as is every member in this House, to submit proposals, to react to the report as well. I am sure members of the committee will also be looking at this report.

It is premature at this point given that this report has only just been tabled and the minister will be starting on her consultations very shortly to immediately start talking about adopting one part or the other of the report. The report deals with a holistic approach in all parts of the act. It deals with the Immigration Act, the Refugee Act as well as the Citizenship Act.

One of the things the auditor general said very clearly was that we not take a piecemeal approach to changing the act or changing the immigration system but to look at a holistic way in dealing with it in all its parts.

When we deal with the Immigration and Refugee Board and its work and how its work in future will evolve, we are also looking at issues such as appeals, removals and so on. These are all very important issues that will be discussed. I am sure the hon. member will be participating and hopefully will be giving, with his party, his views on the rest of the report in addition to this one part.

[Divorce Act, December 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-218 which would amend the Divorce Act to require spouses to attend marriage counselling before divorce can be granted. It would provide that prior to granting a divorce the court must satisfy itself that the spouses in the proceedings have been advised by a prescribed marriage counsellor with a view to assist them to achieve a reconciliation.

I will examine more closely the intent and effect of this proposed bill. There is a lot of concern expressed these days about the institution of marriage and the rising divorce rate. There is no doubt that rapid social change in recent decades has had an impact on family life. The Vanier Institute has reported that the marriage rate has declined by 39% in Canada over the last 25 years. Statistics also indicate that in 1995 the overall divorce rate for Canada was 262 divorces per 100,000 population.

Parliamentarians must ask this important question. What should divorce law and procedure seek to do to respond to these new realities? As far as possible the law should support the institution of marriage and require divorcing couples to meet their responsibilities and obligations. Couples should be urged to consider carefully the consequences and implications of ending their marriage. However, there must be mechanisms to enable people who are unhappily married to reorganize their legal obligations when the marriage breaks down.

Some very basic questions must be asked about this bill. The first is whether mandatory marriage counselling is something the Government of Canada should be imposing on all couples who file for divorce. There are some implications associated with mandatory legal requirements. There is a danger these requirements can become a real barrier to access to the legal system. Reconciliation counselling is to be a requirement imposed on everyone.

I believe there is a corresponding obligation to have counselling services and programs in place at the local level to operationalize this provision. This would be a very costly obligation that would require the support and co-operation of all the provinces and territories to ensure that affordable services would be available nationally.

I am sure that many people agree marriage counselling can be a good thing. It enables couples to work together to understand and preserve their relationship. It can help couples to look at their problems and to explore whether and how these problems can be resolved. For some couples marriage counselling may be useful.

However, like most types of counselling, its usefulness will be directly related to the willingness of the parties involved to participate in the process. To be successful both parties have to enter the counselling in good faith. I am not aware of any research that proves the effectiveness of counselling services in the reduction of the divorce rate.

Practically I must seriously question how many divorces will be prevented by forcing parties to counselling after one or both of them has taken the serious step of deciding to commence the divorce process. It is important to note there are already references to reconciliation in the Divorce Act. Section 9(1) imposes specific duties on every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of a spouse in a divorce proceeding. These duties include drawing to the attention of their clients the provisions of the act that have as their object the reconciliation of spouses. They must discuss with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and they must inform their clients about marriage counselling or guidance facilities that may be able to assist them in achieving a reconciliation.

This is a duty imposed on all legal advisers, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so. In other words, couples who go to a lawyer to get a divorce are already made aware of reconciliation counselling and urged to make use of it.

Mandatory marriage counselling to reconcile couples who already have decided to divorce is not the right approach. It is also not the only approach available. In my view, the key concern of the government and the law should be to assist the children. Everyone would agree that by far the most serious impact of divorce is the effect it has on children. Research suggests that it is not the divorce itself which results in the negative consequences to the children but rather the parental conflict, the bitterness and hostility of the parents which negatively impacts on children's lives.

I suggest that the better approach would be to realistically acknowledge that couples should be allowed to end the relationship if they reach the point where it is not sensible to continue. Rather than imposing marriage reconciliation attempts, the government's focus should be on supporting parenting education programs. These courses focus on providing information about how children are affected by divorce in order to assist divorcing parents to develop appropriate post-divorce parenting arrangements for their children.

I understand that there are many parenting educational programs already available. The seminars include material about the effects of separation and divorce on parents and children. The emphasis is on explaining the impact of parents' behaviour on children at that very vulnerable point in their lives.

General legal information is also provided, information about dispute resolution alternatives, parenting and scheduling options. Also, information is available about the financial responsibilities of both parents and about how to calculate child support.

These courses are currently being financially supported by the federal government through the recent child support initiative.

The reports are that they appear to be very successful. Participants consistently give the programs high ratings on evaluation. Family law lawyers, mediators and family counsellors report that parents appear to be more conciliatory after taking part in the course.

There are things that can be done to address the concerns that Canadians have about divorce. However, I do not believe that Bill C-218 is one of them.

[Immigration, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the auditor general's report. In fact, the auditor general's views and recommendations fit very well with what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is already doing. The minister has appointed a task force to do a complete legislative review to deal with the process and to enhance our system.

The auditor general has also said very clearly that he did not want to see a patchwork situation because it is a complex issue. Some of the recommendations that the auditor general made are already being implemented by the department.

[Immigration, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a loans program which is very effective. In fact, it helps at least 95% of refugees and people come to this country. We also have a very high payback, 92%. It is a program that works very well for refugees and immigrants coming into this country. It is very effective.

[Immigration, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that the loan program for immigrants and refugees is a mechanism to assist those in need of financial assistance to cover the costs of certain fees associated with entering Canada.

Second, 95% of beneficiaries are refugees in need of assistance. This program has been a major success story. In fact, I am pleased to inform the House that over 92% of the loans have been paid back.

This not only demonstrates this government's commitment to helping immigrants and refugees enter Canada, it also speaks well to the integrity of newcomers to our country.

[Immigration, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to be strongly committed to family reunification. I should point out that independent immigrants also bring families with them when they come into this country.

The other thing is that applications on families are on demand. We have no quota. However, the family reunification numbers have gone down primarily due to a change of classification with families as a definition over the last number of years.

A legislative review is taking place. The report will be tabled at the end of December. Perhaps the hon. member and other members of the House would like to participate in discussing how we might define family reunification in the future.

[Violence, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, from October 19 to October 25 the YWCA of/du Canada is holding the second annual YWCA Week Without Violence.

This important international initiative is being held in 17 countries and recognizes the devastating economic, social and health consequences violence produces.

Consider these statistics. More than 100 women are victims of domestic homicide every year by an actual or former husband or common law partner. Approximately one-half of women 16 and over have been victims of violence as defined by the Canadian Criminal Code. The great majority of personal crimes committed against women are not reported to the police. Sixty per cent of women in Canada are afraid to walk alone in their neighbourhoods after dark. Boys who have witnessed violence against their mothers eventually tend to be more violent toward their spouses. Violence costs the Canadian economy approximately $4 billion every year.

This year 36 YWCAs and YMCAs across Canada are working to find solutions to violence. I am proud to offer my support to the YWCA—