Debates of Oct. 3rd, 1996

Official Languages

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report on official languages in federal institutions.

An Act To Implement The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Minister for International Trade]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

An Act Respecting Fisheries

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great honour today to bring forth to this House a petition with the signatures of over 20,000 Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an international convention banning these activities; to substantially increase Canadian contributions to the UN fund for assistance in mine clearance for indigenous and other humanitarian mine clearing initiatives; and to increase Canadian funding and other types of assistance to rehabilitate mine victims.

It gives me great honour to introduce this petition today.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition from places like Prescott, Oxford Mills, Kemptville and Brockville, Ontario in my riding.

The petitioners are concerned about the unborn and the rights of the unborn. They would like to see legal protection for children both before and after birth.

The petitioners go further and ask for a national referendum to be held in conjunction with the next federal election to ask the people of Canada if they think that we should be spending our scarce health dollars these days to promote abortion on demand. The petitioners believe that legally and morally it should not be allowed and that funding for it should be very limited.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 1, 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.

Divorce Act

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, the House will recall that on Tuesday when I spoke last on this bill I only had two minutes to speak on it. I am pleased to have a few more minutes to intervene and to add some considerations to my colleagues' interventions who will be voting on this bill.

Bill C-41 is an act to amend four other long acts. The intent of the bill is to strengthen the provisions and terms under which people who are responsible to pay child support are enforced and dealt with. There are four main provisions of this bill. I will speak to each one and outline how sufficient the legislation is in dealing with each of these areas.

The four main provisions are: to have a grid or some legislated guidelines for child support amounts; to open up Revenue Canada databases so that defaulting parents can be located; to allow for the garnishment of public service pension benefits and seamen's wages; and to mandate or allow for the withdrawal of federal licences. The term federal licence is defined in such a way as to include passports. There are other provisions in the bill but those are the four main areas in which the government is attempting to tighten up the whole area of child support and the enforcement of maintenance payments in support of children.

When we deal with issues relating to children and issues relating to family breakdowns, the allocation of responsibilities and the onus that is being placed on parents in a divided family situation, very strong feelings come forward. This is not at all surprising. Our families, our children and our own personal emotional difficulties, hurts and disappointments that necessitate the kind of legislation we are dealing with today call for some very strong feelings and emotions.

I know other members, like myself, have had calls from very concerned and upset custodial parents, mostly women, who are beside themselves that the father of their child, who is no longer part of the marriage picture, chooses to be derelict in his duty and responsibility to assist the mother as the custodial person. They find it very difficult to understand why a simple court order allowing them to provide the necessities for their children cannot be better enforced. They are demanding that there be a better enforcement mechanism. It is in response to those kinds of demands that this legislation has been brought forward and was needed to be brought forward.

It is also fair to point out that there have been calls from many parents who are paying child support, who are mostly men. They have been very concerned about the one-sidedness of this kind of legislation where only the monetary responsibilities they have been given are enforced, dealt with and seem to be important. The other rights and responsibilities they have as parents seem to be ignored and violated without any corresponding concern on the part of government and legislators.

One of the things we need to look at is whether the balance and thrust of this legislation, while it is necessary and clearly to the benefit of ensuring proper support for children, is as it ought to be.

There is a tendency sometimes in the debate on enforcement of child support, to talk about deadbeat parents, parents who abdicate, ignore and renege on their responsibilities to the children they have brought into this world and seem to have no care or concern as to whether these children have proper income so that they can be fed, clothed, educated and raised properly. There seems to be some concern about putting the emphasis on money and treating fathers, as one gentleman said to me, like a wallet, but ignoring other parental responsibilities and prerogatives.

I happened to pick up a copy of Psychology Today this summer. I read an interesting article about violence against women. In that same magazine was an interesting article about the roles of fathers in the lives of their children. The article cited studies that showed a father has a very complex role in the emotional and intellectual growth of his child. Although a father may interact with his child in more physical and less intimate way than a mother, he has a key impact on his child's development. The article also stated that a father with emotional problems will have a more dire effect on his child than a mother with similar problems.

This is only one article that looked at studies. There are many others that state it is very important for children that fathers continue to have a role in their lives. Many fathers are asking that their responsibility for support be looked at. They would also like ongoing access to their children to be part of the equation. That is not the case in this legislation.

Other speakers have raised the concern that if we are going to deal with the matter of ensuring the well-being of children, we should include in their need for monetary support their need for emotional and intellectual support in ongoing relationships and training.

I recommend that the government seriously consider this whole area. When it brings in legislation to deal with the well-being of children it should look at other aspects of their well-being, other needs. It should not suggest by the way it frames legislation that as long as money is coming to the custodial parent that is satisfactory. That is not the only thing needed to be looked at in relation to the best interests of children.

One of the main provisions in this legislation is that a grid or guidelines for the amount of child support payable will be put into place. According to some of the information that has been put forward by government, these guidelines were drawn up after a

broad consultation with people who were familiar with the area of child maintenance and child support, and I think that is good.

We can accept that the amounts on the grid and the guidelines represent a reasonable and honest effort to put in place amounts based on the income and circumstances of the parties. Generally speaking, that will be fair.

My concern is with what this legislation does not deal with. A one size fits all award of maintenance is not practical when one considers the wide variety of circumstances and employment realities that are factored into calculations of the need, the reasonableness and the propriety of a particular monetary award for child support.

There is concern that the discretion of the courts, which have many judges-most judges have a great deal of experience and background in calculating these awards for support-will be taken away in favour of a rigid one size fits all system. There must be more thought and debate before this happens.

There is a great deal of concern about rigid awards, particularly where circumstances change quickly and often. Parents who are paying child support simply cannot come back to court on a regular basis every time their circumstances shift. In this economy, for example, many people are under-employed. Many people are unemployed. Many people are concerned about job loss. Many people are self-employed on a consulting basis and have irregular income. These hard and fast awards, guidelines and grids, are not properly reflective of the economic realities of the citizens. They create hardship and frustration for the people who must adhere to them. I would ask the government to reconsider the rigidity of the rules which it is trying to implement.

Certain areas in the legislation provide for a variation of the awards handed down under the grid, however, the provision for a variation or for taking into account unusual or different circumstances is too narrow to be of much assistance to most parents who are paying child support.

Second, the legislation will allow Revenue Canada databases to be opened in order to locate parents who default on their child support payments. Most Canadians believe that parents have a strong obligation to their children. Children need to know that their needs are going to be met by both parents on an ongoing basis. That is a very important consideration for them.

Parents have the primary responsibility for the care and support of their children. This burden should not be placed on other members of society simply because parents decide to be irresponsible.

Any measures which will ensure that parents carry out their obligations should be applauded. However, we must ensure that the opening up of Revenue Canada databases does not unfairly or inappropriately breach the privacy rights of the parent who is under a maintenance order.

Substantial concerns have been raised about whether access to private financial information will be fairly administered. Will the databases be opened up when there are substantial arrears or when there is simply an allegation of arrears? Will private information, which is not necessary to locate the defaulting parent, be given to other parties? We need to look very closely at the issue of fairness. There can be a number of circumstances involved in a default situation. Perhaps a default has been alleged but has not taken place. The rights and privacy of all parties concerned need to be protected.

Sometimes there is a tendency to hammer everyone involved and, in doing so, violate the rights of everyone, rather than the minority who are at fault. Most parents who are under an agreement or a court order to support their children do so. They do so gladly, regularly and in a responsible manner. We have to be careful to ensure that the majority of parents are not unfairly treated simply to get at the minority. Caution must be taken because a lot of lives and rights will be affected. Third, the provisions being brought forward for the garnishment of public service pension benefits and a broader ability to ensure that every parent who is obligated to pay child support actually does pay are good. Again, we need to be careful of the fairness factor. Unfortunately, the regulations that will show how these measures will be implemented are absent. They will be introduced later. They will not be debated. They will simply be put into place.

We have a real responsibility to the people who are going to be affected by the legislation. It is important that their human rights and freedoms are not unduly impinged upon because of the way this legislation is constructed. The same principle holds true when we are withdrawing rights of citizens such as drivers' licences and passports.

It is fair to say that the sentiment behind this legislation is good, however, it is not as balanced as it needs to be. There are a lot of unanswered questions about how it will actually be administered at the end of the day.

On behalf of citizens who will be very seriously affected by this legislation, I would ask for a re-examination of it to see whether it can be better balanced and whether more fairness and certainty can be assured when it is finally implemented.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary North on this very critical piece of legislation concerning families, especially children.

In light of some of the legislation that has been passed, particularly in California, Florida and Washington state, among others, which reflects those governments' policies of encouraging parenting by both parents after divorce, I wonder if my colleague could give us her views on what steps she might feel the government could take to encourage and develop that type of legislation and that thinking in Canada.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, when we have legislation of this type, it should not just address one injustice, one problem or one difficulty that relates to the well-being of our children. It should be balanced and talk about the other needs of children as well.

A measure that could bring a greater involvement into children's lives by their father, which many studies show is vital to their well-being, would be addressing this whole matter of access.

As my colleagues are aware, orders relating to children in separation or divorce situations not only address monetary support for children but also the ongoing involvement through access and other areas where fathers particularly, or the non-custodial parent, continue to have as strong and healthy a relationship with their children as possible.

I would suggest that, if legislation of this type were as strong on ensuring that parents' involvements and responsibilities were equally upheld and enforced, it would be to the very great benefit of children.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Calgary North. She always brings a different perspective to this question when we debate it in the House because of her experience in law. I think she may be able to help me on this particular issue. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the prospect of mediation before access and custody is even decided or settled, usually prior to divorce. It would then be agreed by both parents and hopefully on the needs for the child and the ability of the non-custodial spouse to pay. Hopefully that would make for a better and lasting settlement and would probably result in payments being made on a regular basis.

Would my colleague also comment on the program called parenting after divorce? It became mandatory in Alberta after February 1, and Alberta justice minister Brian Evans said that the program is intended to help children and also to save the courts time and money since our courts are already overburdened. The program was basically brought in to minimize the impact of divorce on children. Would my colleague comment on whether she feels mediation would help and if so, should it be in the bill?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, it certainly has been my experience in my practice of law and some of the work I did in the area of divorce that the divorce proceedings and process are unnecessarily adversarial, particularly when it has to be considered that a good relationship with both parents on a continuing basis is absolutely vital to the well-being of children.

If there is an adversarial situation where someone is the bad guy and somebody is the good guy, a very difficult situation has been set up for children. Very often they are put in the position of judging who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Whereas, their real needs and what is best for them would be to sorrowfully accept that parents have differences that are not going to allow them to live together, but that these are both people they be proud of, respect and have good relationship with.

I think moving more toward a mediated approach or mediated settlement of the issues in a divorce situation would be much healthier for the children.

My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam also mentioned the training which is being implemented in Alberta which assists both parents in the kind of training, education and skills building that would be necessary for both parents to continue to play a very positive and very necessary role in the lives of their children. I would certainly recommend that the government look at those kinds of measures to make the legislation more balanced.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I get into my remarks today on Bill C-41, I would like to take a moment or two to reflect on what happened in this place yesterday. I feel it is very relevant to everything we as individual members of Parliament endeavour to do in the House of Commons.

Yesterday we witnessed not only the breaking of a Liberal red book promise, but I believe the powerlessness of individual MPs was truly revealed. The Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign to give individual MPs, those in opposition as well as his own backbenchers, a greater say in the running of government. Yesterday showed how seriously he took this commitment to the Canadian people.

Yesterday the government brought in time allocation to cut off debate on Bill C-45, a bill which we should never have debated in the first place. This in itself is not surprising, because the Liberals have closed debate about 24 times in this 35th Parliament, despite their howls of protest to the Tories in the last Parliament when the Tories took similar parliamentary action.

In this place we should have been debating the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code as outlined in the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston, Bill C-234.

I believe it is obvious to all here and, more important, out in the real world just how hopeless it is for an individual MP to affect change in this place.

Canadians were and are demanding the repeal of section 745. A member responded by drafting and introducing a private member's bill in response. The majority of the members in the House of Commons supported it, sent it to the justice committee and it disappeared. Democracy. It is enough to make a grown man weep.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 which seeks to make some sense out of this country's system of child support payments. Here we have yet another example of the Liberal government's attempt at patchwork legislation. Canadians have been clamouring for change in how child support payments are determined and enforced. The Liberals pretend to be listening and respond with proposals that do not truly address the basic issues of child custody. While this bill does take some great strides in improving the enforcement of child support payments, or getting tough on so-called deadbeat dads, it entirely skips the issue of custody arrangements and mediation of disputes.

The federal government plans to involve itself in a strong arm approach to enforcement without looking at original access issues. This includes revoking or refusing to renew passports, the use of Revenue Canada's data banks in order to locate defaulting parents, the garnishment of public service pensions to pay child support as well as the wages of those working at sea.

This get tough attitude toward delinquent support payments is appropriate only after all circumstances surrounding the original custody arrangements have been thoroughly analysed and only after attempts at voluntary support have been exhausted.

This means that before taking such invasive measures it must be shown that the non-custodial parent is getting the entitled access to their children and that all other outstanding questions surrounding the custody arrangements have been resolved.

Automated steps to withhold someone's passport, crack open their private income tax information or garnish their wages are irresponsible if used without a thorough investigation of the individual case. This bill does not include proposals to do this.

There are two sides to every issue and while there is no doubt that children across this country are suffering because child support payments are going unpaid, Bill C-41 ignores that many children are also suffering because their right to see and enjoy the love of their non-custodial parent is being denied.

I join with most of the members of this House in getting tough with parents who do not meet support commitments, but let us not encourage the problem with unfair laws. There is a relationship between access to children and non-compliance in support payments. A non-custodial parent who sees his child more often is much more likely to make his payments. This bill does not even touch on this aspect. In many cases the denial of payment is rooted in the non-custodial parent's frustration at being denied access to their children.

According to a 1995 study by the U.S. bureau of statistics non-custodial parents with visitation and or joint custody were much more likely to pay support; 79 per cent of those with access paid support while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.

A May 1992 a study by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family found that almost 75 per cent of non-custodial parents reported problems in visiting their children. This shows that access and visitation rights in Canada are not working and this results in many problems, including non-compliance in child support.

On March 20 of this year I introduced a private member's bill in the House that would also amend the Divorce Act so that joint custody would be automatic. Right now custody automatically goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. Bill C-242 says it should be the reverse. Kids need the love and security of both parents. Joint custody should be automatic except in cases of abuse, neglect or where it is not in the child's best interests.

We would no doubt see the number of delinquent support payments drop significantly once joint custody eliminated many of the access disputes that lead to non-payment in the first place. In many cases non-payment boils down to an issue of guaranteed access to both parents, not dollars and cents.

In 1992 Canadian courts awarded joint custody only 16 per cent of the time. Sole custody is awarded to mothers approximately 72 per cent of the time and to fathers in only 12 per cent of divorces.

This brings about another point to consider when looking at the non-payment of child support. How much potential child support money has been tied up or wasted in fighting over access rights in the courts? The separation and divorce industry drains parents of thousands of dollars. With automatic joint custody legislation that is money that could go to the children instead. It can be difficult for a parent to pay child support while they are doling out $10,000 in legal fees just to see their child.

If the custodial parent moves a child to another province or country, the non-custodial parent is suddenly left with no opportunity to see their child or faces great travel expenses to do so. Making certain that non-custodial parents are accountable for continued financial support even when they have chosen to move to a different provinces is a common goal of the courts and all levels of government. When it comes to ensuring that non-custodial

parents have reasonable access to their children, the governments and courts are strangely silent. This is a double standard.

In my riding of Prince George-Peace River in British Columbia and in other northern areas a divorce can often result in the custodial parent moving with the children to the lower mainland, severely limiting access for the non-custodial parent. It is little wonder that some parents withhold support payments in protest.

Under Bill C-41 the fact that the parent's right to access was arbitrarily taken away would not be considered and the federal government would simply start proceedings to enforce payment.

This would overlook even a supreme court ruling in May of this year concerning a Saskatchewan mother who choose to move with her daughter to Australia against the wishes of her ex-husband. The supreme court's decision took into account the effect of a custodial parent's geographic move on the access rights of the former spouse.

Did the Liberals consider this when they attempted to address the issue of child support payments? I do not believe so. The Liberals have spent a good part of their mandate reviewing child custody and taxation issues, yet they still did not get it right. The finance minister has said that the first obligation of a parent is financial. I could not disagree more. Yes, children need financial security, certainly, but the emotional security of access to both parents cannot be overlooked. Until such time as the federal government is willing to take a look at the entire issue of child custody, the complete picture, it is not qualified to proceed with enforcement.

At the very least in the absence of legislating automatic joint custody the federal government should be encouraging the provinces to be more vigilant in enforcing access problems before they agree to help with the enforcement of child support payments.

The Canadian Council for Co-Parenting, a custody and access support group for divorcing couples, agrees that the deadbeat scenario is not that simple. On its position paper on custody access and child support the CCC claims that many loving parents are deparented by a legal system content with the win-lose approach. It says that many non-custodial parents withdraw disgusted, dismayed and angered by the inequities and imbalance of many court decisions.

The justice minister should be familiar with the Canadian Council for Co-Parenting. The CCC has formally stated its dissatisfaction with Bill C-41. I will quote from a letter which the CCC sent to the justice minister. These are words which is he obviously ignoring: "Our position on Bill C-41 guidelines released in June of 1996 is that they must be reworked. They are seriously flawed in their omission of shared parenting principles of treating both parents fairly. No loving parent, male or female, in a time of great turmoil or anger should be ostracized from the lives of their children for no good reason. C-41 aggravates and enhances the current inhumane imbalances in family law". Of course the CCC is just one of many organizations and individuals concerned with the ramifications of Bill C-41.

Another issue that this bill neglects involves spending accountability by the custodial parent. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that some custodial parents are not using child support payments to properly feed or clothe the child. That parent may be receiving substantial amounts of money from the non-custodial parent but they are not required to account for how the funds are spent. There is no mechanism in place that ensures the child support is used for example to buy a winter coat for a child instead of being spent by the custodial parent on alcohol, cigarettes or whatever.

I want to be perfectly clear that I am not saying this is a prevalent occurrence. However, before the federal government begins vigorous enforcement actions, it must recognize that non-payment of child support may be due to the non-custodial parent's awareness that their child is not the one benefiting from those support payments.

Once again there are many ambiguous questions surrounding child custody cases. A responsible enforcer must first scratch beneath the surface, investigate and then take action based upon complete knowledge of all the pertinent facts.

I would like to further clarify my position on child custody laws. It is not my intent or desire to take sides on this issue. I am neither an advocate for the mothers or the fathers. I am not siding with custodial parents or non-custodial parents. My goal for introducing Bill C-242 and opposing Bill C-41 as it is currently drafted is twofold.

First, the law should be administered as fairly as possible, treating both parents equally. When married and the relationship is intact, it is assumed that both people are good parents. Why assume otherwise just because they are divorced?

Second and most important, I believe in supporting the children. When a relationship ends, they are the innocent victims. I believe very strongly that their emotional and psychological welfare is best supported by maintaining physical contact with both parents and there are studies that bear this out. In other words, I am an advocate for the kids.

If we remove the issue of who will have sole custody from the equation, parents will obviously no longer be able to use custody as a bargaining chip. Fathers would not be able to threaten to seek sole custody unless the mother agrees to unreasonably low maintenance. Mothers likewise would be prevented from holding restricted access over the father's head to obtain a better divorce

settlement. If both parents knew ahead of time with reasonable certainty that custody would be awarded jointly and therefore was not going to be an issue, there would be one less issue to fight about.

As a loving parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than being prevented from seeing my kids. The mere thought of not having access to them on a continual basis provokes angry, protective emotions.

When a marriage ends it is natural for the spouses to blame each other, to have lost respect for each other as a spouse, a lover and a friend. However, if the separating couple can be assisted and encouraged to still respect each other as loving and caring parents, it will provide as positive an environment as possible for the children.

The awarding of joint custody in the vast majority of cases will nurture this respect for each other as parents and will remove the greatest fear every parent faces: the loss of a child. It will also reduce the chances of partners remaining in a potentially abusive relationship because they know that if they walk out without the children, it will be currently held against them at the custody hearing.

Bill C-41 is an inadequate piece of legislation. It is inadequate because it does not responsibly and fairly address child custody laws in their entirety. This is yet another example of quick fix legislation. The government knows there are problems with the child support system and that Canadians are demanding change. However, instead of looking for the root of the problem, the government is proposing superficial and brash changes which it believes will appease voters in the next election.

In its current form Bill C-41 will bring little satisfaction to anyone. It will only result in further emotional suffering for the children who are caught up in these tragic child custody laws.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, before the Liberal government became involved in the issue of child support payments, the system was that the payer deducted the amount of child support payments and the recipient paid the tax on it. The logic for that was that usually the person who received the child support payments was in a lower income bracket and consequently would be taxed less and would therefore have more money available. Also, the person who was making the payments would be more willing to give the maximum because the payments would be deductible.

The justice minister has changed that system and now child support is non-deductible and non-taxable. The non-deductibility aspect of child support payments will mean that the government will receive an additional $300 million in revenue. The government claims it will put the money into some form of child support subsidy or child care benefit for the Canadian public. We will have to wait and see.

My concern is, with the government having made these changes, eliminating deductibility will encourage those people who have to pay to give less. Ultimately the children will suffer. They will receive less in benefits because less money will be given to them.

I recognize that my colleague does not wish to pick sides on the issue between mother and father, but let us pick on the government a bit. Let us see if in its wisdom the government has actually done a great service or whether it has made it worse with its half measures and tinkering.

I wonder if my colleague has a comment on the effect of the impact of what appears to be another tax grab by the government to generate $300 million in revenue at the expense of children.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre.

He is quite right. I do not see the logic behind the changes which the government has made. I recognize there is a problem in the area of taxation of child support and the government moved on that. The reality is that the children will be poorer for it. As he correctly pointed out, the money will now flow into government coffers rather than staying in the hands of the children.

While I recognize that Bill C-41 is moving toward setting some base rates for child support so that we will not see it diminish in cases of real need, I believe that the changes which have been made by the government have actually created more of an adversarial approach. That is unfortunate because there is already enough adversary surrounding divorce. It is one of the reasons in many cases that these things drag on for so long. They get tied up in the courts and people get more and more angry with the whole process.

I believe quite strongly that we have to move toward more mediation in these matters. The issue of who would get the tax credit could be decided between the parents and in the best interests of the children. As I said earlier, I am involved in this issue because I feel very strongly in being an advocate for the children, which is why I am speaking against this legislation.

I will quote an expert in the field, Professor Ross Finnie of Carleton University School of Public Administration, on Bill C-41. He calls for Bill C-41 to be revisited by the justice department. He is not a Reformer criticizing the government. I heard an hon. colleague from the other side say a minute ago that nothing is new in that we should be criticizing the government. Part of our role is to criticize the government when we see there are things wrong with what it brings forward. In this case it is not a Reformer making this observation but an acknowledged expert in the field.

In his review, "Good Idea, Bad Execution: The Government's Child Support Package", Professor Finnie comments: "In short, the basic unfairness incorporated in the current guideline proposals might undermine the basic goal of the whole guideline exercise". He argues that overall the package is likely to worsen the child support situation in Canada.

This is an expert in the field making his comments on Bill C-41. It is important to remember that it is not just a few Reformers, people like myself and my colleagues, who are being critical of the government; there are also people with a lot of background knowledge who are calling into question this legislation.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in my place today to support Bill C-41 which amends various existing legislation to ensure that child support reforms become law.

I am proud to do so because the Department of the Status of Women Canada and my predecessor, the hon. member for Mount Royal, played a major role in bringing this legislation to the fore. The hon. member did so by going around this country with a three person task force to meet with women, with custodial and non-custodial parents and the public in general. They listened to some of the problems and ideas that came from women, men and children with regard to child support. As a result, some of this legislation was brought into the fore.

This was also brought about by working with the Law Reform Commission of Canada which again has the body of expertise that can understand and deal with the law. The family law committee of federal, provincial and territorial representatives brought understanding and expertise on what happens when people divorce, on what happens to the child.

This piece of legislation speaks clearly to and in support of one person in this problem: the child. It speaks to one group of people who have had no one to advocate for them very strongly. This government has decided that we will advocate for the child.

Above all, this reform is a tribute to the hundreds of people across Canada who contributed to the dialogue. We heard from men and women, advocates for children, for mothers and fathers. We heard from accountants, lawyers and social service providers to name only a few.

The result before us is a law that will create a system of child support that is fair, equitable and beneficial to all Canadians. But above all, this legislation represents a balanced approach that is fair for children. It puts children first.

If I could summarize this bill in one phrase, it would be that child support is not a discretionary payment. Both parents must assume responsibility for their children, whether they live together or not. This is a duty, a responsibility. It is not something that a non-custodial parent can choose to ignore because the non-custodial parent has suddenly assumed a new life and wants to undertake a new lifestyle. The child is a responsibility of both parents.

We have seen clearly that children live in the same socioeconomic status of the custodial parent. I am using the term custodial parent, but we know that the majority of custodial parents in the country are women and that the majority of single women with children are living in poverty. These children must be supported first and foremost by both parents. They must, if possible, be assisted in support by the state wherever it can be done. This is where the working income supplement will apply.

When families break up it is generally the children who suffer. As a physician who has spent 25 years in practice, I can say that children suffer greatly. Many children of divorce who live with the mother do not have the same access to post-secondary education that other children have. We know many of these children are living pretty close to the poverty line. They are a shared responsibility. It is the right of the child to be financially supported by both parents.

We would then create a system where families would still be united. But there are divorced parents and the children, therefore, live in different status purely because they happen through no fault of their own to be living in a divorced situation. Children should not have to bear the brunt of that. There should not be two classes of children in this country.

The government applied gender based analyses to these reforms to ensure that neither women nor men are unfairly disadvantaged by the legislation. We have ensured that the outcome of the changes are fair and equitable to both men and women.

The child support strategy rests on four very important pillars. One is the tax treatment of support payments for children. I want to stress the tax treatment of support payments for children, not of spousal support. We are talking only of child support. We have set up guidelines that will make it clear across the country that we are no longer going to have to depend on the discretion of lawyers, judges or courts. It will be a fair system of guidelines, based on the income of the non-custodial parent. It takes into consideration whether the non-custodial parent can afford to pay or not. It also makes very clear that afford to pay does not mean that child support for a non-custodial parent comes after the car, the holidays and the investments, but that child support is considered as one of the first and foremost duties of the non-custodial parent and not as a second thought.

These guidelines are clear, equitable and they will be the same no matter where those people pay live in this country. It takes into consideration the cost of living, the standard of living and the tax treatments of each province. Different provinces will have clear guidelines for what the non-custodial parent must pay, based on the number of children, as a percentage of the income of the non-custodial parent.

The third pillar on which this rests is enforcement of child support guidelines and child support, period. We know that many children do not get child support. This is a major problem. I do not think hon. members across in the third party would disagree that enforcement is extremely important.

The fourth pillar is the working income supplement. This is the so-called tax grab that the hon. member just spoke about. We know that by changing the tax treatment of child support the federal government will receive a windfall of money. That money is not going back into federal government coffers. After $50 million of that money has been taken to set up the data bases and to assist provinces to get this going, the rest will go into a working income supplement which will assist 700,000 children.

As a state we need to ensure that our children are clearly supported and that our children are treated equally whether their parents can afford to or not. Children are the future of this country.

The first pillar of change is the way in which the child support system is taxed. This system has been place for 54 years. It has become outdated. It was an inequitable system which said parents who live together and who are bringing up a family do not get to tax deduct the money they spend on their children, but if they become divorced all of a sudden their child because a tax deductible expense. This did not make any sense at all because it was creating an uneven playing field.

It was saying that if you were divorced it was better for you to be able to support your child because you got the tax deduction. If you live together as a family you were in fact being discriminated against in terms of caring for your children because caring for your children is not a tax deductible expense. It is not an expense of business. It is not a discretionary expense. It is a duty and a responsibility for parents.

Under the new system the full amount of the support payments can be used to care for the child so that when a custodial parent is given a sum of money that custodial parent knows that all of that money is going to the child and that some of it does not have to go back to Revenue Canada so that the child only gets part of the money.

Child support payment under a written agreement or court order made on after May 1 will therefore not be deductible to the payer or included in the income of the recipient for tax purposes. This has finally given us an equitable system and not a system that is based on the fact that if the custodial parent can afford a good lawyer, then the custodial parent gets a better amount of money for the child.

We know that many custodial parents did have the money and it really rested on who could afford the better lawyer. This has been taken away now. The system is going to be fair and equitable and that is the second component of the pillars of this legislation. The guidelines are clearly set and clearly written down so that there is no more trying to see who could argue their way out of the paper bag that we have had in the past in terms of how child support has been accepted.

The tax rules, however, will not automatically apply to existing orders. Governments cannot unilaterally change support agreements between parents negotiated on the basis of another set of rules. This is not going to be grandfathered. We know that if parents are not happy with the way their child support has been structured they can go back and seek to change it and bring it under the new rules if they work together to do that and if they work together in the best interests of the child.

Implementation of the new rules will not take effect until the spring for two very important reasons. First, we expect there will be a large increase in applications to change existing orders to conform to the new child support rules because in many cases much of the child support that is today given is not being enforced and is not enough. It would cause chaos if the federal government did not have the provinces to establish a more efficient way to deal with the sudden influx of support orders.

For that reason we have established a $50 million fund that will be used in partnership with the provincial government to develop, pilot and implement efficient and cost-effective mechanisms to help parents obtain, vary and update their awards.

The second reason for leaving the implementation until May 1997 brings me to the second pillar of child support. The implementation date allows us time to enact federal child support guidelines. These guidelines are going to make the system equitable.

If I could sum up this bill in one phrase it would be that child support is the single most important thing that we can do for our children tomorrow. This legislation introduces a number of measures that the provinces and the territories can draw on in partnership with the federal government to enforce support payments.

Federal pensions can be diverted so that we can garnishee from a federal employee who is not paying child support. We can garnishee out of that federal employee packages, whether it be pension funds or some sort of benefit funds, in order to ensure the child gets the support.

Revenue Canada's data base will now be used for the federal information network so that we can track defaulters. In other words, they can move from province to province and they can run but they cannot hide.

Passports and even certain federal licences can be suspended if a debtor is in persistent arrears. We will develop finally a standardized data base across this country so that there will be compliance with the support orders in Canada.

This will help both levels of government to design more effective mechanisms for support enforcement. In addition, the legislation provides for measures to help the provinces streamline the collection of out of province orders. In these ways the federal government will help the provinces to pursue what is really their jurisdiction which is to support enforcement programs.

Although it is not covered in this legislation it will be noted that the fourth pillar of our child support strategy is the doubling of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit. This is the tax grab the hon. member across spoke about and conveniently ignored, that the money is to be going over the next five years, half a billion dollars, to support approximately 700,000 low income working families. About one-third of these families are single parents. These single parent families are predominantly led by women and they predominantly live in poverty.

We as a government are making a very strong statement. We are saying that we as Canadians, all of us, whether we have children or not, whether we are living together with our children or not, owe it to all Canadian children to prepare them for the future, to prepare them for tomorrow, to give them equal opportunity so they can realize their fullest potential, so we do not continue to foster two sets of levels of children, those who have and those who do not have and who will be the people we look to carry this country forward in the next century. If we do not give them the tools and the skills, if we do not give all our children the opportunity and value our children, we are not truly looking to our future for tomorrow.

The four pillars in our child support strategy reinforce one another. These changes have long been overdue. The government has studied these issues carefully and we have worked closely with all the stakeholders, not only the public but accountants, men and women, and lawyers to talk about this issue and to find the right answers. This is not a thrown together piece of legislation, as hon. members across the floor would have us believe. This was discussed in public hearings. I do not know if the hon. members even went to the public hearings or even listened to some of the information we heard from men and women who spoke on behalf of the children of this country.

More important, our children deserve the right to be treated fairly. They deserve the right not to have to be forced to live with

the consequences of what their parents have done and with the power struggles between parents as we have seen in the past. Our children deserve to be given every opportunity. This bill does exactly that for all our children.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to summarize this bill in one word for the hon. parliamentary secretary who spoke with such glowing words. It is a mistake.

It is a mistake in a lot of ways. There were some misconceptions within her statements that I would like to clarify. The parliamentary secretary is concerned about child support and how children are important and I agree 150 per cent. However, the way the government is going about will hurt the children more than help them.

In that tax grab that we talk about, which she has now identified, in the neighbourhood of $.5 billion, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of that goes, as she admitted herself, into overhead, into a federal bureaucracy, into a federal administration. She said initially it will take $50 million of that. That is not helping children. That is creating jobs in government. That is what it is doing. It is hurting the children, at the expense of children.

The parliamentary secretary talks about how the person who pays used it as a tax deduction and a person might as well get a divorce because they got a tax deduction if they have children. The adjudicator determined between the couple divorcing in the case of children the amount of money paid based on need and ability to pay and an amount was set. Yes, it was deductible and taxable. What that really is, if the parliamentary secretary considers this for a moment, is if the amount is $10,000 and the individual makes $50,000 to $60,000 in income, it is a deferral of $10,000 of income to the person who is looking after the children.

The principle of taxation is that we tax income. That deferral from the $50,000, $60,000, $25,000 or $100,000 is a deferral to the custodial parent. That parent paid the tax. Do you know what? In that system, that is a tight system. There is no leakage there. There is no government bureaucracy taking 30 or 40 per cent of that money. All the money is going to the children. The taxes paid on that are paid at a lower rate.

I submit that the single biggest mistake in this bill is doing away with deductibility and taxability of child support. Arbitrarily setting amounts across the country no matter where a person lives-this is the amount-is a good principle. It should be applied to UI as well.

Why should somebody in Alberta paying $1 get 75 cents in benefits and somebody in Newfoundland paying $1 getting $3.75

in benefits? If the parliamentary secretary would apply that same principle to UI, then the government might be making some sense.

This bill is a mistake. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people in a way that will just support more government bureaucracy. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people and say that government will now look after the children, not the parents. Government is taking money away from the parents' ability to look after the children.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's question to be so absolutely typical of someone who does not really understand. He has never been there and does not even understand the reality of the lives of divorced families and of children of divorce.

This is the kind of statement that you would hear from an upper middle class male who does not have a clue. The hon. member talks about child support and that the adjudicator takes into consideration the real need and ability of the parent to pay. That is absolute rubbish.

Child support has, in the past, been dictated by who had the better lawyer. Invariably the custodial parent did not have the money to have the better lawyer and was at the wrong end of the stick. The point here is that it is the children who suffer.

The hon. member talked about income tax and child support. The interesting thing is that we get this kind of information coming across the floor because when you try to answer the question, you are not even given the courtesy of their listening to the answer. Misinformation continues to be fostered. They really do not want to hear the answer. The answer is that child support is not spousal support. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial parent. Child support is income in the hands of the child.

Parents who live together do not deduct the support for their child. They do not get to deduct it. Why should it be that we have this uneven system of parents who are not living together with their family get to deduct child support? Child support is not a discretionary thing. Child support is an absolute duty to the child.

I also heard the hon. member asking me about using 30 to 40 per cent of the half a million dollars in order to create a bureaucratic structure. I am not a mathematician. I certainly never claimed to be one. However, when I last looked 40 per cent of a half billion was not $15 million. This is grade 2 arithmetic we are talking about here. It is interesting that this kind of arithmetic comes out. Fifteen million dollars is not half of a half billion dollars. That is not 40 per cent of it.

One of the important things to remember is that if there is a system that is fair and equitable, that is going to be tracking people, you have to use the technology so the information is available across this country. That has been the major problem of enforcement. People leave provinces. They go to other provinces. No one can find them. They do not know where they are. If the defaulter cannot be tracked, support payments cannot be enforced.

It is a clear issue. We know that 43 per cent of non-custodial parents in the province of Ontario today do not pay a penny of child support. Of the remainder, only about 30 per cent of them manage to pay the full amount.

We are talking here about major default. We have to set into place the structures to help these children. Saying that this is a lot of rubbish actually means that the hon. member does not even understand the issue to start off with.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister with interest, especially in her response to the comments to the member for Calgary Centre.

What I heard the minister say was that the non-custodial parent had a duty to make payments but that the payments were not put in the hands of the custodial parent but in the hands of the children. That simply is not true. The custodial parent administers the payments that are made to those children.

The minister also said earlier in her speech that the non-custodial parent has a duty to make sure there was an enforcement of child support payments. I agree with that, but I would like to ask if she thinks there is also a duty, on behalf of the custodial parent, to spend that money on the children. We all know of cases where the money is not necessarily spent on those children. Is there not a duty for the custodial parent as well?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Maybe I did not make my point clearly enough. I did not say that the money for child support was not money put in the hands of the non-custodial parent. It was not directed to the custodial parent. It was directed to the child. Of course if the child is a minor then the custodial parent has a duty to use the money in the best interest of the child. This is different from spousal support which is not what we are talking about here. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial spouse and is tax deductible and should be. We are talking about two very different things here.

The hon. member asks whether it is the duty of the custodial parent to take the money for child support and spent it on the child. Yes, it is the duty.

Whatever stories or anecdotes we hear from the hon. member opposite to try to support his position that most custodial parents take that money and fritter it away on something for themselves is absolute nonsense. Most children of divorced parents are living a very low income status. The custodial parents are trying very hard to use that money in the best interest of the child. Often these children are not clothed or fed properly because the money is given back in taxes to the government. We are saying that is no longer

appropriate. Money should go directly to the child and not to the Government of Canada.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues to debate Bill C-41. One of my hon. friends said that it is a mistake that this legislation is before us. We just had a long speech from the Minister of State for the Status of Women and not once did I hear her say she cared for and supported families, that she wanted to nurture families, that families were the fundamental building blocks of our society and that if we were to focus on nurturing, supporting, protecting and building the families, a lot of the problems we have would not occur.

Instead, we find that the government wants to probe, analyse, tax, regulate and push around families, as if they are something like a vehicle that everybody jumps into and they can just control the vehicle.

The point is that the government has it wrong. This whole concept that families can be probed, analysed, regulated and taxed and the money can be passed through the government's pocket, that they take from one and give to another and pay the bureaucrats in between. Surely we should be talking about protecting, nurturing, building and strengthening families. We should ensure that families play the real role in our society. No one can raise kids better than families. That is why the bill is a mistake.

The Minister of State for the Status of Women talked about how important it is that we are going to regulate the system, how important it is that we are going to collect all this taxation, how important it is that we are going to have a new program and how important it is that we are going to give the money back to the kids. The government has missed the point. Where is the support?

We have known for years that the Income Tax Act penalizes families. We know that the Income Tax Act has given a greater benefit to families that break up rather than to the families which stay together. That is a terrible indictment for a government which is in charge of helping our society. It seems to be quite happy with the concept of regulating. If the family breaks up the government will give it another program. If the family breaks up the government will collect taxes in a different way and channel them back through the bureaucracy.

We on this side of the House have always said that the dollars which are left in the hands of the families will be better administered than if those dollars are handed back to the families through a program. The government has missed the point entirely.

I had an accounting business before I got into this game. I met many families which had broken up. The statistics published by Statistics Canada confirm what I saw personally. There is hurt and damage. Self-confidence is destroyed. Job stability is threatened. The family breaks apart and one-half moves to a different location. Sometimes the family is destroyed. There is little doubt that in many cases the standard of living goes down. That is unfortunate. We have to help these people.

We do not help them by bringing in legislation which contains a bunch of rules and regulations. On page 22 of the bill, at clause 77, after the government has poked and probed and administered and regulated and pushed around all these families, Her Majesty, in right of Canada, disclaims all responsibility for discharging the obligations under the act. While the government figures that it can get involved in the day to day administration of families, in the running of families, and so on and so forth, if it screws up, do not blame the government.

The Minister of State for the Status of Women mentioned the hearings which were held across Canada where women could say this and women could say that. I did not hear anything about men being invited to participate. That being so, we have to take a look at the failure of the Liberal policies over the years.

Back in the sixties the government introduced the great concept of universality for pensioners. It said: "Do not worry. We are here. We are going to look after everybody. Everybody is going to get the same old age security. Everybody is going to get a pension". The first thousand dollars of pension money that a senior would get would be tax free. That rule has been in place for many years. That universality is gone. In 2001 it will be gone. Pensioners will not get old age security because in the year 2001 there will be no old age security. It will be gone. The first thousand dollars of income tax deduction which pensioners have relied on for many years will be gone. The age deduction for seniors in the year 2001 will be gone. The guaranteed income supplement for the poor in the year 2001 will be gone. Universality is going out the window with it and in comes another seniors benefit program. We are going to massage, regulate, poke, administer and push around all these seniors though all the paperwork they will have to file. Their universality program for seniors failed. So they just walked away.

Now the Prime Minister stands in the House and says: "Health care. We go for universality, one of the five principles; universality of health care in this country. That it is important to Canadians".

Remember, the federal government says that universality across the country is provincially administered. I have a letter on my desk from someone who lives in Edmonton. This person happens to be a Canadian missionary who lives here and travels the world spreading the good word, doing good work with the poor and the underprivileged. She also works in countries in Africa where the standard of living is abysmally low. She returns to Canada for

some months to visit with her family and then returns to foreign countries. She is a Canadian citizen and she has no health care.

She comes and goes as resident of Canada, a Canadian citizen, paying Canadian taxes. Under the universal health care program promoted by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government she has nothing, absolutely nothing. The universality of health care is eroding.

The government said: "We blew it with pensions, health care is crumbling. What about kids? Let us move on to kids". Bill C-41 is now the social engineering for kids. We heard the minister of state for the status of women say that all kids are going to be equal. We are going to ensure that all kids are equal. There is no such thing as equal opportunity anymore, but there are going to be equal results. Therefore we know that when there are equal results it means poverty for all. There will be no opportunity to rise above and be the best possible because as soon as a person says he is going to work hard a be a great Canadian, do the best he can to have a good standard of living-zap, taxation.

These are the types of things, this social engineer, the government is trying to do and must be stopped.

There is no mention in the bill about mediation. I am married, I have a wife and two kids and sometimes we have our disagreements so we have to mediate and resolve our differences. Families that break up are those that have differences they cannot resolve by themselves. Mediation has proven to work. It works to help families stay together. It works in every other environment. Employers and employees mediate.

General Motors and its union last night mediated to the point where they disagreed and said they agree to disagree. But they will get together one day soon and the workers will get back to work through mediation. Families that have problems need mediation.

But Bill C-41 says no, we are going to regulate this broken marriage, we are going to regulate the kids and we are going to collect the taxes from one and give to the other because we know how it is done. We know that one shoe fits all, one rule fits all and there is no such thing as families being themselves. The government is going to get right into administering the families and right into the bedrooms.

Remember Mr. Trudeau said the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Here is an interesting side note. Last week Statistics Canada phoned a couple in my riding. The questions asked by its representatives do not belong in this House. Questions about the personal intimate things that go on in the bedrooms of the nation are being asked by Stats Canada: "Can you tell me all the things that go on in there?"

And when they finished with the questionnaire, the Stats Canada representative asked for my constituent's Alberta health care number so they could go back to the record and know who gave certain answers to the questions: "Now I can relate these questions about bedroom activities with their health status".

This government is getting far too intrusive. It is time for it to recognize the sanctity of the family, to promote the family, to help the family. When families need it, they should get mediation.

The government introduced a grid to make everything fair, so everyone would get the same. We have judges who make $130,000 a year and we give them the right to determine if somebody will be locked up for 25 years or longer or if he will walk free. We give them the total and absolute freedom to make decisions on many things.

They decide on the validity of multi-billion dollar contracts. They decide who gets what. They have total and absolute power over everything, but we do not give them the discretion to take a look at the family standing before them to decide what is best.

These people are educated. They are the best trained in the country. They are compassionate people. They have the interests of the family in mind. But this government says that while judges have authority on everything else, it will not trust them with deciding how much should be paid in child support.

It is a disgusting disgrace that this government wants to impose that type of an affront on the judiciary of this country which is perfectly capable of making these decisions itself. Because every family is unique, judges should be given the opportunity to decide what is important.

Think of the commission salesman. Think of the seasonal employee whose income goes up and down. But he will get a court order that every month he must come up with this cash. When the family was together its fortunes rose and fell according to his income. As a seasonal employee, in the good months the cash would flow in and the family could enjoy a little luxury, but it had to tighten the reins when the money was not so readily available.

It is the same with the commission salesman. If he has a good month, he will get a big paycheque; if he has a bad month, his income will go down. And the family goes along with it.

Not anymore. The non-custodial parent is going to see these fluctuations through on their own, and according to this grid the family will be protected from the vagaries and fluctuations of the non-custodial parent's income. That person will be hounded practically down the road for his last dollar if he does not live up to his agreement. Is that helping families?

This government has not thought about these kind of people. It has not built that into the system.

With regard to violation of privacy, we have a longstanding tradition in this country that says our income tax files are private, but not anymore. Through social engineering, Bill C-41 allows people to have access to Revenue Canada.

On page 16, section 19, it says section 15 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act is replaced by the following: "Information banks that may be searched under this part are the information banks designated by regulations from among the information banks controlled by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission".

If there is a deadbeat non-custodial parent out there you can guarantee he is not going to file a tax return anymore. You are not going to get your money and the family is not going to get the money and we now have two losers instead of one because this government's heavy handedness says there is nothing that we want to protect from intrusion. Privacy means nothing when it comes to the government. The information banks we always thought were private are no longer private. Therefore you can guarantee that we will not see any income tax return or any taxes collected from someone who wishes to evade the whole system.

It is very unfortunate that this government will not support families. The member for Mission-Coquitlam has talked long about grandparents rights; visiting rights for grandparents who when a family breaks up, if they are the parents of the non-custodial parent, cannot see their grandchildren. The love and the nurturing that grandparents want to bestow on the children are denied sometimes, and this government does not care.

Surely that is what it is all about, the love and nurturing of families, not the regulation, the taxation, the poking, the pushing, the managing and manipulating this government is going to do.

Let me leave it there. It would please me if the government would withdraw this bill and bring in something positive that would help families.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I truly enjoy rising when a member of the third party is done because it is easy to ask questions of his intervention in the House. I have a few questions. I will make them quick because I would like to get up on my feet again to ask another series of questions if I get the chance.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech as to where the Reform Party stands. In all that rambling I heard in the last 20

minutes he never once told us what the Reform would do as it relates to individuals who, as the member put it, are not capable of reconciling whether it be through mediation or one process or another.

The member was unclear but he was suggesting in his remarks that an individual who happens to be divorced, in most cases a mother who has one, two or three children, is not a family. Can the member explain to me why he seems to think the only definition of a family is someone that has two parents and a number of children, whether he agrees with the reality of the situation that in Canada it is a pretty close even split that there are many families that have only one parent either because they decide to through divorce and cannot reconcile or a parent passes away and they carry on as a single parent.

I would like those two questions answers. The one that is the most important is the definition. The other one, and I am not surprised, is what is Reform suggesting in that it does not like this bill? That is acceptable I suppose to us on this side. That means it must be a pretty good one. What would Reform do to replace it?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that the member would ask where the Reform Party stands, when it is the government that has brought forward this bill. I thought it was this bill that we were debating but I am pleased to answer the member's question.

We stand for families. Government should help nurture and encourage families rather than regulate and tax them. Remember, as I said, the Income Tax Act has always discriminated against a family that has stayed together and a family that splits apart. That is discriminated against. Yet we know that families are the building blocks of our society and we discriminate against them.

The second point is families that have children usually start off with a couple of parents, as far as I am aware. They come together and unfortunately through problems they do not stay together. They are people, they are Canadians and we have to respect their right to live, work and try to be the best that they can be.

My experience is that when a family falls apart, everyone suffers. The non-custodial parent suffers and the custodial parent suffers and it is what we call a broken family. There are children involved and usually they are innocent of the causes of the broken family, but they are definitely, according to the research we have, the group that suffers the most.

That is why I said we believe in mediation first because mediation works within families who stay together. Mediation works in other environments but there is not the slightest hint of

one nickel of time, effort or any other commitment by this government toward mediation to keep that family together.

We say get the grid out of there because a judge who makes $130,000 and passes judgment can surely decide what is best for that family when it is sitting or standing in front of him. As in the couple of examples I gave, a grid will destroy individuals, not help them.

I am totally opposed to the income tax change because people will stop filing tax returns. The government will lose. The government will not collect the money. There will be no opportunity for parents to get back together. It will drive a wedge between them and will force them even further apart.

As I also mentioned, grandparents are a part of families too. My hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam has tried hard to get this government to recognize grandparents who want to love and nurture their grandchildren. They are not even recognized by this government as playing any role whatsoever. They can play a major role in helping children.