Mr. Speaker, it is important that this amendment not be passed. This amendment was presented by a Reform Party member and says:
26.2 (1) The Minister of Justice shall have each proposed guideline laid before the House of Commons.
(2) Each proposed guideline that is laid before the House of Commons shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by the House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and that committee shall report its findings to that House.
(3) A proposed guideline that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be established on the expiration of thirty day sitting days after it is laid.-
This morning, the members of the Bloc said many times that the law should confirm that Quebec is, in fact, responsible for defining and formulating the guidelines if it meets the conditions stated in clause 26.1.
I would remind the viewers who are watching today's debates that, if the issue of child support and treatment of children in child support is discussed here in the House of Commons even though it seems clearly to be a matter of civil law, it is because there is a strange separation of powers between the provinces and the federal government in the Constitution.
On the one side, marriage is a provincial matter, and divorce, a federal matter. I remind you that in Quebec, the people who separate without divorcing-and there are many of them-or leave one another in some other way represent 40 per cent of those who are involved in the allocation of child support.
Quebec has a distinct civil code. Just as distinct as its society. The Civil Code has been in effect since Quebec was a French colony. It has been revised, but it is still completely different in spirit from British common law.
In this context, Quebec has developed its own family policy and has shown again last week that it intends to apply its own principles in this area. It must be said that Quebec has to have complete control over the guidelines that will apply to the people who decide to separate or to get a divorce to ensure that all children who are affected are treated in the same way.
If it were adopted, this amendment proposed by the members of the third party would force the government to refer to the appropriate committee the guidelines proposed by Quebec to see if they are compatible with the federal guidelines. What we are saying is that this is absolutely not the way to go.
In Quebec, we do not want two kinds of children, that is those whose parents are separated under the provincial system and those whose parents are divorced under the federal system. It would make no sense. It would show that the situation has become unbearable.
We think the government should accept the amendment in which the Bloc proposes that the governor in council recognize the right of a province to formulate and enforce its own guidelines, provided they meet all the necessary requirements.
It is hard to imagine that a committee would study Quebec's or another province's guidelines to compare them to those of the federal government. If my colleague's amendment was to ensure that the federal government would table its own guidelines, which several other provinces would follow since they would not mind having guidelines established by the central government, then I would understand the purpose of this amendment. The committee would study these guidelines that would apply to all provinces except Quebec.
We are often in this situation. Obviously, and this bears repeating, many provinces in Canada do not feel the way Quebec feels about the central government, and that is normal. Canada is one people and one nation, and Quebec is one people and one nation. It
is fine by us if nobody in Canada minds if the central government determines the guidelines, but, if that is the case, we think it only right that the government be required to table its planned guidelines.
But what we simply cannot agree with, and this is important, is that if colleagues do not intend this amendment to include Quebec, then they should spell this out, because otherwise, we are very much against the amendment, which would mean comparing Quebec's guidelines to the federal guidelines, for we know not what purpose.
The draft guidelines tabled on June 28, 1996 give an idea of the major differences between a so-called Quebec model that would be used to determine child support payments and a federal model.
In Quebec, we say that one of the criteria must be that support payments must be based on the real cost of raising a child. The federal government says they should be based on the partial equalization of standards of living. These are two different points of view that can be explained by the fact that in Quebec we are looking at income and standard of living in Quebec, while it is obvious that different standards of living are being considered for the rest of Canada.
This morning, I was recalling that, last week, the federal government decided that the minimum wage for institutions dependent on the federal government would be in line with the provincial minimum wage. The minimum wage is $4.75 in Newfoundland, and $7.00 in British Columbia, which shows the marked difference in the general standard of living. We can understand that the differences are explained by the population, the labour market and the differing social and economic conditions across Canada.
There is another principle as well. Quebec says "based on both parents' ability to pay". Financial responsibility is shared between the two parents, prorated according to their resources. We know that the husband often earns more. The federal model assumes that the incomes of both parents are equal, even if in reality this is not the case. Only the gross revenue of the non-custodial parent is considered.
I could continue to show you the significant differences.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment.
I move:
That the words "each proposed guideline" be deleted and replaced by "every proposed guideline" and that, at the end of the first sentence, the following be added:
"when subsection 1(3) has not been enforced."
My speech has addressed the intent of this amendment.