Debates of Nov. 4th, 1996

The Divorce Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate you on your appointment, since this is the first time I have risen in this House while you are in the chair.

The public must have realized by now that the official opposition has been spending a lot of time adding subtlety and drawing attention to one important factor: the famous guidelines. Whether they are called guidelines, national standards or national goals, they are all the same to me. They reflect the federal government's intention, its one constant goal, which is to set criteria and to impose them on the provinces. The Reform Party's proposal goes in the same direction. The Reform Party goes even further than the Liberal Party. It wants the guidelines to be tabled in the House of Commons. Therefore, the federal government would reign supreme.

I am not a former history professor like my hon. colleague from Mercier, but I have read a lot of books on this topic, as I imagine many Canadians and Quebecers have done.

Recently, I was rereading Mr. Lacoursière. What is Canada made of? What is Canada? What is the Canadian Confederation? What is the Act of 1867? It was the unification of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to form Confederation. Then two former British colonies joined in, and that gave us the four founding provinces of the Canadian Confederation.

At the time, according to the spirit and the letter of the agreement, there was to have been not only a federal Parliament, but also provinces that would work together to try to forecast and structure the future of the country, its social climate and that of its member states.

But then, we have to recognize that the current government continues a heavy practice. No need to list all the bills that have been passed here, but what do we see in most of them, in the major ones? There were national standards concerning post-secondary education. There were also national standards concerning student loans. Concerning health care, we all know the five famous guidelines which the federal government insists that we follow in spite of cuts in the provincial spending and in the transfers to the provinces.

What is the impact of all these measures? The provinces are obliged to cut health care. Free education and access to education are called into question. Apart from the cuts to unemployment insurance, certain vested rights of the provinces, including Quebec, are called into question.

And always these same guidelines. Sometimes, it is a question of principle, but we must be cautious with matters of principle. The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, has a responsibility to criticize, to see to it that words really say what they mean to say in the bill and to anticipate applications down the road.

Obviously, the concept of federalism of the members opposite and the third party is very different from the one Quebecers have always had. The federal government always prevail over the powers and responsibilities of the provinces, while, as I said, there was originally a spirit of equality, a balance of powers.

Unfortunately, this Prime Minister's Liberal government increasingly takes advantage of all opportunities to monitor, limit the powers and dictate the guidelines of the provinces. This touches upon the most distinct elements of the Quebec society, since families and children are its future, because we do not want to remain silent each time the current federal government tries to put the Quebec government in its place.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm rightly reminded us that we get married under the civil code and that Quebec is the only province to have a distinct civil code. And we divorce under the federal system? That is completely nonsensical. However, I can understand why members from other provinces do not see any problem in that. They are not in the same situation as Quebec because they have no civil code, they have the same system as the federal government.

To them, it does not make any difference if you get married under the provincial system and you get divorced under the federal system. I understand. That is one of the problems of federalism as

it exists now. I have travelled a lot outside Quebec, and we are always faced with the same misunderstanding. Even the most fair-minded people do not understand our situation. One day, you will have to recognize that our system in Quebec is different from that of the other provinces. That is what we have been telling you and that is why many of us are taking part in this debate today, to show you once again that we are different. You have to understand that.

We are different and we want to stay that way. We understand what is good and what is not. There are extraordinary principles in this bill, but the problem is in the way they are applied.

That is the area where, suspicious as we are, we are concerned about inequities. And with good reason. Bill after bill, we keep proposing amendments that would help Quebec feel more comfortable in the federal system, but the government keeps rejecting them each and every time. We were showered with love a few days before the referendum, but we can see that, one year later, those sentiments have cooled off somewhat.

So we have to repeat over and over again, as we are doing today, that we are different. From now on, we want laws that reflect our differences, our culture, our special way of doing things. It is as simple as that. It is not an aggressive message. We are not saying that the other provinces are wrong not to attach that much importance to this issue. But, to us, it is very important.

And it is not only for us. Since we are talking about children here, we are talking about the future, and when we talk about the future, we must take all the necessary precautions to make sure that those who will come after us recognize the important work we are doing today. That is why, once again, we must explain to our colleagues from the two other parties in this House that we are indeed different.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The Chair will consider the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mercier and will render its decision to the House.

The motion by the hon. member for Mercier is in order.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The vote is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Next before the House is report stage Motion No. 14, the next grouping in the debate.

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-41, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 21 with the following:

"fifty days have expired after the notice"

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, were we to vote on Group No. 3 as well as the Bloc subamendment, in other words, my amendment, Motion No. 13?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The hon. member is quite correct. The question was put to the House on the subamendment. A recorded division was demanded and therefore it was deferred.

At the conclusion of the vote on the subamendment, the question will be put on the amendment that the hon. member has put before the House.

The debate is now on Motion No. 14, Group No. 4.

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

Mr. Speaker, very simply this amendment extends the period for a non-custodial

spouse to react to the receipt of the notice that their passport may be suspended or a federal licence withdrawn.

This particular clause found on page 21 of Bill C-41 states:

(4) An application may be made only after thirty days have expired after the notice referred to in subsection (3) was received by the debtor.

Basically what this amendment does is extend that notice from 30 days to 50 days. We feel that in some cases where the individual may be out of the country or, goodness knows, we have even seen to get a letter across Canada can take a considerable period of time, it is in the best interests of all concerned to ensure that the individual has sufficient notice in order to respond. We just want to be reasonably sure that will happen.

Basically that clarifies our position for putting this amendment forward. However, I would like to use the remaining time I have to clarify our positions on a number of other issues raised by the hon. Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, during his intervention.

The points put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary are absolutely ridiculous. Let us just have a quick look at what exactly he said during his intervention. He said that maintenance payments are not linked to access, custody or mediation issues. I think the statistics prove, as I said during my remarks, that the exact opposite is the case. I do not know what statistics or evidence he has to support that nonsensical response, but I am quite appalled that he says they are not linked. I would suggest that he talk to anyone who has gone through a divorce and who has children involved to see that the two subjects are very clearly linked.

As I pointed out during my remarks, what we have seen is that where access and custody of the children in question by the non-custodial parent was more usual in the arrangement and was quite freely given, what invariably happened was compliance with support payments for those same children also increased in direct proportion to access.

There are clearly enough statistics around to show that. Therefore I would certainly dispute the hon. parliamentary secretary's position that the two things are to be dealt with quite separately and are not linked.

He also asked who suffers. He said, as Hansard would clearly show, that it is the women and children. Very clearly the women and children do suffer. We are all well aware of that. However, the fact is that when a marriage breaks down and when some parents are de-parented because of the process there are many people who suffer. Grandparents suffer and fathers suffer as well.

As I said during my remarks and during my speech on Bill C-41 about a month ago, I believe October 3, I very clearly stated that I am not an advocate for non-custodial parents. I am not an advocate for the fathers, nor am I for the mothers in this situation. I am an advocate for the children. I believe it is in the children's best interest to have access to both parents. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not understand how it is that when a marriage and a relationship is intact both parents are considered good parents, acting in a manner consistent with the best interests of their children, and yet somehow immediately upon the disillusion of their relationship this is no longer the case.

We see time and time again where the non-custodial parent is denied access to their children. If they are considered a good parent when their relationship was intact, why in heaven's name are they not when they are separated? When a relationship ends the fathers, in most cases, still want to be involved and active in performing the role of a parent. In many cases, unfortunately, that is denied.

The other point the parliamentary secretary made was that our amendments would return the system to complete uncertainty. We talk about fear mongering. We talk about the usual Liberal diatribe where they attack Reform every time we try to improve their legislation. He went on to say that our amendments would render guidelines ineffective. That is more fear mongering. It is clearly not the case.

What we have said is that this is a complex issue. We cannot impose arbitrary guidelines and then say to the courts that this is how it is going to be. Even in his intervention what he went on to say was that we need to do it on a case by case basis. That is a clear contradiction. On the one hand he attacks Reform because we say that before the court imposes these arbitrary guidelines, we have agreed there is a need for national consensus, national standards to apply, but before the court looks at that, Reform we would like it to take into consideration mediation. We would like it to take into consideration the best interests of the child, what is in the best interest of the child or the children, and also to take into consideration the non-custodial parent's ability to pay.

As I said earlier during this debate, prior to question period, the reality is it makes absolutely no sense to impose some arbitrary guideline, some arbitrary standard, only to find out later that the non-custodial parent simply cannot afford that and no matter how much he would like to, he cannot pay that amount.

As the parliamentary secretary said very clearly, we have to look at this on a case by case basis. That is the one thing that he said that I heartily agree with. His other points are, as I said, very clearly fear mongering and trying to suggest that Reform is somehow against the women and children who very clearly need more certainty.

We are not denying that something has to be done with the Divorce Act and something has to be done with this subject. What we are saying is we believe we need a comprehensive look at this subject. The hon. justice minister has promised Canadians a comprehensive review of this whole subject matter. Comprehensive to us deals with much more than just the tax implications or getting tough on non-custodial parents' non-payment of support or maintenance.

Comprehensive means looking at the access and custody issues, looking at having mandatory mediation as a necessary step. What may happen with that is that some lawyers would not get as much work as they would like. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

I believe in balance if people will look at what Reform has been doing on this bill, look at the amendments that we have been bringing forward, they will understand that we are trying to address a lot of issues, not just putting blinders on and looking at the maintenance payment issue by itself.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, proposed by the hon. member for the Reform Party, deals with the denial of schedule licences to debtors when the latter are in persistent arrears. When we read the definition of this expression, we see that this is about extreme cases where debtors have failed to make in full the payments required in respect of any three payment periods, usually three months, or who owe the child at least $3,000.

The bill is clear, and we agree with what the bill proposes to do. We agree because licence denials are explained in detail in interpretation section 62. So, licence means "a licence, a permit, a certificate or an authorization of any kind, and includes a passport in the meaning of section 2"; "schedule licence means a licence of a type or class set out in the schedule"; and "provincial enforcement service has the meaning assigned by section 2".

The resources available are clearly defined in this section of the bill. These are means of dealing with debtors who, despite every reasonable attempt to make them do so, will not make their payments to the custodial parent-the wife, in many cases-or to creditors who have a stake in the payment of support payments.

So when the province applies to the federal government, this is after it has made every attempt to force payments. In this case, the Reform proposal would extend the period to 50 days from the prescribed 30 days. So the bill is clear. It provides that a provincial government may ask the federal government to refuse the issue of, suspend or not renew a licence for these debtors, once the provincial government has made every attempt to enforce the support order, but to no avail. To no avail means that every possible measure has been taken by the province. And even if a debtor were to say he had not been contacted by the province, I believe there would be enough evidence to prove that such contacts were made and that the debtor failed to respond to a provincial request.

So I see no need for proposing such an amendment when we realize that the present period provided by the federal government is 30 days after notice was sent by the province to the debtor before an application for licence denial may be filed.

We all know that women are often penalized, when we consider that in 1990, 67 per cent of individuals who received support payments were women.

So we do not think we should support this kind of amendment to the bill. We know very well that huge amounts are often at stake when one is waiting for overdue support payments. For instance, a deadbeat parent is not someone who wakes up one morning thinking he is not going to pay support for a couple of months; we believe that these are people who do it repeatedly, not innocently, over a period of three payments, and that the amounts involved are evaluated at over $3,000. Therefore, the time frame is very realistic and we do not believe that this motion should go ahead.

I am in favour of payments being made as soon as possible, this is desirable. What the bill is proposing is very clear and promises that deadbeat parents be, once and for all, with their back to the wall, and that the government be able to act by way of a piece of legislation making it very clear how to quickly obtain payment of the amounts owed.

To think that Bill C-41 was introduced by the government to really improve the situation for children. This is exactly what we want. This was at our request, we want this bill to be enforceable and we want no more delays, no more wait for the parents owed support, who often must face such delays.

Unfortunately, too often they are women; as we know they hold part time jobs, their job situation is precarious, and often they are the ones who have to provide for their children. We know that more often than not support payments are well below what it takes to raise a child nowadays.

In any case, I believe we have the responsibility to take care of our children, and therefore it is the responsibility of the non custodial parent to make support payments, often to the detriment of the parent who has custody of the child.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the next batch of amendments. With the indulgence of the members present I will refresh their memories.

When I was speaking on the last batch of amendments I was quoting from an article in the September 28 issue of The Economist . It discussed the notion of crime, particularly violent crime, by youth. The article dealt with crime in western Europe and America.

It was interesting to note from the article that 50 per cent of violent crime was caused by males under the age of 24. About 24 per cent was caused by males under the age of 18. Males compared to females are far more involved in crime and in particular violent crime. The article went on to make the case that the one overriding consideration which affects those statistics is the two parent family.

I will read a sentence or two: "Ask yourself: What restrains such behaviour?" We are talking about the violent behaviour of adolescents. "The short answer is a two parent home. Without belabouring the complexity of family policies, two parent families are demonstrably better at raising trouble-free children than one parent homes. Fatherless boys commit more crimes than those with a father at home. A study of repeat juvenile offenders by the Los Angeles probation department found that they were much more likely to come from one parent backgrounds than either the average child or juvenile criminals who offended once only".

That is a particularly disheartening statistic. The heartening statistic in Canada is that, much to the surprise of many people, according to Statistics Canada only 13 per cent of children are being raised in single parent homes.

The point I am coming to is this: We know statistically that children who come from two parent homes, particularly young males and adolescent males, are at far less risk of misbehaviour and violent behaviour.

I want to make sure that those people who are watching this debate on television do not think I am coming at this from a holier than thou approach. I am not. I am making a statement of fact. The statement of fact is that even if parents divorce, they do not divorce their children.

As a society we must ensure when parents regrettably divorce, that custody does not go to one or the other. They do not stop being parents. There is no magical dissolution of parenthood; it is a dissolution of the marriage. The laws we promulgate have to promote joint custody. They should not promote disassociation. For the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to suggest that there is no link between access to children and maintenance and the continuity of maintenance is so patently absurd that it defies reality. How anyone proposing to represent the government of our country could make such an absurd statement so devoid of reality is mind boggling.

On a more positive note we should be doing something that was suggested at a recent town hall meeting on the Divorce Act which was attended by around 200 people in my constituency of Edmonton Southwest. Perhaps we should be putting far more emphasis on reconciliation. This was the overriding positive theme which came out of that town hall meeting.

We should understand the importance of a two parent home. Even when divorce is the unfortunate final decision in a case of marital unhappiness, we must protect and nurture the child. We do that best by not severing the cord between the mother, father and child.

Through reconciliation and perhaps by carrying reconciliation a step further, we should deal with divorce in a unified family court situation. Rather than involving the adversarial nature of lawyers, one trying to outdo the other, I propose a better idea, although it is not a specific part of this amendment and I appreciate the indulgence of members for allowing me to continue with this thought.

Would we not be better off as a society if we used arbitration in a unified family court as the basis of family law? The purpose would be to deal with this kind of relationship. This involves so many different aspects of law, of contract law and of God knows what comes to the table. We are dealing with people who are at times mad, at times hurt, at times vengeful, at times just brokenhearted. We are dealing with people at a time of marital distress, at a most difficult point in their lives. When people are in this terrible situation, that is the time to bring in mediation. That is the time to bring in arbitration. It is the time potentially to bring reconciliation to the fore.

These suggestions have come from a wide range of people including those people who counsel others who are going through divorce. I recognize it is impossible to legislate common sense. We cannot legislate people to have a sense of responsibility for the children they bring into the world but we can develop the attitude. We can develop the culture that says if their marriage is going to break down and they are going to divorce, they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility they have as parents to nurture their children. No matter how bad the relationship is between the spouses, the children are the innocent victims. The children have to be accorded the decency of both parents being concerned first for their welfare and then for their own.

I am thankful for the opportunity to put these thoughts into Hansard as part of the record of this debate. I cannot think of any single debate that has taken place in this House in the time I have been here that is more important to the future of our nation. I cannot think of anything that is more important to us as a

community of human beings than nurturing the future generations of our country as embodied by our children and their children.

Too often much of what we do here is concerned with the past in that we have our eyes firmly fixed behind us with our feet in the cement of whatever is going on today. We need to look beyond today into tomorrow and we have to do that through the eyes of our children and our grandchildren.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must understand what the impact of the Reform Party motion would be. I will not repeat the arguments offered by my colleague, the member for Québec, because she did a very good job of presenting the nuts and bolts of this amendment compared to Bill C-41 in its present form.

However, I would like to give further explanations, so that everybody, including members from the other side, will understand quite well what this is all about. Personally, I would have gone much further than the minister. The person who does his best to avoid paying child support has not earned the right to a further 30 day extension.

I have children for whom I pay daily. I think one should assume one's responsibilities. The father or mother, because the payer can be either one, the person who has to pay child support and who does not should not get any sympathy from the government. Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those people.

Bill C-41 proposes a complete system under which the government can take action. The minister responsible must submit a request, there is a complete process. We must understand the context of what persistent arrears means, under Bill C-41. We find the definition in clause 62, which describes what it means to be in "persistent arrears".

What does it mean? According to the legislation, that expression refers to a debtor who has, in respect of a support order or support provision, arrears in any amount due to the failure to make payments for any three payment periods-depending on the order, a period can be a week, a month, two months or six months-or one who has accumulated arrears of $3,000 or more.

Let me give you a very precise example. Let us say the man is paying support. Following a ruling, he must give his child or children the sum of $500 a month. According to C-41, the judgment takes effect on January 1st, 1997. He pays child support in the amount of $500 on January 1st, 1997. In the month of February, he does not pay. In the month of March, he does not pay. In the month of April, he pays $500. Until now, the provisions of the law do not apply because this does not amount to three consecutive periods or a total of $3,000 in non-payments.

He continues. In the month of May, he does not pay. In the month of June, he does not pay. In the month of July, he decides to pay. In such a case, it takes exactly nine months to reach $3,000 in arrears. For nine months, the husband will apply pressure, how could I say, he will annoy his spouse. I think that is the best and the most explicit term. But who suffers? It is the children.

It takes nine months to arrive at the total of $3,000 in unpaid child support. What does Bill C-41 provide for after nine months? It provides that the minister will send the debtor a notice informing him that he is $3,000 in arrears. In law, there is a very clear principle saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is even truer that no one is supposed to ignore a court judgment or order.

The debtor does not pay on purpose and the government will send him a notice informing him that he has not paid child support for X number of months, for a total of $3,000, according to the example I gave. He is given an extra extension of 10 days before the minister files an application to withhold certain licences or freeze certain applications for licences the debtor has made to the federal government. And he is given another 30 day extension.

So, after about 10 to 11 months, sanctions are applied to the debtor. Between you and me, I think this is very permissive. Personally, I would not have given 30 days to this repeat deadbeat father, who does it on purpose.

However, Bill C-41 gives him these 30 days after a 10 day advance notice. We, of the Bloc Quebecois, decided, after examining all this, that we would not put forward an amendment on that. We will accept this approach the government has taken.

You will understand that I do not agree with the motion put forward by the Reform Party to give him 50 days instead of 30. That is 50 days after the 10 days, so that, in the example I gave, it is not after 11 months that sanctions are applied to the debtor, but after 12 months, after one year. The person receiving child support, the $3,000, has been waiting 12 months for it.

You will understand that Motion No. 14 put forward by the Reform Parti is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and that is why we will vote against it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.