Debates of Nov. 8th, 1996

The House resumed from November 6, 1996 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements and Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, be read the third time and passed.

Divorce Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-41 which deals with child support payments. I think we can say that it was high time something was done in this area. For several years we were faced with a somewhat incongruous situation, and we had to wait until this was settled by the courts.

In the 1996 budget, the federal government unveiled a new child support payment system consisting of four elements. First, support payments will no longer be taxable in the case of the custodial parent, and will therefore be taxable in the case of the non-custodial parent.

We must ensure that this measure, which would seem to reflect a certain sense of equity, does not lead to impossible situations where in the end, the only winner would be the government. It must remain even handed in the way it deals with the parties, and that is part of the approach taken by the Bloc Quebecois when considering Bill C-41.

The second element announced in the budget is that the amount of the working income supplement included in the federal child tax benefit will be doubled, to ensure that no child will be affected by the change. Furthermore, guidelines were introduced for establishing the amount of child support payments, while new measures for collecting support payments were also announced on that occasion.

The Bloc Quebecois has analysed Bill C-41, and on the whole, like the Quebec government at the provincial level, the bill provides the requisite framework for implementing the guidelines I just mentioned.

This means that except in special cases, the courts will no longer allow discretion in determining the amounts allocated for support child payments. Today, we realize that in our society, we should no longer be subject to arbitrary decisions. We have seen situations, not necessarily in this area but in others, where it was clear that depending on the values the judge might have and how that might influence his decision and also due to the fact that women are not adequately represented in Parliament, the decision was not always fair.

I think this is something we can readily perceive, and it is systemic. At least, until the day men and women are equally represented among judges in the various courts of the Canadian judicial system, I think it would be interesting to replace the bill's provisions regarding judicial discretion with standard guidelines that would apply to everyone and help make more appropriate decisions.

It is also interesting to see that this bill shows once again the inefficient duplication in the Canadian system. Since the division of responsibilities is not totally clear, since the federal government always tends to broaden what it sees as its jurisdiction, there is still some duplication with the provinces, which, of course, increases costs.

For example, the Quebec government has designed a model, while the federal government has created another model with different criteria. For instance, the Quebec model's first criterion is based on the real cost of raising a child, while that of the federal model is based on the partial equalization of living standards. Right from the outset, we see that, despite both governments' good intentions, we may end up with different assessments, with situations that make little sense.

Another principle is that, in the Quebec model, the whole tax income plan will be harmonized with Quebec's income security and taxation programs. We are therefore trying to make sure that this does not lead to unfair situations, that another program will not upset the balance. This is not found in the federal model, possibly because, first of all, it should have been adjusted to the various models found in Canada. This shows, by reducing it to the absurd,

that the federal government is overstepping its mandate and cannot take into consideration the various realities in each province of Canada.

There are five basic criteria in both the Quebec and the federal models. However, these criteria differ and result in slightly different approaches. Hopefully, this will not ultimately lead to an inextricable situation.

When the Minister of Justice first introduced his new policy, the Bloc Quebecois welcomed the initiative. The Bloc had long been asking the Minister of Justice to table a bill to balance the child-related financial burden between the two parents. It is imperative that the government take immediate action to meet the expectations of women. This was pointed out as early as May 1995, in statements made by the hon. members for Québec and for Témiscamingue, among others.

So, this was in May of 1995. We are now in the fall of 1996, almost in 1997, and the minister has finally tabled the reform that the Bloc had been asking for so long. The official opposition in a parliament can play a useful role in pressing the government to take concrete action, instead of merely making statements.

However, the Bloc Quebecois had some reservations regarding the implementation of guidelines in the provinces. These reservations, which do not have to do with Bill C-41 itself, but rather to the guidelines, are not met. We are not at all convinced that, with Bill C-41, the government took them into consideration.

Here are some of these reservations. First, let us suppose that a provincial government decides to put in place guidelines for its province, for example Quebec. We mentioned earlier that the Quebec model has specific criteria. These provincial guidelines must have priority over the federal ones. However, this will be the case only if the governor in council, in other words the federal cabinet, decides, through an order in council, that the provincial guidelines are the ones that apply. This is a situation where the federal government gives itself a somewhat paternalistic role.

And it is not the only area in which it has done so and will continue to do so. In fact, Quebecers have been convinced for quite some time, and I am not referring exclusively to sovereignists, I am talking about the 68 per cent of Quebecers who are currently dissatisfied by the federal government, because it has not taken any concrete action to at least clarify relations with Quebec, to clarify everyone's status, so that a proper solution can be found. This is not because of my position as a sovereignist, but, with respect to federalism, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Quebec because we do not think we are being listened to, we do not get the impression this government wants to budge.

And here, in a specific example, in a bill where there is agreement on the principles, we again come up against this nitpicking, slightly petty, vaguely paternalistic attitude in the rules of application. In our view, this line is not good enough and is inconsistent with the fields of jurisdiction set out in the Constitution as it now stands.

In this field, we are not asking for anything extra, just that the Canadian Constitution be enforced. And even then, the federal government disappoints us.

We have only to look at clause 1(4), which reads:

1.(4) The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition "applicable guidelines" in subsection (1)-

This clause could have have used "shall" thus indicating that the government respects the fact that these fields come under provincial jurisdiction.

In addition, the provinces will have to meet the criteria set out by the federal government in clause 26.1, if they wish their guidelines to be approved. The federal government has complete discretion as to whether or not it will issue the order mentioned in clause 1(4).

This confirms what I was saying earlier, that the federal government is behaving in a paternalistic manner. This clause points up the two very different interpretations of this country. In other words, when they talk about constitutional issues and tell us that that is what people want to hear, it is simply not the case. Here again, in this example, how are we going to ensure support for children in cases of divorce, which affect many families? This is real life, we are not on some other planet.

This is another concrete example of the fact that the fields of jurisdiction are not clear, and, in particular, that the federal government has a tendency to interfere in provincial fields of jurisdiction. This creates complications, even in very concrete situations such as financial support for children.

The federal big brother is still keeping the provinces under his thumb. We think this is disgraceful, particularly in a field where change is long overdue, and where there has long been a need for legislation consistent with the new reality of the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first.

What is even more ridiculous is that the rejection of provincial guidelines can result in absurd situations. For example, when parents separate, the provincial grid would apply, but not when they divorce, in which case the federal grid would be used. This would result in a double standard.

In Quebec, this situation comes up frequently, because it is the province with the highest percentage of common law marriages. It is a situation in which not all citizens are treated equally. This is not good enough.

Finally, the federal government uses the place of residence of the parent paying support in deciding which guidelines to apply, while the Quebec government uses the child's place of residence. We

think this principle is much more consistent with the thinking in a number of court rulings where the child's interests must take precedence, because the premise of the new approach is that the child must have adequate financial support.

We want to eliminate the battles that sometimes took place between spouses who no longer got along, often working things out at a cost to the child. The bill is intended to resolve this situation. But the fact that the federal government uses the place of residence of the debtor to decide which guidelines apply is somewhat contradictory to the principle of the bill.

It must, however, be kept in mind that, overall, this project is a long-awaited measure. Some of its points may strike us as fairly positive, for example that deadbeats could be refused certain privileges, for instance passports or certain licences. This, I feel, is indeed a good measure, because I have seen cases in my riding where the partner has just skipped town rather than pay up. This type of situation will be avoidable in future.

The bill will also include children between the ages of 16 and 18, as well as students, under one definition. I find this appropriate. In so doing, a clear priority is established for the child, when the former spouse is also demanding support. I think this is an interesting principle.

Overall, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the principle of the bill. We have been calling on the government for a year to do something along this line. We will be voting in favour of the bill.

It seems to us that the government ought to have made some major modifications in order to bring the bill in line with the flexible federalism they are constantly going on about, which was called for in the throne speech.

We find ourselves in a situation in which what was said in the throne speech does not jibe with what is in the bills. This will mean that, in a year, or two or five, there will be test cases, problematical situations which will mean court additional costs for both the people involved and the government.

The federal government could have shown greater respect for the rules of the Canadian Constitution and produced a bill that would be dispute-proof, one that could not be interpreted or disputed because of a lack of respect of jurisdictions, and could not lead to judgments contrary to children's interests.

I believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect children's interests. The federal government ought to have placed the child's interest well ahead of its unhealthy desire to treat the provinces with paternalism.

Let us hope that, with Bill C-41, the federal government will have settled partially, but significantly, the question of financial support for the children in divorce or separation. The Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of the bill, regretting that the federal government could not have risen above its centralizing vision of Canada.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised as I listened to my colleague who expressed concern for the paternalistic aspect of the bill. Then he went to some length to describe exactly what he believed to be some of that paternalism as his point of view. He then expressed that his party would be supporting the bill.

This piece of legislation goes beyond paternalism. While the concept of guidelines is very good, what we have here is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. For example, there is no consideration for additional financial obligations of either parent. There is no consideration for the needs of a child based on age specific requirements. There is no consideration for servicing the debt of the union by either parent. There is no consideration for the assets division of the matrimonial property settlement. There is no recognition of the costs incurred by the unit to maintain dual households. There is no recognition of the costs involved by the non-custodial parent in maintaining access, including travel, long distance telephone, food, clothing and entertainment. I could go on at some length with the very serious flaws in this legislation.

If this is for children as the hon. member has expressed, I would like my hon. colleague to tell me how he believes a child's needs are satisfied, especially when, in the final analysis, there is no provision for direct spending on the children by the non-custodial parent. This means that a parent who totally ignores the children and spends no time and has no expenses for visitation will be treated in exactly the same way as the caring parent who does spend time with the children, who does provide that emotional support for the children in a household. The process absolutely ignores this individual over someone who has spent no time with the children in the household.

I would like my hon. colleague to indicate how he feels that the needs of the children are given due consideration in light of that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that we are on third reading and that the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments when the bill was in committee. These amendments were to provide for the fairest possible treatment of the parties.

At the third reading stage, where we are today, we have to decide whether, for instance, we want to move a motion to return the bill to committee or whether, based on the principle of the bill and after debating the matter, we are prepared to adopt the bill in its present form. Our position is that the bill will be useful in the light of the principle that will be implemented.

I understand her point, as to the list of recriminations, for instance. We might in fact want this model to function in a different way. There is a particular perception at work here, and I would urge her to look at what the Quebec model proposes. For instance, amounts will be based on the real costs, in the Quebec model,of bringing up the child, which means that we will really make sure that the amounts paid represent the cost of providing the child with adequate financial support.

I agree with her that the federal model does not reflect the same practical considerations. The model in the Liberal majority's bill is based more on an evenhanded apportionment of expenses. Additional problems may arise. We may not be comfortable with this situation.

However, at the stage of today's debate, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to vote against the bill. We feel there is some hope the provinces will be more sensitive to these problems, since those governments will have to administer welfare, for instance.

So, in the case of all parents and children in special circumstances, we expect that the provinces will be more sensitive and that the federal government, although the discretionary powers it has under this legislation were criticized and pointed out several times in my speech, will allow each province to adopt guidelines that reflect its particular needs.

Another example: the Quebec model will be harmonized with Quebec's income security programs and the provincial tax system. So in this model, we are taking into consideration all the other measures and programs available to ensure that the child is treated fairly.

This is not found in the bill, I agree. It is not harmonized with Quebec programs, but we are willing to bet that it would be better for the children if the bill were passed despite its flaws, which the federal government has refused to correct. At this stage, however, we think it would be better to accept the bill as is so children will stop being taken hostage in conflicts between separated parents.

On the whole, we feel this bill will still be an improvement. Basically, we had the choice between taking an inflexible, uncompromising attitude-a little like the federal government with its paternalistic attitude-or agreeing that the provisions in this bill are enough for now to make sure children are treated right, to at least improve their situation. That is how we look at this bill.

Will other amendments be required in the future? Probably. A bill like this one should perhaps be reviewed in the short or medium term so we can look back and make the necessary adjustments to ensure that no children fall between the cracks and end up in unacceptable situations.

We are willing to bet that the principle of the bill is a good one, that it is not inconsistent enough to vote against. But we are also betting that the provinces will take their responsibilities seriously and do a good job. In any case, we have something to learn in this regard, especially in light of the Quebec model.

In conclusion, we hope the federal government will keep an open mind when it receives applications from the provinces. And its preferred approach will be to give priority to provincial guidelines.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, continuing with my discussion about the needs of children, given what my hon. colleague has just expressed, the Canadian Bar Association says that Bill C-41 does not go far enough in protecting children and, in this specific instance, from poverty. It insists that the legislation does not ensure that there is no discrepancy in the standard of living of the custodial and non-custodial parent.

Equalizing the standard of living in post separation households is ultimately in the best interests of the children.

For example, under Bill C-41 if a father and a mother earned $45,000 and $25,000 a year, respectively, and the mother had custody of the two children and the cost of caring for the children was calculated at about $1,256 a month, each parent would pay $628 a month. But the father's standard of living would be higher than those of the mother and the children.

I ask my hon. colleague how can we respect this notion of equal and fair treatment of households with respect to the whole issue of poverty when we have a bill such as Bill C-41 that does nothing to look after the interests of children in this instance. I would like my hon. colleague to respond to that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that things are obviously different throughout Canada, for example, in Quebec, in this sort of situation. We must also be sure that the Canadian Bar Association is not just trying to complicate the legal situation. I think that we have, in the model proposed for the province of Quebec in any event, covered all the bases.

It will be up to each province with jurisdiction to see that its model is satisfactory and meets the public's requirements. I also hope that the federal government will keep an open mind when considering provincial guidelines. It is obvious that the model

proposed by the government of Quebec addresses my colleague's concerns.

Will the model be the same for the rest of Canada? It is up to citizens to defend their point of view, but basically we feel that it is not up to the federal government to impose guidelines. It is our view, and the correct one we feel, backed up by the Canadian Constitution, that provincial legislatures should have the final say. We also think that the people of Quebec trust the government of Quebec to make the best decision.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

Bill C-41 deals with a specific component of the Divorce Act, child support. It has generated a lot of response not only from the public but here in the House with regard to debating other aspects of the divorce situation which are flawed.

We have talked about the problems of access. I also get letters like the one from Sylvia Richards in my riding expressing concerns with section 15(6) regarding spousal support.

Dealing with the one component, the financial support of children, limits the debate on what could be termed an extremely flawed bill, the Divorce Act. However, I suppose it is a place to start.

When the minister made his address the other day he indicated that there has to be a starting place with the support of children and that guidelines would be the way to go. It is my understanding that the concept of guidelines has been around for some time and the problem is actually identifying the amounts of guidelines.

To move that back one step before we actually get to the support aspect for children, when you look at a marriage it is a contract and the initial or main conditions are the sharing of everything. The second condition would be that the parties agree to do this for the rest of their lives.

When a divorce occurs both those conditions are challenged. If children are not involved in the family situation of the divorce then the sharing component is just a matter of totalling up the assets, deducting the liabilities and splitting the balance and that can negate the rest of our lives with that type of clause and the relationship is finished.

When children are involved, somewhere during the course of that marriage contract it was agreed to by the parties that they would indeed raise and support these children to their adult years. That tends to extend at the divorce time to the rest of our lives or to at least the adult years of the children.

The two components involved with the children are the support and the raising of, which tends to beg the argument that access has a direct bearing. This bill deals directly with the financial support.

In the minister's speech the objective he stated was to introduce child support guidelines as a way of determining what constitutes a proper amount of support according the financial capabilities of the payer. That phrase tends to open a number of possible scenarios, as previously mentioned by one of the speakers in the questions period with regard to the financial ability of the payer. What does this actually mean?

If the payer is not working does it mean that the capability is that he or she cannot pay anything? If the payer is earning $30,000 a year then he or she pays x amount in child support and if that increases to $35,000 does x increase proportionately? Or does it mean that if the payer could earn $60,000 a year but chooses to earn $30,000 a year, then is the support payment based on what he or she is earning or what he or she could earn? It does open up a number of concerns.

The payer's capability is a very broad statement and it would be nice if that could be defined a little more closely. One of the possible problems generating from that is that it certainly does not motivate someone in the paying position to work or to improve their salary.

It reminds me of a situation when the income tax tables came down. Getting a promotion and moving up into the next step, it was possible to actually take home less money. I certainly hope with these guidelines that as one's earning power increases that does not happen.

The minister said that the guidelines provide a starting point. They involved a numerical calculation which takes into account the amounts that families at similar income levels would spend on their children. He goes on to say that in this way child support awards can be consistent, fair and predictable. Yet further on in his statement he makes the comment that there are provisions in the bill which would allow the courts to adjust the award if it causes unfairness because of special provisions made in pre-existing agreements by the party. He illustrates that with an example using the house as being part of the child support.

I tend to caution here that this may violate the principle of sharing equally. We have spent years trying to establish what the equal share or the sharing component of the marriage meant.

It took quite a while to get to the 50:50 aspect of the sharing. I am wondering if we are opening an avenue here that when we look at the marriage situation and the sharing component one can actually take the material assets of the marriage and split them on a 50:50 basis or negotiate one way or another to come up with as close to 50:50 as possible.

I caution that if we start taking these assets and applying them to what I see is a separate issue, the amount of money that it costs to address the raising and financial support of the children, I think we may infringe upon the concept of the 50:50 sharing. That is one weakness I see there.

The other weakness tends to be in wanting to establish a level and fair playing field as far as the amount that the custodial parent would receive in relation to child support. The main argument seems to be that people in similar situations can go into a courtroom and come out with totally different end results. There does not seem to be a standard.

The minister suggests that this bill will certainly address that situation. Yet immediately following that, he makes several possible exceptions. The judge has the flexibility to award up or down. It can be changed if there is a preagreement between the two people, i.e. who gets the house kind of thing. Already we start to get it out of balance. I tend to wonder if we actually solved that problem.

The other thing the minister mentioned is that the bill does not address the access component of the situation. He bases that on input from various organizations, the bar association and this type of thing. I think this is quite a misdemeanour. I find it quite difficult to separate the two; viewing the raising and the financial assistance to the children and separating them totally. I think we will run into problems, guidelines or no guidelines.

There is another thing I would like to address here. In previous debates on this bill, we challenged the guidelines by putting amendments in at various stages but they were all defeated in one way or another. I think that is also a misconception.

The member for Quebec, in her response to the bill, made the point quite clearly that the guidelines provided by the provinces had been totally ignored which is a problem that they perceived. I believe that would be our position as well, that there should have been more in-depth study as to how those guidelines would work into this bill.

The other component I wish to mention at this point concerns the comments made by the member for Quebec. She tended to relate the fact that the divorce component should be given back to the provinces. The marriage component is under civil law and it would logically follow that the divorce component should fall back under provincial jurisdiction. I agree with that. That process of decentralization is an excellent concept here. It is certainly an opportunity for the government to show that when it says it would like to decentralize some of the authority back to the provinces this would be an ideal opportunity. I cannot agree with the member for Quebec that this example of decentralization is a component in recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. This divorce situation is applicable across the country. It does not distinguish any particular province in any special way.

I would also like to make reference to comments made by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam the other day in response to the minister's statement. She indicated that as the bill only addresses one component, the access problem was still very viable. She also brought to the attention of the House that there are three main principles in this bill.

I would like to quote to reinforce what she said earlier: "The first principle is the importance of families in our society and the importance of government to support those families". On the second principle she said: "We have a government that is seized with its own importance, a government that thinks that government can solve all problems, a government that thinks coming to a bill such as this in an easy, fast manner, that wants to put a legislative, legalistic quick fix to a problem that is much too major".

Basically the message my colleague is trying to get across to the House is we have too much government in our lives. Because of the different jurisdictions involved, we should seriously consider putting the divorce aspect back into the jurisdiction of provincial governments.

The third principle that she makes reference to is the true equality of the process. That brings me back to the sharing concept. When we marry we agree to share everything for the rest of our lives. We spend a lot of time attempting to put some sort of value system on that sharing component, a 50:50 balance system of the assets of that partnership. Children are an added commitment to that marriage partnership. It is a responsibility that is generated during the course of the partnership and indeed should be considered separate.

We have debated this for some time now and discussed almost all parameters. However, I would like to repeat before closing that the moneys that are required for the raising of children, from whatever their age at the time of the divorce until their adult years, I do have concerns that may somehow get infringed on with the 50:50 sharing concept.

I certainly think the three principles mentioned by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam have been overlooked and should receive more consideration.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague most carefully and I find she has raised some very important points.

It seems to me that the bill is being somewhat rushed through third reading, considering its great importance. I have worked in education much of my life, and I have had students whose parents were going to divorce or were involved in a divorce. I became aware of the numerous conflicts around equal division.

This is probably a step in the right direction, but I find it insufficient. Equitable, fair and honest division of property is a complex thing. Who will suffer if there is any conflict? The spouses, of course, but the children are the ones who will suffer most. Children and teenagers are very sensitive to these problems.

Another point justifiably raised by my colleague concerns visiting rights. I endorse her words 100 per cent. This needs to be looked at again. This bill perhaps needs to be returned to a committee. If it is tabled as it is, even if it is generally in order, there are certain negative aspects to it.

Furthermore, I believe that this entire question ought to be a provincial responsibility. If marriage is a provincial responsibility, why not divorce also? My colleague called for this, and I back her up 100 per cent.

My question to my colleague is this: even if the Bloc feels the bill is generally in order, has sufficient thought been given to the children? Will they feel more secure after this bill is passed, or will they still feel more or less the way they did in the past, that is almost totally insecure? Will they still worry about whether their father or mother will be able to see them tomorrow? Is there still too much leeway here? Will the division really be done properly? Why not take advantage of this opportunity to delegate this power to the provinces? I think everyone would benefit.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. As I mentioned in my speech, I share a number of his concerns. I do not think the bill as it stands will be able to achieve equity. I do not think it is progressive enough to achieve equity of assets for the two partners, nor can it address the issues of financial support and the raising of the children. I have an extremely difficult time trying to separate the financial aspect and the raising of the children.

I firmly believe this is an excellent opportunity for the government to do as it stated: try to decentralize some of the authority of the federal government. This is an excellent opportunity to put this in the jurisdiction of the provinces.

One other point has not been mentioned, that of the custodial parent obtaining the money that has been allocated for support. That is still a problem which the measures in this bill do not really address. It is still very difficult when payments are not made and the onus is still on the custodial parent to obtain the money, which in itself is a financial burden on them.

The points made by the member from Calgary Southwest in relation to the equity of payments, which I also made in my speech to some extent, are extremely valid. Are they prorated? What happens if the amount is $30,000 now, but then moves up to $40,000? These types of things are not addressed here at all. Basically, what we get is a table of guidelines that says if you make $26,000, this is what you pay. On top of that, a judge can sit there and make variations to it. Where have we gone? I do not know what we have achieved here.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague was referring to me, she referred to me as the member for Calgary Southwest. I am the member for Calgary Southeast. Just a small intervention, thank you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 18, 1996 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries Act

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just begin my speech since I have only a couple of minutes left before question period.

This fisheries bill gives the minister too much power. The Fisheries Act, as it already stands, gives the minister the necessary power that he requires.

The bill is about allocating the resource unequally. For example, it gives the minister the authority to dedicate fish not to a native food fishery but to a native commercial fishery. This has been a huge problem within my province of B.C. Forty per cent of the commercial fishing fleet is already native. The natives have a good portion of the commercial fleet. Nobody questions the need for a native food fishery. That is not the question. The issue is a native

commercial fishery that is carried on at the expense of non-native fishermen.

The resource is owned by the people of Canada. The resource should be allocated equally to all the people of Canada, native or non-native. That is the issue. This bill gives the minister the authority to move a public resource into one sector of our community. That is absolutely wrong. The minister should not-

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I hate to interrupt you. I apologize. It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members. The hon. member, should he so desire, will have the floor after question period.

Immigration

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the 1991 census shows that 45 per cent of the people in my riding are new immigrants. I need a full time person just to look after immigration cases.

One of these cases concerned Mr. and Mrs. Fa Qin Lei. Mr. and Mrs. Lei came from China in 1990 and applied, by going through the regular channels, to bring their three children from China. Their case kept being delayed by officials. After several applications, acceptances and refusals, the youngest son, Chew Quen, lost heart and drowned himself because he feared never being able to join his family in Canada.

This tragedy is one of the many immigration cases that cross my desk. Immigrants have to wait too long and are at the whim of immigration officials in their country.

It is hard to accept that a young man can drown in red tape, as a Vancouver journalist wrote. He was 26 and left his family in despair. His brother and sister are still in China waiting for approval to travel.

Our immigration system must be improved if we really want immigrants to continue to come to Canada and to avoid tragedies. I would like to express my sympathy to the Lei family.