Debates of Feb. 4th, 2003

Divorce Act

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my observation from working with people for the last 25 years plus is that there are not equal rights. The courts, rightly or wrongly, have sided one way. I believe that has been incorrect. I believe that a man who has abused his children has lost those rights. A man who has sexually abused his children is gone. In that case, it would make a differential. In the case where a woman has left her children alone, not cared for them or has abused them, then the custody should go the other way.

All things being equal, the man's rights and the woman's rights are the same. They were partners in the relationship. They were partners in bringing these children into the world. They should be partners after they go through the process of divorce. All divorces are not adversarial. I have seen lots of instances where the parents are good friends. They just do not want to live with each other. That is fine, but please do not harm the kids.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions about why he feels the government has been unable to bring in good legislation.

The bill is lacking in so many areas. Yesterday we talked about another bill that was lacking in so many areas. The government seems unable to provide leadership. I used the illustration yesterday of watching an old horse die. No matter what it is fed, it gets thinner and thinner and stumbles and staggers around. We see it in so many areas.

We saw it in the gun registry yesterday and again today, with the report which says that we have thrown away $400 million of Canadian taxpayer money. It is gone and we cannot possibly get it back. We have seen it with the GST fraud. The minister seems unable and unwilling to take responsibility for what has happened. We have seen it in the inability of the government to take a solid position on Iraq. We have seen it in other areas such as agriculture with the APF. The minister now does not have programs in place when we need them. I could list a number of other areas as well.

Could my colleague comment on why we have this litany of failures to provide decent legislation for Canadians?

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The Divorce Act must be changed to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the act should allow both parents to have a meaningful relationship with their children.

That is not a difficult thing to understand. Most people would agree with that unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children. Again, we put the children first.

Shared parenting should not be interpreted to mean automatic joint custody. It means that both spouses continue to maintain a relationship--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about this important bill. Bill C-22 will have important ramifications on the social fabric of Canadian life. It is a good thing that at least we are talking about it. We will go to committee next and that will open up some more discussion, more debate, and potentially bring some improvements. However, the jury is out on that right now and we will see what will happen.

I would like to address a couple of comments that were made by the government side this afternoon with regard to its role, its involvement, and its thoughts on Bill C-22 and what to do next.

The first deals with comments made with regard to prevention. The words that were chosen related to the first person to dare to take this way to talk about the actual prevention aspect of divorce, and front end was also used with regard to that. This is a bigger issue with regard to the family unit and it also touches the front end. However, the government has done a horrible job at keeping families together. It has done a horrible job of ensuring that people have the opportunities to succeed, not only in the family unit but also in the economy.

One of the examples the member mentioned, and I agree it is an improvement, is employment insurance. It enables women on maternity leave to stay at home longer and spend a longer period of time with their infant. As well, there are expansions to parental leave. I think these are improvements, but it goes without saying that the government has robbed workers and employers of these funds for years.

It has taken credit for balancing the budget and deficit cutting off the backs of those very people. It has been very proud in talking about that aspect and at the same time it is offering a crumb back to the people. It is important to note the importance of a strong family unit.

Another issue is day care. Why not universal day care? Absolutely. Where has the government been on day care? We know that most women right now cannot access day care that has a format and actual standards. There are lots of issues with day care.

I recently went through that issue. I have been very fortunate. There is someone who is providing care for my young daughter. We lucked out. There are settings out there that are very difficult to get into. Parents are scrambling around at the last moment and there is a lot of pressure on them, and women in particular, because they must balance the child and the workforce. That gets even more problematic. It is important to recognize that the government has not taken the lead with that.

With regard to the new family unit, there is student debt. I have spoken about this and want to highlight it a bit as well. We are talking about younger families getting involved with procreation and creating the opportunity to start a family. They are doing so over a longer period of time now, from the time they finish their education to the time they enter the workforce. Their undergraduate degrees take them to a certain point in time with a certain amount of debt. Then from that, a graduate degree is often required now.

People are finishing an undergraduate degree, which one almost needs for a minimum wage paying job right now. One needs an undergraduate degree for just about everything now. Then they have that debt that they have to pay back. They are already in their young twenties. From that they go on to a potential graduate degree and from that go into the workforce.

The opportunity for a young couple to start a family is delayed or challenged even further. That is an important thing to recognize because the debt that is incurred, the instability of the workforce, and getting a meaningful job that has benefits to support a family, is becoming increasingly harder in our country. It is becoming more difficult. That is setting people up for difficult problems.

By the government's own admission, it has identified economics as a major factor in the breakup of the family. A number of different colleagues across the way have identified that as an important issue. Therefore, when we are increasing the student debt on students and delaying their families, delaying the years they are able to create and plan out their full lives, we are setting them up to certain conditions which are very difficult.

There was also reference to reuniting families. Specifically, the member was talking about new immigrants. I agree with the member that it is a very important issue. I can tell members from my past experience working with new Canadians that the head tax is a welcome to Canada debt that they have to pay. When they add up their family members they are in debt. We have set them back. They have to find employment, training, understand the community they are living in, and they often have language barriers. All of these circumstances make it difficult for people to move and be able to create a strong family and future.

I think it is in the interests of Canadians to ensure that they thrive during these difficult times, that they prosper and are able to plan. We look at their contributions across the country and it is one of the major reasons why Canada has become such a great country. However, we are delaying and creating problems whereas we could be supporting the family unit a lot better.

Another regressive issue that we have is the GST and how it is applied on all the different things that relate to families. The GST is a regressive tax. I know the government wanted to get rid of the GST. We are still waiting. Nevertheless, regressive tax measures such as the GST are not good and not positive for family units.

I will touch on Bill C-22 and the legislation, as well as some of the other factors that can be improved and need to be addressed. An objective that was identified in the throne speech was modernizing the family justice system. The first objective was to minimize the potential negative impact of separation and divorce on children. Second, to provide parents with the tools they need to reach parenting arrangements that are in a child's best interests. Third, to ensure that the legal process is less adversarial and that only the most difficult cases go to court.

Those were the three pillars. I think there should have been a fourth pillar relating to family justice. Family justice is about poverty, education, social involvement, and ensuring that we are supportive as a government to the family unit.

The government has a responsibility with regard to affordable housing and low income wages. The government must address the fact that Canada's minimum wage is ranked quite low and needs to be improved.

The government is still debating health care. I know the Prime Minister is meeting with the premiers right now. However, he will not attend a meeting including first nations and this is problematic. The reality is that health care is another strong pillar. I know that families have difficulties with regard to affordable prescription drugs and that too is an important aspect when raising a family.

I will now move to the actual bill itself and the services for families. The minister stated:

Services are needed to ease the conflict and stress that come with separation and divorce and help parents while they are making decisions about the care of their children. The Government of Canada will devote $63 million in new funding over five years to the provinces and territories for family justice services.

We have heard a lot about that before. I would like to see the promise fulfilled. However, there are other issues the government could be working on that would address that and one of them is taking care of the affordable housing issue in our country.

Right now we have the opportunity to create sustainable homes and environments that are positive for people that would have a long-lasting benefit to the family unit.

One of the things that campaign 2000 outlined was the creation of affordable homes. It advocated 20,000 new affordable home units each year for 10 years and the rehabilitation of 10,000 affordable units per year, requiring an investment of at least $1 billion per year over the next five years.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

How does this affect divorce?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

An Alliance member is asking how that affects divorce? We are talking about creating a strong environment for family units. Members across the way addressed that as one of the major issues relating to breakups and divorce. I was addressing their comments as previously stated in the House.

Those are some of the things that could specifically happen in regard to creating a strong environment for family units. We know that the House has discussed the issue. However, it has not been acted upon and has not led to any action. This is one of the important factors that needs to be addressed.

Legislative changes are happening. I would like to point out that legislative changes are important. We cannot ignore the difficulty with legal aid and legislative changes. We know that women earn less and are less able to purchase effective legal services. Legal aid has been cut quite a bit in B.C. and Ontario is reinstating some of the legal aid cuts. However, legal aid has been a tool that has been reduced in this country.

We need to make sure that legal aid is available for people so that they are able to go through these processes, to make sure that they have strong opportunities to be able to put forth their cases for their actual situations.

Another issue with regard to legislative changes is that the terms of custody and access will be eliminated for the purposes of the act and the new model will be based upon a parental responsibilities framework. It is outlining more of the jurisdictional aspect over the framework. To some extent, I think that is actually good. It is jargon in the sense of the framework tool, but perhaps defining these things more will be very helpful and actually provide some framework and, more important, some obligated responsibilities.

However, like a lot of other issues, the courts cannot always legislate people to do things. We have to provide the proper environments and the proper tools for people to be effective, and that simply is not happening with the set-up we have right now.

In addition to changes to the Divorce Act, amendments will be made to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. They are important in consolidating some of the things we have out there. I have had a number of constituents call me with concerns in regard to being able to access the supports that were given to them through a legal process. Parents not having the ability to get those resources directly affects the child. That is one thing that needs to be addressed, as well as, potentially, the backlogs in the system so that people can actually get the resources that have been derived for them.

I would like to touch briefly as well on the fact that the bill still seems to isolate divorce as being a one-family situation. This does concern me. It is important to start to move toward understanding that it takes the whole community to raise a child, that it is the community's responsibility, not just that of the parents. The parents obviously are very important in this, but bringing children into the world and rearing them requires the support of the community. Just putting the fault on two people, on the fact that they could not get along, is not sufficient in the debate. There has to be a healthy environment and there have to be the tools necessary for them. As well, we have to provide the necessary supports for them.

We know that right now, regardless of who has custody, women have a greater challenge with single parenting. This is an important thing to recognize in single parenting. We know right now that households led by women earn less. We know that. It is an additional challenge that they are going to have to face and society has to have the supports there. We know right now that there is not access to day care. It is very important for single mothers to be able to access affordable day care that is going to be a nurturing environment for their sons or daughters.

There is a fundamental question. Whatever the family structure, a child's adjustment is associated with the quality of parenting and not the structure of the family itself. This is a fundamental question to debate. Once again it goes back to the fact that obviously the parents, in a strong environment, are going to be a great asset, but when that situation does not happen we have to ensure that the proper supports are there.

I believe the government can do that by moving to more comprehensive strategies to eliminate child poverty. That is going to ensure that at the end of the day the children who have to go through the system are going to have the supports there. It will not be whether or not someone is going to pay up somewhere down the line or whether someone is going to show up for the child. There must be proper supports for them. That is going to be very important in the future.

In summary, I will conclude my remarks by saying that it has taken a long time for the government to address the situation of child poverty. Our issue with regard to Bill C-22 is going to be the struggle on how it is going to relate to being able to advance the beneficial elements for children. The struggle will be whether or not it is going to be part of a process to eliminate child poverty or part of a process that is going to further create that problem. I think that is a loss for the country.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting that we can have so many different interpretations of the bills that come before us. We already have heard from one of our hon. colleagues that this is an immigration bill. Now we have heard from our hon. colleague that somehow this has something to do with a left wing socialist agenda, and we heard it well from him.

He made an astonishing statement, too, much like the previous member who talked about the bill as an immigration bill. He said that the community's job is to raise kids. For the life of me, I do not understand how he can say that. I would really like him to elaborate on what he meant by that. Surely he did not mean that communities can raise children better than parents can. Surely he did not mean that day care can raise children better than parents can.

If we truly believe that it takes two people, a mother and a father, to do the best parenting jobs available, to raise children in this society, how could he make those statements? I really would like to know.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not surprised that the member from the Alliance could not understand what I said.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Does that make you feel better now?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Absolutely. It makes me feel better, Madam Speaker, because he quantified it as an astonishing statement.

Let me preface this. The reason I feel that way is that my parents divorced when I was at a very early age. A lot of positive things have come out of my life because my parents have dealt with it the way they have and because there have been some community supports.

I can tell the House that those challenging times in my life were when I went to school and there were only one or two children who had divorced parents. There was a stigma attached to me. That was one of the biggest difficulties I had to face in my life, because there were not that many other people out there who were in the same situation, but that has changed now. The stigma has changed because there are community supports out there and I think I am a better person for it.

As for what I referenced when I said that it takes a community to raise a child, I believe that. Parents obviously are incredibly important, the most important asset in a child's life, but it takes everybody working together to ensure that children are safe, have a healthy environment and have the opportunity for education and the opportunity to be included in the community in terms of recreation and all the learning experiences available. That takes a community and that is about taking care of our children.

For the most part, parents in our society today have to go to jobs. They need to have the opportunity to earn a wage to be able to build a family and to make sure they have a sustainable future. That has a cost. The cost is that they are away from their children more. When that happens other support has to be there, whether it is great day care or whether it is the opportunity to be included in the community around them. Regardless of that, those structures have to be in place. That comes from a healthy environment. This is not just left wing propaganda. It is about a community. A lot of people on the right wing believe in strong communities and that is what the issue is. The issue is about communities, but we must have the proper support, resources and planning for our communities. That takes vision and dedication of resources and the ability to see that process through.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my deskmate from the New Democratic Party. I always enjoy talking with him and listening to his speeches. He is a brand new member who has been here for only a few months and I must admit that we get along very well.

His statements are in line with what I said about the need for a true family policy, which is lacking here in Canada. We are trying to achieve this in Quebec; this could be done if we had the means, if we had the money, if we had the opportunity to pass legislation and the possibility of taking money from the EI fund.

My colleague talked about the community raising children. I totally agree with him. When you live in a small town or village, everyone knows one another or at least one another's children and can take certain responsibilities. When you know your next door neighbour has a drink and hits his wife, you can intervene more easily than if you lived anonymously in a large city.

That said, my colleague talked about two aspects: prevention and cure. As to prevention, if there were no divorce, we would not need the Divorce Act if we maybe had the means to help families. That is what our colleague said.

As to cure, when people divorce, it seems that both spouses are not on equal footing.

I would like our colleague to talk about these two elements, that is, the need to have a real policy to help families and, second, about what is missing for both spouses to be on an equal footing when they divorce.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As well, she has been very generous in providing French lessons since I have been here. I am still on a slow learning curve. I have had a couple of formal lessons, but I think my colleague has provided the best lessons, during the House of Commons question period in particular.

With regard to her first question on prevention, I think it is important to note that because of the growth of divorce and the lack of the government involvement in focusing on a policy that is inclusive and beneficial to families, it has fostered situations that have become more difficult to contain and it has led to some of the problems we have.

We need a national strategy on how to work with families, whether it be through taxation, housing, employment or any of those things. There has to be a national strategy that would be driven by the House of Commons in partnership with the provinces. We have to recognize that each province is very different. For example, Quebec is different from Ontario in some of the needs that Ontario has. We have to be respectful of that.

There are traditions in the different areas, be they cultural or related to urbanization, rural areas or heritage. All those different things that started with the birth of Canada are still being played out today in very profound ways. We have to make sure that when we look at a national strategy we are very much focused toward provincial needs that are quite different. I know that Ontario is different from British Columbia and, once again, Quebec. All those things are there for good reasons and have built the country we have today, but we must be respectful of them because they will take us even farther.

With regard to curatives and the two spouses not being equal, that is a very important aspect. We know that women have been at a disadvantage or at least have had to fight and struggle to gain the same respect, the same opportunities and the same situations as men, not just individually but collectively. We have seen an actual movement toward some improvement in wages, but women are still not there. Men still earn more than women in many occupations and that is not right.

They also have very difficult problems to face after a marriage breakup. It gets very complicated because they often will have to deal with rearing the child in the home and all the issues that go with that, for example, getting up, getting the child ready, going to work, picking up the child after work and then doing all the other chores necessary at home. Males can be very involved. We have a lot of great fathers who have been very involved in their children's lives. However, they can be the greatest fathers, but if they are not actually on the premises or in the residence, it leads to a further challenge for the parents. It can work both ways.

We know there is certainly a disadvantage for women in our society right now. It certainly is not reflected in any of the statistics. I think we need to be very careful about that. We need to identify that as something to tackle in this proposed legislation when the witnesses come forward.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise on this debate. I certainly want to express concern that after all these years and all the opportunities the government has had to get it right, it has missed so much of the fundamental importance of what the bill actually could have done for families in the country.

My friend who spoke just a few minutes ago talked about being a child of divorced parents. He seemed to be lecturing the Alliance on what it was like to come from a divorced home. I do not know whether he would find this as a surprise or not but even some of us in the Alliance come from divorced families.

I can tell just by looking at him that I have a few years on him but when my parents were divorced in Vancouver in the very early 1960s, there were precious few community programs. When he talked about being the child of divorced parents and how there were great community supports, that is terrific too, but in the early 1960s there were precious few community supports.

There are church groups, community groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon which are very important groups. It may be a surprise to him to know that even some of them do not get government funding, yet they do tremendous work. I know that in our family we really appreciated that.

The member talked about both parents working these days. The answer to that is, no wonder because taxes are so high. Many of us know families where it is essential for both parents to work because taxes are so high. It seems there is such a social stigma attached to both parents working that if they do want to try to get by on one income, it makes it very difficult for them because things are expensive and people want to have as many things as possible.

The most frustrating part about the bill is it does not include shared parenting. When the crew travelled around the country, and Madam Speaker, you know about that all too well, they heard any number of presentations from parents who were having their maintenance enforcement enacted but it was tied to access to their kids. I think shared parenting came up a great deal. They saw many men in lots of instances--generally the custodial parent is the woman; that is not always the case but I think in large measure it is--where if they did not do this, they would not have access to their kids and the pain that is attached to that is unbelievable.

We heard real life stories. It is so easy to talk in here about numbers and statistics and all that but we saw the names and faces of real people who came to the hearings across the country. I attended the one in Edmonton. I did not go all over the country on the hearings but I think there were many similarities.

Men often were not allowed to see their kids. When one spouse, the custodial parent, is able to use that as a tool, that seems certainly unhealthy at best and vindictive at worst. It uses the kids as pawns. Surely all of us would agree that is not the best way.

Members of Parliament spoke today saying that they have had access to their kids, that they have been very blessed by that and very grateful. I had some access with my father in the 1960s when my parents split up but my dad is an alcoholic. We have worked on that publicly together. My father Mansell is sober now. We have tried to work hard and make sure that we always talk about drinking and driving and how important it is for people to go after sobriety and to work with Alcoholics Anonymous.

I am really proud of my dad. I am grateful to God for my dad who has been sober for several years now. We are glad to “have him back” because there were too many years when we were growing up and when his grandkids were growing up that he just was not able to see much of it.

We can think about how important it is for kids and the non-custodial parent to spend time together. In our situation many times it was physically dangerous because if my dad was drinking, obviously we did not want to be out in the car with him. We were taught from a very young age that if my dad picked us up and took us to Stanley Park or wherever, although we enjoyed seeing him, we knew that we had 10¢ or 25¢ in our pocket to get on a bus to go home. We were trained to be wise enough that if we were in a dangerous situation, to get the heck out of it.

As I think back on my years as a child of a broken home, I am concerned and somewhat knowledgeable about how painful it is and how difficult it would have been for me not to see my dad even though we had all kinds of problems.

Divorce happens and it happens all too much in our generation. At the same time, I do not know how anyone on the government side could think that parenting ends or, unless of course there is serious alcoholism or abuse issues or whatever, that it is wise that someone cannot see their kids.

There is this glaring omission in these proposed reforms which the minister says are going to be absolutely terrific and will make everybody's family life happy even though it has been very difficult. I know kids are resilient but at the same time there is no provision for a shared parenting role. How is that going to solve the problem?

We are just going to keep the wrangle going and Madam Speaker, you may be unlucky enough to be put on another committee that will traipse all over God's half acre. You would say no way, José, and who could blame you? Surely enough has been done here that we could say we figured out what people had to say and we should reflect that in the legislation.

There are families that break down by divorce and there are parents who have dysfunctional relationships with their kids because the kids do not have opportunities to see their parents. We see dreadful situations all too often when kids or the non-custodial parent take a very difficult way out, some by suicide, some with mental illness, some who just give up on it and say forget it.

Surely we need to do better than that. That is one thing the government could certainly do to make it strong.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will have another 12 minutes and 42 seconds when we resume debate on the bill.

It being 5:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Antipoverty Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

moved that Bill C-228, Antipoverty Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, in the history of the Bloc Quebecois, the issue of poverty and social marginalization has always been a major one, as shown by the work done by the hon. member for Québec and our long time employment insurance critic, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We have always been concerned about how, from a legislative point of view, we could be sure of being able to make a contribution to improving the situation of the least advantaged members of society.

I first introduced the bill we are discussing today back in 1995. If I remember correctly, the parliamentary secretary was not in the House at that time. The bill, a little like yourself, Madam Speaker, has aged very well and it remains extremely pertinent to this day.

In 2000, when the women's march was held in Quebec—that extremely well publicized popular event with its theme of “Bread and roses”—the Quebec human rights commission issued a public policy statement to the effect that poverty was still the most important problem of present day Quebec. I think that in 2003 that statement continues to hold just as true.

The National Council of Welfare, an advisory body which advises the Minister of Human Resource Development, has said that in 1999-2000, that is the latest year for which there are statistics available, 4,900,000 people in Canada were considered poor. There being no official poverty index in Canada, low income level is used. The yardstick set by Statistics Canada is that people are considered poor if they spend more than 20% of their income on vital necessities, that is clothing, housing and food. Concretely, this means that for the year 1999-2000, a person who spent 55% of his income on essential goods was considered poor.

My bill now before the House is very reasonable. It does not have nearly the same scope as the legislation that was introduced by the Government of Quebec in the National Assembly and passed last June. As members will remember, the Government of Quebec chose to invest $1.34 billion in the fight against poverty and social exclusion over the next three years. It is so important—and the member for Québec, who has always been supportive in this fight, will agree with me—that the bill was considered a rather unique piece of legislation, one of the most forward-looking in North America. Of course, that does not come as a surprise for those who know the Parti Quebecois. Its roots and its commitment to social democratic values have always been quite strong.

My bill therefore should be unanimously passed in this House since it is a reasonable piece of legislation that will not require additional resources from the Treasury Board or the government. Rather, it relies on a tool that already exists, namely the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not the charter. As we all know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can only be revisited through constitutional negotiations. Bloc members certainly do not want to go that route.

The Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1977. It provides guarantees to all those using services under federal jurisdictional, such as chartered banks as well as transportation and communications services, so that they can have redress if they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, conviction for an offence for which a pardon has beengranted, and so on. There are 12 prohibited grounds of discrimination, but social condition is not one of them.

Social condition is important because eight provinces have added this prohibited ground of discrimination to their Human Rights Code.

Therefore, the purpose of my bill is to add this to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, as eight provinces have already done. It is extremely important because, if social condition had existed as a prohibited ground, some of our fellow citizens would have had recourse in many specific circumstances.

For example, you will recall the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, when Lloyd Axworthy was the minister responsible for that legislation. A perfect epitome of the left side of the Liberal Party when he was an opposition member, he introduced one of the most reactionary, discriminatory and unacceptable bills, one that brought us light years away from the just society Pierre Elliott Trudeau had hoped for.

If social condition were already a prohibited ground of discrimination, one significant measure that we could take, for example, is to help a young person, a labour force entrant, who wants to qualify for employment insurance for the first time and who has to accumulate 910 hours of insurable employment. For all intents and purposes, it is almost impossible for a new entrant, a young person working for the first time, to be eligible for employment insurance.

Several legal experts and analysts have said that if the Canadian Human Rights Act had included social condition as a prohibited ground, as defined by the courts, including the Court of Appeal of Quebec, it would have provided an extremely useful recourse for these people.

Obviously, receiving employment insurance sets one very much apart. To say that a particular group can or cannot qualify for employment insurance is discriminatory.

Employment insurance would also help those who cannot open a bank account or receive services from financial institutions, especially chartered banks. In the 1960s, there were twenty chartered banks operating in the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve; today there are only four.

We are familiar with the discrimination and lack of sensitivity. Banks want to focus on business clients, small to medium-sized business and even large business clients. Often, they are not attuned to the need for microlending.

It is inconceivable that in a society as rich as Canada and Quebec, people who want to access microfinancing should have a really hard time. It is certainly not the attitude of charter banks as we know them that will solve the problem.

What is suggested in my private member's bill is a mechanism similar to something that exists in France. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is not a partisan organization. Its role is to investigate and mediate, and it can call for a human rights tribunal as it deems appropriate.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, with its chief and deputy chief commissioners and its other full time and part time commissioners, would be mandated by the House to examine all the bills introduced by the Crown, that is members of the cabinet, and advise on their impact on poverty.

Therein lies the paradox on poverty. When the Senate set up an inquiry in the 1970s, poverty was associated with aging. Nowadays, in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, we have to recognize that many people on the labour market live in poverty.

The most incredible part is that the legislator, Parliament, can pass legislation that could have a terrible impact on disposable income.

Of course, the issue of employment insurance is a concrete example. The issue of charter banks and the openness that we showed toward foreign banks is another example. There is the whole review of the Immigration Act, where the government increasingly wants an immigration based on economic reasons, at the expense of one based on humanitarian grounds.

I hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will deal with this issue. He is associated with the left wing of the Liberal Party, the militant left wing, the “Trudeau” left wing, the just society left wing, but I sense that he is being increasingly assimilated by the system. Still, I know that when we make representations to him, he can sometimes show some sensitivity at the last moment.

Having said this, when the Canadian Human Rights Commission receives the mandate to do so, it will have to take a prospective look at each of these bills. Then, when the Minister of Justice tables a report, this House will have some benchmarks, some reference points.

In the mid-nineties, I was a member of this House. Think of how different the situation could have been if the Canadian Human Rights Commission had had the necessary expertise when we debated the Employment Insurance Act.

Of course, some people were pleased because it was said that the Canada assistance plan would be amended and there would be a little more leeway regarding employability measures. However, in hindsight, we realize that the employment insurance program was an act that already offered very broad coverage. There have been years where 80% of those who were part of the workforce could take advantage of that legislation.

Today, I was looking at the figures—I was actually discussing them with the member next to me, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—and there are only 3 out of 10 people in the workforce who qualify for employment insurance.

The notion of insurance, the protective role that the employment insurance program was meant to play has been completely eliminated, despite the fact that the Canadian government, in its budget revenues, in its own revenues, is helping itself to the employment insurance fund without investing one single penny in the program.

Canada is one of the few industrialized countries in which the government does not contribute to the funding, to the operations of the employment insurance fund, but sets, through regulations, the contributions that employers and employees have to make, again even though it does not contribute one single penny.

I have received some extremely important support for this bill and was pleased to get it. This morning I received a letter from the Canadian Conference of Bishops, and I have the support of the CSN, the Fédération des femmes and literacy advocates.

Once again, this is a reasonable bill. It will make it possible to take one more step, to mandate the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and one of its extremely important aspects is that it calls for a statutory debate of six hours on poverty issues.

Words will not be enough. This government is particularly cowardly and insensitive as far as poverty is concerned. When we did last have a debate on this issue in Parliament? Every time it can, the government sidesteps its responsibility.

We are certainly not in a position to compare the extraordinary record of the Parti Quebecois as far as poverty is concerned. I looked at its record and at all the measures that have been adopted in Quebec. It is pretty unbelievable: $1.37 billion for 6 million people. There have been some really concrete measures, such as $500 million put into social housing.

We are aware of the correlation that exists between low rental housing and the ability to cope with poverty. The record here is pretty impressive, with concrete measures and very specific objectives: 40,000 new units or renovations.

In this regard, there are certain communities where construction is not the answer. Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for example, has virtually no vacant land, so this is a place for renovation of the existing housing stock.

There are plans for the construction or renovation of 40,000 housing units. Then there is the annual indexing of social assistance, abolition of the penalty for shared accommodation, and abolition of the housing test.

Perhaps the members for English Canada are less aware of this, but in Quebec we have had the collective for the elimination—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, but he will have five minutes left at the expiry of the time provided for the debate.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees in order to present a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to the membership and associate membership of committees. I have been requested to do this today by members of the opposition.

Madam Speaker, I am in your hands because I know it is a two stage process. I have to table the report and then normally I would move concurrence in it. I would be glad to operate as you instruct.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is more than a two step process. Does the House give its consent to revert to presenting reports from committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-228 introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. The bill touches on important issues of concern to all Canadians and I welcome the chance to address them.

The bill, entitled the antipoverty act, is actually a proposed amendment to our Canadian Human Rights Act. As can be seen, these proposed changes are significant.

First, it would add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Second, it would explicitly make it a discriminatory practice for banks to refuse to provide service to individuals by reason only of their low income. Third, the hon. member's bill would require the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the crown to determine whether it would likely result in a discriminatory practice. The commission's findings would be tabled in both houses.

Last, the bill would have the commission prepare an annual report on poverty in Canada in which it would establish the required annual expenditure to end poverty. This report would also be tabled before both houses and the bill would compel the House of Commons to debate its contents.

Before turning to the specifics of the bill and why I cannot support it, I would first like to take a moment to comment on its objective. Clearly, it is motivated by the desire to alleviate the serious problem of poverty in Canada. With this objective, the Government of Canada has already demonstrated its full agreement.

Poverty continues to prevent some individuals from realizing their full potential as equal members of our society with a right to equal opportunity and equal participation. Addressing the problem of poverty needs to be a priority for all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. Unfortunately, despite numerous governmental policies and programs implemented to address this concern, poverty persists.

Federal efforts have included such measures as employment insurance, increased tax credits and national labour and housing strategy. Provincial and municipal governments have also been active in developing and implementing policies and programs aimed at eradicating poverty.

Nevertheless, more remains to be done. As a result, the government has recently reaffirmed its commitment to strengthen the social safety net and to work to eradicate poverty through a number of innovative initiatives. To name one such initiative in particular, the national child benefit is helping children and families break out of that cycle of poverty.

The government promised in the Speech from the Throne to increase the national child benefit, one of the most effective programs we have seen to date for assisting poor families to get on their feet. In addition, specific measures tailored to the needs of low income families caring for children with severe disabilities are being developed. Strides are also being made with respect to improving the educational needs and outcomes of first nations children.

It is true that poverty and the lack of social support have kept some members of our Canadian community from maximizing their individual potential, which is not acceptable in a free and democratic society. Without a doubt, our work is aimed at eradicating the root causes of poverty by ameliorating disadvantage and improving opportunities at any early age. Experience has taught us that band-aid solutions will not work. Our energies and resources must be targeted at those measures that will be the most effective and successful in breaking down systemic barriers to participation and interrupting vicious cycles of poverty faced by some of our citizens.

It is because of the government's commitment to effective, responsive and respectful anti-poverty policies that I cannot support the bill of the hon. member. Poverty alleviation and improved protection from discrimination are fundamental matters that require a more thorough and considered response than that offered in this bill.

This piecemeal approach is reflected on three levels.

First, the inclusion of social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination without further statutory definition or guidance could have undesired and even unforeseen consequences for the interpretation and administration of our Human Rights Act. For example, if no constraints are imposed, an undefined ground of social condition could conceivably be used to challenge our progressive system of taxation. Rather than protecting the disadvantaged, the CHRA could be used as an instrument of profit by the most advantaged in our society. This is an unacceptable risk.

This is why the Department of Justice is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the CHRA. We are considering structural and procedural improvements for examining the possibility of expanding the scope of protections to include new prohibited grounds of discrimination, one of which is social condition.

We are learning from the experiences of our provincial and territorial counterparts, such as Quebec and the Northwest Territories, that have included social condition and we are determining whether those experiences are appropriately transferrable to the federal arena. Protection from discrimination on the basis of social condition is an important and complex issue that merits dedicated analysis rather than hasty inclusion or a piecemeal approach.

Second, other portions of Bill C-228 are similarly ill-advised as an effective strategy for addressing poverty. Burdening the Canadian Human Rights Commission with the task of reviewing every piece of government legislation and calculating the cost of eradicating poverty on an annual basis would, to say the least, be a substantial extension of its current mandate.

The time, effort and resources that would be required to fulfill these duties would overshadow and overwhelm the central and vital work of that commission as an anti-discrimination agency which assists victims of discrimination with their claims for equality. Not only would these amendments have serious financial and administrative cost consequences for the commission, but the duties to advise Parliament on the costs of poverty and to assess all potential legislation would be decidedly outside the expertise and perhaps outside its statutory competence.

Third, there is also the question of how the bill restricts the operation of Parliament and the discretion of ministers. The government of the nation requires flexibility and autonomy in setting its own agenda to respond to the needs and demands of Canadians promptly and effectively.

This system has worked well. Canadians have let us know what poverty concerns they have and the government has responded in the House through legislation and administrative programs. The government has already moved far beyond with concrete action plans and systemic solutions to break the vicious poverty cycle.

There is no question that the government supports the effective alleviation of poverty. This is clearly demonstrated by our social programs and our social and economic support systems. A comprehensive review of the CHRA is already underway, as I mentioned, which is considering the issue of social condition in its full context. What cannot be supported, however, are cumbersome tasks for our human rights agencies, the inefficient and inappropriate use of administrative resources and the restriction of House operations.

For these reasons, the government cannot support Bill C-228.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise again to seek unanimous consent to present a report concerning the membership and associate membership for some committees.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Does the House give its consent to the tabling of the report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.