Paul Forseth

[Divorce Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to this private member's bill. My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam I know has worked very hard over the last few months travelling across the country talking to groups about this legislation. I would like to advise the House that the response out there has been overwhelming in support.

There are many voids in the Divorce Act. For example, at the present time in a divorce case grandparents do have to seek leave of the court to obtain standing to discuss the question of access to their grandchildren. This bill will give grandparents an automatic right to the standing to participate at court.

I am not a grandparent, but I hope to be some day. I think most of us want to experience that joy. Sure, it might make us feel a little older, but these days what does not make us feel older?

As parents and grandparents we want to see that our grandchildren have the best quality of life. There is nothing wrong with this. But the law can divide, and we need to mitigate against that. To me, grandparents have always seemed rather stable. Perhaps it stems from the notion that the older you get, the wiser you become.

I recently read an article in which a federal official was quoted as saying: "In the great majority of cases, it would be in the best interests of children to see their grandparents. They can be a real stabilizing force".

I understand the Minister of Justice is not quite in support of this legislation. Why? Apparently he feels that if Bill C-232 is passed the courts would be flooded with litigation, causing a tremendous backlog. I do not think so.

I spent enough time working within the British Columbia family and divorce courts to know that including grandparents in contested divorce cases will only improve matters, not make them worse. As the Divorce Act currently states in section 17(2), "a person other than a spouse may not make an application under paragraph 1(b) without leave of the court".

The minister may say that if we allow grandparents a say at the original hearing it will increase litigation. My experience says otherwise. Extended families must be encouraged to take more responsibility for their own and come to the rescue or backstop the social alternatives considered in child custody and access disputes.

In clause 3(1) it states: "On the expiration of four years after the coming into force of this act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate or of the Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose".

If that measure is adopted, Parliament will conduct a comprehensive review of these provisions in four years. The Minister of Justice is afraid of guarantees like this. He does not put guaranteed reviews into his bills because he is perhaps afraid that down the road legislation may be changed because it is really flawed. Why does the minister not put such a clause in Bill C-68, for instance? Maybe he fears the results.

Certainly family law needs fundamental review. I am not encouraged that the justice minister will produce any substantive changes soon. But this bill is not only about grandparents, it is also about grandchildren. It is vitally important that we have legal protection for them.

We recognize that all grandparents are beneficial for their grandchildren. There are times when they should be denied direct access or should not be involved, but that should be the exception by an order. This is why we have courts and judges. They are the decision makers in those contested cases. All relevant voices must be heard in difficult cases, and this bill facilitates that help. The best interests of the child is still the operative principle.

All that is being done here is awarding the grandparent the right to have a voice. That is essentially all we are asking to have changed.

This morning I received a copy of the speech the Liberal member for South Shore was to give today but could not because of previous commitments. The member clearly is in favour of this legislation. The member for Nepean is another member who I know supports this legislation. Therefore, I would encourage members of the Liberal Party to consult with their colleagues on this bill and find out what their feelings are.

Certainly members of the Reform Party are behind this legislation. We believe that it is needed as one small step in a larger effort to update and simplify family law.

Reading some of the comments the member for Nepean has made on this bill, I understand that there are some parts she has difficulty with, but this is understandable. This is why the House of Commons has standing committees: to deal with legislation, to bring in the experts and go over it with a fine-tooth comb.

I have been a divorce mediator. As an officer of the court in the past, I have investigated circumstances and made recommendations and written recommendations about child custody and access. It is my considered opinion from within the system that in general family law is in somewhat of a disarray. But clarifying the role for grandparents in hotly contested cases is a help, not a hindrance. A strong legal climate as a backdrop encourages mediated settlements and alternative solutions.

Indeed, the court is a very blunt instrument to settle family matters, but clarity and resolve in the law can only help children. Sometimes these matters deteriorate into a swirl of struggles and manoeuvres and the real needs of children and their wishes are forgotten.

This bill deserves to be sent to the standing committee. It would represent a very positive step toward the protection and development of the child who is caught up in these unfortunate circumstances.

Therefore, on behalf of many grandparents rights groups across the country, including the British Columbia based Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, I want to fully endorse this bill and commend it to this House.

[Petitions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition today signed by British Columbians, the majority of whom are from my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby.

The petitioners beginning with Peggy MacDonald of New Westminster pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights act to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, May 1st, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this private member's bill today and I thank my hon. colleague for seconding introduction and first reading.

Earlier this year I was approached by a Vancouver area lawyer who told me of a concern he had with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The concern is that an offender can be released from having to pay any damages arising from assault awarded in a civil law suit if they claim bankruptcy.

The plight of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the offender. The victim in this country has suffered enough, and then to be hit with a blow that no payment for damages will be received because of a loophole in the bankruptcy act is completely unacceptable.

Many have been victimized by abusive relationships only to learn that later they will not receive the awarded damages because of a loophole in the federal statute. Fines, alimony and

fraud debt are not exempted; civil damages from criminal assault should not be exempted either. Action must be taken now to amend the flawed act.

The bill I am introducing will add to the list currently in the act under section 178. The addition will be civil damages in respect of an assault or battery on a victim. The changes will give the victim more rights. Every member in the House knows the victim certainly deserves more consideration than the convicted offender.

It is an honour as a private member to have the opportunity to introduce a bill. However, I want the government to take a close look at the legislation. I know the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Justice are interested in this. I encourage the government to take it over exactly as it is.

Canadians want Parliament to be comprised of effective policy making. The way this can be done is to support any legislation that will truly benefit the country as a whole.

Since victims of crime have no party label, I invite non-partisan support for the bill from all corners of the House.

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

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Canadians are faced with a fundamental dilemma: there is less government money to go around to support medicare as we know it yet everyone wants to preserve medicare.

How do we reallocate tax dollars and in general bring more resources to bear on medicare in a climate of economic restraint? A lot of our problem is really not internal to medicare but rather the fiscal climate within which it is trying to operate.

Could the minister clarify the larger fiscal climate that affects medicare and the solution to that dilemma? How do we address the overall funding shortfalls for medicare that are getting worse every day? It is a national problem. What will the federal government do about it?

[Environment, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry.

The industry minister clearly knows that the oil and gas industry and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association are on opposite sides with respect to MMT. He knows that the only wise course is to bring in a neutral third party evaluator.

How can the minister justify to the oil and gas industry that banning MMT without any impartial evidence is indeed harmful to the environment, the health of Canadians or any of the new cars?

[Environment, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Over the Easter recess a United States appeals court overturned its 18-year ban on the lead replacement MMT in automobile gasoline. It is understood that in the next short while the minister plans to do the exact opposite and ban the octane enhancer.

What impartial evidence does the minister have that clearly indicates MMT is harmful to the environment?

[Justice, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday an Ontario court justice made a ruling that could very well affect the safety of all Canadians.

Justice Peter Howden ruled that a section of the Criminal Code clearly violates the rights of a criminally insane person because the role and powers of the federal Criminal Code Review Board are too broad and do not have clear standards.

This case centres around a criminally insane person who has been convicted of criminal charges on four separate occasions, including the beating of his aunt with a rolling pin. However, this is only the start, as 1,100 similar people being held on warrants wait for lawyers to find loopholes in the criminal justice system.

The minister has been asked by the Ontario court to step in and make changes to the code so that such a judgment would not take place. The minister hesitated in dealing with the Supreme Court decision in the Daviault case and we all know what followed.

The minister now has a chance to redeem himself. Canadians do not want a second blown opportunity. They want reassurance of a safe community and reassurance that dangerous offenders will remain in custody.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today from constituents in B.C.'s lower mainland and the riding of New Westminster-Burnaby.

In both petitions, the petitioners make it known that they are overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.

Therefore they pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about unnecessary duplication between provincial and federal governments. I remind the Bloc member that a lot of the duplication found in Quebec is because the Quebec government, with its independent mind, wanted to unnecessarily duplicate federal services.

He should also bring the message to Quebecers that under the Reform Party plan Quebec could truly be master of its own house and provide some of the services they have talked about. A Reform Party government would find that vision. That is the message that we want to get through to Quebecers.

On the other issue of deficit financing, is he suggesting that if Quebec leaves Confederation it will abandon its social responsibility and abandon the debt created in its name? Studies have shown that although Quebec represents about 25 per cent of the population, consistently over time it has received about 30 per cent of government spending.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak for my constituents about Liberal fiscal policy.

On March 10 I held a town hall meeting in New Westminster-Burnaby. I heard firsthand how the budget is viewed. I regularly consult with my constituents about what they want in fiscal behaviour from this government. There are usually a variety of views expressed but there is one theme that is clear.

Our constituents may not be sophisticated economists or financial analysts, but they know in their hearts that the country is in deep financial trouble. They know that the economy is performing well below its potential.

When they ponder a little bit about what is wrong, they very quickly mention all the taxes they give to the government that are being frittered away in unproductive interest payments instead of being applied to social development and basic services. It is a simple concept for my constituents to grasp.

They also do not like the cutbacks that will be necessary to get the fiscal house in order. They ask: How did it get out of hand? Why are we planning to waste 50.7 billion tax dollars in interest to service past debt? That money could be spent on so many needy things or much of it should be left in the hands of the taxpayers for them to invest for their needs under their own control.

My constituents do not buy it when the finance minister says that everything is okay, government is on target and that they should trust it. My constituents know that each week when they go to the grocery store it costs a lot more to fill the shopping cart.

Some of my constituents know what it is like to line up at the food bank or to search hopelessly for a job. Some of my constituents suffer directly from the fortunes of the economy. I do not blame them if they get a little cynical and radical in their language when they express how the economy is not working for them.

If the finance minister keeps promising that some day a better employment picture will be there for them, make it clear that consistent deficit financing kills the economy. Government annual borrowing beyond the capacity of the economy to support the debt really hurts people. This government is hurting people.

Governments cannot create lasting jobs but they sure can affect the climate of private commerce where jobs are created. Governments can very easily mess things up through misguided intentions and mistaken assumptions.

The message I give to the Prime Minister is this: Your policy is callously hurting the Canadian people. The uncaring arrogance of pursuing discredited deficit targets is immoral. Three per cent of GDP is a scandal. The verbosity of the finance minister that reflects the bankrupt Liberals' social philosophy is a cruel hoax upon those on the margins of the economy: the poor and those who are helpless dependents on the social safety net.

Successive deficit financing kills the economy. Deficit financing eats the heart out of the social safety net. This Liberal budget plans only for more deficits. It is a plan that admits defeat in all its projections and then expects praise for the capitulation.

Chronic unemployment hurts the soul. Folk in my riding want a job. They also want hope. They want hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and hope that someone in government has set a course to a new Canada.

My constituents are willing to pay their fair share of taxes. However they get very angry about the conspicuous waste of this government, especially in view of the finance minister insincerely usurping the Reform Party pledge to have a government that lives within its means. Then he delivers budget numbers that betray that pledge.

I am standing here in this Chamber today on behalf of my constituents to say what they want me to say for them. Their message is clear. It is a message of two words, just two words, two elusive words which I prophesy will never be grasped by these Liberals. The two words are: balanced budget. One can be a little disappointed that those words are so easy to say and so easy to contemplate, but sadly never to be obtained by this group of old-fashioned Liberals, the tired system defenders.

What is the government planning for us in its wisdom that it says we need? A deficit. A deficit of $24.3 billion in 1996-97. The sad part is that the finance minister says he is proud of this. He is a blind system defender instead of an agent for change, hope and renewal.

I know the minister listened closely to the leader of the Reform Party when the taxpayers budget was presented on February 21. The plan proposed to lower the deficit to zero in three years. The numbers are all there in black and white. It is a wise and reasonable target and a pragmatic plan. However, the minister simply did not have the courage.

People expect governments to do the right thing. They expect governments to keep spending under control. They expect governments to always keep their financial house in order, for it all is in a trust relationship on behalf of the citizens.

What has this budget done to prove to the public that the government is on the path to solving this fiscal crisis? It is clear to me is that the only way we go after the accumulated debt is to first go after the annual deficit.

Last month was the finance minister's chance to really make a difference. The political mood in the country was there, but no resolve was taken by the minister. Canadians will surely suffer because of this irresponsibility of the government. It is a legacy of missed opportunity.

With this budget the debt is going nowhere but up. As a percentage of GDP, the net public debt for 1993-94 was 71.4 per cent. For 1994-95 the prediction is 73.2 per cent. For 1995-96 the prediction is 73.5 per cent. For 1996-97 the prediction is 73.4 per cent.

The minister boasts of his deficit as a percentage of GDP. Well, what about the debt percentage? What a pitiful shame. We are getting nowhere. Even more significantly, the overall real debt that must be served by this one Canadian economy and our one group of Canadian taxpayers is more like $1.7 trillion, if all factors are considered for our population of 28 million.

The Reform Party has shown with the taxpayers budget that it is serious about moving forward and manifesting substantial innovation. Should the Liberals follow through on their election promise to be more innovative with economic policies, may I suggest that they take a closer look at the Reform Party's taxpayers budget. Just in case members opposite do not know what this is called, I remind them that it is simply called leadership by example.

In his speech the finance minister said that the budget must focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes. I think I have missed something here because when I was driving to the Vancouver airport this past week I noticed that the gasoline prices have really jumped. I thought the minister said he was not raising taxes. I heard one Liberal member say that at least there were no personal tax increases. Well, the last time I filled my car with fuel, I used my cash to pay for it and that makes it a personal tax.

South African author Nadine Gordimer summed it up best: The truth is not always beauty, but the hunger for it is. Canadians want the truth and they rightly deserve it. They want a government that bases its principles on honesty and integrity.

The budget of the finance minister puts the best face on a sad situation and yet he smiles. The minister is a well meaning gentleman who does not take kindly to my words about him being cruel to Canadians, but his face is covered over with his Liberal social philosophy. The captain of the Titanic was also well meaning. Former British Prime Minister Chamberlain kept hoping beyond hope in face of dark storm clouds, a nice individual.

We need a dramatic course correction. We do not need to hit the berg. We need a reality check against false hopes. We need to take immediate remedial action.

I call on the finance minister to table a plan that will balance the budget and save social programs. Table a plan that begins to wind us out of the national debt trap and lowers taxes so the economy can take off again and produce those badly needed permanent jobs.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the Minister of Finance: We know you are only a Liberal, but take courage and Reformers will help you. Save this country and lead us responsibly. Lead us by example with true fiscal responsibility.