Eric C. Lowther

[Millennium Bug, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of world leaders are preoccupied but they have a plan for this situation. The Toronto Stock Exchange is requiring that businesses be year 2000 compatible in order to be listed. World leaders know this is a serious problem. Experts are saying that without work on this issue the Asian financial sector may collapse.

Canadians are wondering why the finance minister is hiding from this issue, why his head is in the sand. Why is he leaving Canadians vulnerable? Where is the Canadian plan?

[Abortion, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 29 years since abortion was legalized in this country. In those days abortion was used only where a mother's life or health was endangered. But today I think it has gone too far, especially when we see taxpayer funded abortions on demand, increased diagnoses of post-abortion trauma, indication of medical linkages to breast cancer, minors given abortion without parental consent and approximately $50 million spent annually on abortion.

Not everybody in the Reform caucus or across the country agrees with me. That is why the Reform Party's responsible position is to identify abortion as an issue of personal conscience and supports informed debate and giving people a voice through a national referendum. Canadians should be allowed to examine the facts on all sides of the issue.

In my opinion, women have a right to know about the risks of abortion and taxpayers should know the cost. For me, if it is about choice, let us give women better choices.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to these amendments on Bill C-19.

My thrust today is going to be from an employer's perspective. There are a lot of people in this House who are concerned about the worker perspective, but what about the employer's perspective? We have heard some comments on that, sort of painting that a bit, but let us go a little further with that for a few moments.

I think a good case to illustrate the danger of some of these amendments is the Wal-Mart case we have been alluding to, but let us take that case and put it in a broader perspective.

In that case a number of employees were working to certify a union and have a union within the Wal-Mart operation. With these amendments the situation that employer finds himself in is that he is now asked by the board if he will potentially shut down the operation if a union is certified.

That employer finds himself in a very difficult situation. He consults with his own legal counsel and he is told if he says yes, there is a problem because he will be perceived to have taken a position that is intimidating the employees and therefore that position will be used to justify certifying a union even when less than the majority of the employees support doing so. So it might not be a good idea to say yes because now no matter what they vote, as long as over 35% of the people are in support of it, there will be a union. If he says yes that will be perceived to be intimidation tactics against the membership or against the employees.

The other option he could be advised to do would be to say he is not in support, he will not shut down the operation. If he takes that position he also runs the risk that should at some point in the future his situation change so that he cannot continue to operate without some sort of temporary closure or a long term closure, he has now opened himself up for all kinds of legal liability, lawsuits and persecution in the courts.

Therefore he cannot say yes, he cannot say no. What can he say? He can say no comment. That is what was said in the Wal-Mart scenario, “we are not going to make any comment, we are not sure what we are going to do”. It would seem that would be safe ground, but the amazing thing is that the labour board took that no comment and interpreted that as a statement of intimidation.

When an employer takes the no comment position they are still perceived to be intimidating their employees. This really underlines our concerns about how this section can be misused. This is a perfect example. It is the reason why so many of us are bringing this forward to the House and to Canadians in general. We have a clear case where the employer has no room to move, no matter what position he takes.

Who is this employer really concerned about? Who is he trying to meet the needs of? We paint these employers as if somehow they have some grudge against their employees. That is certainly not the case, in particular with this operation. These are employers who are concerned about the livelihood of their employees, their families. They want to make sure there is a viable operation for years hence.

Yet we have a labour board that puts these employers in an absolutely no win situation. It is that kind of thrust that has concerned Reformers in a variety of arenas, not just this case.

Those who would support this kind of amendment are those people who feel government is going to solve all our problems and if we could just get more government we would solve all our problems. They put their faith in government which is a big mistake.

Here is a micro example of the theme that runs through our current state in Canada again and again of those who say “I trust the government. I trust the labour board. I trust these people to always look after our best interests”. That is abdicating our responsibility.

We have been a nation founded on people taking their responsibility and acting on it. These amendments, in particular the ones that say less than the majority of employees can express their will and impose that will on the majority of the employees by not requiring a majority vote, totally usurp the history and tradition we have of Canadians taking responsibility, being able to express their own personal desires, let those desires be reflected in a vote and with the majority of support move ahead on that basis. These amendments are totally counter to that kind of thrust.

That is the basis for a very serious concern on the part of Reformers and will continue to be the concern of Reformers on this bill and any other kind of legislation that comes forward from this government. This party is representing grassroots Canadians who remember their history and who are concerned about having their country hijacked by an overzealous bureaucracy which feels it knows best without listening to grassroots Canadians. These grassroots Canadians have shaped our policies and put us here in the House of Commons. They are fighting to get their country back from an overzealous bureaucracy and the ones I have met and know are not going to give up.

[Child Sexual Abuse, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Michael Coulis who has recently begun a cross-country bicycle tour to heighten awareness about the issue of child sexual abuse.

Michael is working in conjunction with Victims of Violence, a national charitable organization dedicated to the prevention of crimes against children and the improvement of the situation of victims of violent crime.

Mr. Coulis is himself a victim of childhood sexual abuse and has dedicated this trip to help curtail these crimes that have been characterized by their victims as a life sentence.

Reform shares Michael's concern about these victims and has long called for tougher sentences and a victim's bill of rights. I applaud Michael for his efforts.

I wish to point out that I currently have a votable private member's bill, Bill C-284, which is designed to better protect children from known sexual offenders. I encourage other members of this House to support my bill and offer some hope to Michael and others who share these legitimate concerns.

[Taxation, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we saw a 35% increase go to those who choose institutionalized child care and nothing to stay at home parents.

I ask the minister, and it is the same as my question before. Why will he not answer and why will he not treat these Canadian families fairly?

[Taxation, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister. Recently in Canadian Business magazine there is a report which points out that this finance minister continues to discriminate against single income two parent families. They pay 20% more in taxes. They have 6% less they can contribute to their RRSP. There is no recognition of the value of their parental care.

Why will the minister not stop his discriminatory practices to these Canadian families?

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to the motion. I want to make sure that I leave the appropriate amount of time for the hon. member who moved the motion. I would appreciate if you would give me a signal to ensure I do that.

The motion is very important. I think many members of the House have not fully recognized how important it is. It is important because Canadians have had a long history of respecting the role of the family in Canadian society. They are concerned historically about the separation of state and family.

I refer to the Canadian bill of rights which in its preamble clearly states:

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Entrenched in our bill of rights was a recognition by the founders of our nation that the family had a unique and special place in our country. In the same way Reformers who are Canadians and have shaped our policy are also concerned. That is why in our party documents we have a statement that says:

The Reform Party affirms the duty of parents to raise their children responsibly according to their own conscience and beliefs, and further affirms that no person, government, or agency has a right to interfere in the exercise of that duty, as long as the actions of the parents do not constitute abuse or neglect.

Our concern is that there seems to have been an erosion of the respect for the role of family in the Canadian mosaic and in our laws. I refer to the preamble that is now in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which superseded the bill of rights as we all know. That preamble states:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

There is no reference to the family. It has been taken out, an omission which although may seem insignificant to some is having impacts in Canada.

The parent-child bond is so critical to the long term health of our nation and starts first in the physical sense. Actually it is even before children are born. They are saying now in some studies that the child in the womb can recognize the mother's voice and certain movements. I know in my own case I have twin daughters, one is very active and one is a little more sedate. We knew the one that was very active even in the womb. She was so active and she is still the same today.

A nursing mother has a closeness with her children and passes on certain antibiotics. My point here is that the physical needs of the children are met by the parents. There are new studies showing the importance of physical contact with parents. Children develop trust as their needs are met and they are put in a stable environment.

Also there are studies showing—I saw one over 10 years ago—the negative impacts of changing caregivers, what that does to children and the long term effects of psychosis which can come from it. It is so common, as we see in many day care centres today. It is from our parents and our families that we actually get our identity; he looks like Uncle Joe or she looks like Aunt Mary.

There are sacrifices for sure in raising children, but in anything worthwhile there are big rewards. Seeing one's child go from the womb to adulthood is a special investment that reaps great rewards for parents.

No one is in a better position to do this than parents. No well intentioned state or social agency will ever be able to usurp the role of the parent. That is why our forefathers were sure to entrench that in our bill of rights and in our legislation.

It is also important to see that parents have a hand in shaping the mental capabilities of children. There is a new study out that I read recently which indicates that the cognitive and mental development of a child from age zero to three is critical. If they are not properly stimulated in the right environment with their parents and are left alone, for example, as was referred to in some tragic cases, certain parts of the brain do not develop. Even as they get older, after the age of three, they cannot recoup that loss.

This is such a critical time and only a parent who loves the children can provide what is needed for the long term best interest of children.

Within families we teach children how to get along. We teach within families how to share, how to be considerate of others, how to give up our own personal desires and learn how to control our emotions and gain self-control. Sometimes we do not always get our own way. For the good of the family we may have to back away from something. In this day and age when everyone is clamouring for rights, the family is one institution where we need to learn that we do not always get our own way for the best of the family. Respect for authority is birthed in the family.

I quote how important the parent-child bond is by referring to a comprehensive study done in 1996 by the Foundation of Family Research and Education. It stated that in the area of children's emotional bonding with parents regular non-parental care increased the risk of children developing insecure bonds by 66%. It also stated that the results from this work and others conducted since demonstrated that insecure bonding to parents in childhood was a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents, including youth crime. It indicated that it was clear the family was the primary arena of influence in the development of children and adolescents.

When we look at some of the challenges we have with our youth today, it just underlines the need to ensure that the autonomy of the family is protected. We go beyond just protecting it to supporting, strengthening and encouraging the family for the long term health of the country. I applaud the member for bringing forward a motion like this one that is designed with that intent in mind.

I want to move to one additional area briefly, the loving concern that parents have for their children. They want things to go all right for them. They want them to have a happy and good life. We all know this. Parents are in the first and best position to pass on the core foundational values that will carry children through their lives. These values the parents have themselves. They have tried them in the crucible of life, things that they were taught and have tested as they have gone through life. When parents look back, as I do, there are some things they wish they had not done. I have learned some lessons. My concern is that I impart to my children the very best lessons I have learned for their best interests.

No state or social institution can do that with the same love and concern that a parent has for a child. I applaud grandparents in this respect as well. Much can be gained from grandparents.

Parents establish a foundation in their children. The children test the foundation and may change it and develop their own when they are adults. However, the best person to impart that foundation is the parent. No system, no government or no agency should interfere in this work.

There are families that have troubles and problems, and some of them are tragic. The pressures families face today are enormous in this technological age. In our enthusiasm sometimes we look for a quick fix and we think we know better. However, we should always be cautious of a bureaucracy eager to expand, where government will fix everything. That is a medicine that is worse than what is being treated.

If we really want to help Canadian children we must respect the special relationship between parents and their children just as our forefathers did in shaping of the bill of rights. Governments and bureaucratic social agencies do not serve families by coming between the parent and their children. If anything, their focus should also be to support, encourage and strengthen healthy family relationships rather than interfere with them. Let us help parents, not replace them.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, this bill relates to offences of communicating for the purposes of prostitution to make it a dual or hybrid offence. It would allow prosecutors the option to treat the offence as either a summary or an indictable conviction.

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

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the submission of private members' bills.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, provincial health ministers are showing some leadership. They are being sensitive to the needs of the tragic victims of hepatitis C and are reviewing this issue. But what are they getting from across the way? Insults and putdowns.

Now is the time for action. We are asking the Prime Minister to show some real leadership on this issue. Will the Prime Minister commit to joining with the leadership shown by the provincial health ministers and come to the table to reopen the hep C file which this minister has so heartlessly locked?