House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was families.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 1997, with 44% of the vote.

per centfamilieschildrenemployment equityparentssexual orientationreformsocietychild supportincomeyoung offenderspresenttax

Statements in the House

Petitions May 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition is from a group within my constituency. It contains 25 signatures, mostly from residents of the Colony Farm facility. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In contrast to that, I have three more petitions, one with 2,200 signatures, one with 225 signatures and one with 400 signatures from Canadians across the country.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation. I certainly concur with this petition.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Rather than a constant delivery of services, what we see in the health care system are differences between provinces. There are different expectations among users at the present time.

This would probably be more focused on the real needs of Canadians if Canadians had a part in the process of deciding which services they want to fund. For instance, we have heard today that Quebec is no longer funding psychiatric services. I know Canadians who expect that service to be funded. There are other parts of Canada in which funding for abortions is available. I know Canadians who disagree with that. Is it a top down decision or is it a grassroots decision that these kinds of procedures are being funded?

It is in those kinds of areas where-

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I do not want to look to the past but to the future concerning the workability of the Canada Health Act and whether it is the provinces or Canadians who look to the care of their health system.

I have talked to health professionals in my riding and they are wondering how certain services will be addressed. I suppose we could get into debate. Do Canadians want unlimited access and attention for any or all complaints or health concerns, a system that gives service to all the people all of the time? Do they want long waiting periods? These kinds of things from the citizens of Canada are coming to provincial and federal tables to be addressed. What we see is a system which will not be able to answer these things in future years.

I know of men and women facing uncertainty. They are waiting for tests to determine the extent of an undiagnosed situation, perhaps cancer. They have sleepless nights. Seniors are waiting for months with a decreased ability to walk or breathe while they wait for operations.

I do not see how the government can say the present system will continue to work with decreased funding to the provinces with inflexible guidelines which will not allow caregivers to give the care needed by Canadians.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today to the Reform Party's motion on the future of health care and medicare in Canada and the nature and extent of the federal involvement in that. The motion states:

That this House recognize that since the inception of our national health care system the federal share of funding for health care in Canada has fallen from 50 per cent to 23 per cent and therefore the House urges the government to consult with the provinces and other stakeholders to determine core services to be completely funded by the federal and provincial governments and non-core services where private insurance and the benefactors of the services might play a supplementary role.

The Reform Party believes that a fundamental responsibility of government is to safeguard the well-being of Canadians. Principle 10 of our statement of principles says: "We believe that Canadians have a personal and collective responsibility to care and provide for the basic needs of people who are unable to care and provide for themselves".

The Reform Party also believes that the current health care system is inefficient and insufficient in providing this essential service to Canadians. The current system must be reformed to guarantee the continuation of care and the ability to address the future real demands of our health care needs for everyone's benefit.

As for the benefits now of parents, my parents, the people in the House, people across Canada, our children and our grandchildren, we need that ongoing credibility of a system that right now is itself sick.

Throughout my speech I will compare and contrast the Reform and the government approach toward securing the future of our health care system. One area that reveals this contrast between the Reform approach and the government approach is the issue of consultation. The motion urges the government to consult with Canadians and health care stakeholders about the future of medicare.

In its much touted red book, the Liberal Party committed itself to "establish a national forum on health in partnership with the provinces and health care experts to find innovative ways to control health costs while keeping medicare publicly funded and accessible for all Canadians". It sounds good but to this day the government has broken its promise. It has not fulfilled the commitment it has made, a commitment to consult with Canadians about the future of medicare and the roles that will be played by the federal and provincial governments and other health care stakeholders. Because of the heavy handed approach of the federal government in this area, the provinces have refused to participate.

Consultations are not always what they appear to be or what they are announced to be by the government. For instance I would like to remind the members here of the travelling committee that was to consult Canadians on social policy reform. What happened? A flawed attempt and a report that was delayed and delayed and ultimately shelved.

Reform on the other hand has long advocated that the federal government actively consult Canadians on vital and important national issues such as the health care system. We believe consultation must take place at all levels, with patients and users, with physicians and health care professionals, with administrators of those systems and with provincial governments. We do not believe in the top down, Ottawa says, approach. We believe that Canadians need to be part of the decision making process, especially in an important system like health care.

This Reform commitment to consultation is reflected in the motion being debated today recommending that a consultative process about the future of health care be actively and honestly pursued.

Another area that reveals the contrast between the Reform and the government approach is the area of federal funding. As noted in the motion, federal funding for health care has fallen from 50 per cent to 23 per cent over the last years.

Health care was originally implemented in 1957 with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The federal government adopted this act under pressure from the provinces, some of which had provincial insurance schemes. The act established a shared cost system providing universal coverage and access to hospitals to all residents of participating provinces. By 1961 all provinces had joined this plan.

In 1977 this act was replaced with the Established Programs Financing Act. This transferred money from the federal government to provinces for both health and post-secondary education funding. In 1984 the Canada Health Act came in prohibiting extra billing and user fees and thus imposed financial penalties on provincial governments which would violate these things.

The history of health care politics is essentially the history of the federal government demanding and expecting more and more from provinces and providing those provinces with the diminishing ability and the flexibility to meet those expectations.

The present government has been in office for less than two years and it is definitely continuing this trend. In 1995 the government announced it was replacing the established programs financing plan and the Canada assistance plan with the new Canada social transfer. Under the previous system this money was transferred separately. The Canada social transfer will be a block fund provided through cash payments and transfer points.

Under the new system federal funding for health care will be reduced. In 1995-96 the federal government will transfer to the provinces some $29.7 billion, approximately at the same level that was the case for 1994-95 funding. Under this new system funding under the Canada social transfer for 1996-97 will be reduced to $26.9 billion and further reduced in 1997-98 to $25.1 billion. The government's approach to reforming health care is to cut funding without consulting or receiving input from Canadians.

In February Reform announced a taxpayers budget prior to the government's budget. In it we would give provinces additional tax room through the transfer of tax points, providing that the provinces participate in an annual federal-provincial health consultation. These regular consultations would ensure a two way communication between the two levels of government which would benefit and make better our health care system.

A first priority between the federal government and provinces would be to agree on core versus non-core services. Core services would be required to be maintained at a certain and a common standard across the country. Such things that would be necessary for core would be deemed desired by most Canadians and required by the key players in the health care field, rather than bureaucrats in Ottawa.

These services must be financially sustainable and available over a long period of time. All such services would be covered regardless of Canadians' ability to pay. Non-core services, on the other hand, would be decided also by Canadians and would be those the federal government does not have the responsibility to fund, but would be the responsibility of private funding or through insurance. Reform's approach is bottom up, not top down consultation.

As we would reduce federal cash transfers by some $800 million we would at the same time increase revenue levers and flexibility for the provinces with a transfer of tax points to those

provinces so that over time they would raise more revenue to be allocated to their health care system.

Funding for health care systems would increase over the medium and long term, steadily into the next century. This would give greater peace of mind to Canadians. It would give better flexibility to demoralized provinces and the result would be a better medical system for everyone. Our approach safeguards health care for the future while the government's approach leaves the future of health care uncertain in reality and in the minds of Canadians.

The shortfall in funding and uncertainty is of particular concern to residents of B.C. The government's planned federal funding for health care in B.C. does drop significantly. Federal transfers in 1995-96 to B.C. are approximately $3.6 billion. This is funding for health care, education and welfare under the Canada assistance plan and established programs financing. In 1996-97 under the new Canada social transfer scheme funding to B.C. will drop to $3.2 billion. Clearly something has to give. Clearly such an approach will put the resources of the provincial government under great strain.

I have heard some comment today about simplistic rhetoric. I recall the government during the last election using what I would say is worse than simplistic rhetoric, scare tactics. I remember signs within my riding: "Save Canada-Save Medicare". That kind of rhetoric when the government now puts our medical system at risk is a testimony to what I say is unfair representation by the government.

Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses April 26th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 264, a private member's motion forwarded by the member by Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

As chair of the Reform Party's family task force I will speak definitely in opposition to this motion for the reasons I will outline.

First let me comment on the make-up of the Canadian family. In its 1994 report on families in Canada, Statistics Canada reported that in 1991 the traditional model of the Canadian family, a husband and wife, made up 87 per cent of all families.

Members may wish to note that in 1941, 88 per cent of families consisted of a traditional husband and wife family. Therefore, it would seem there has been relatively no change in the make-up of the traditional Canadian family unit, in spite of the tremendous economic, fiscal, social, and cultural pressures it has faced over the last 50 years. This is a testimony to the resilience of the family as a social institution.

In recent years there have been numerous efforts and suggestions to change what is commonly understood as the traditional family unit. The assumptions about the traditional family unit are being challenged by courts, interest groups, non-governmental organizations, and government agencies.

Often the judicial system has been used by interest groups and individuals to pursue issues that do not have broad based support with Canadians, and this is such a case in point. Presently the Supreme Court is considering a case, Egan and Nesbit v. The Queen, which would redefine the term spouse and therefore the related concepts of family and marriage. Another case is in Ontario, Leshner v. Ontario, where the court actually ordered the Ontario government to give same sex couples pension benefits, even though the federal Income Tax Act does not permit registered pension plans to provide for same sex spouses.

Another example of this trend outside of law is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In its recent annual report, as it has recommended every year since 1979, it has proposed the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. If enacted this would provide a legal basis for challenges to redefine spouse, marriage, and family.

The Minister of Justice, ignoring what I feel is the voice of real Canadians, has listened to these other voices and has committed himself to this goal.

I could go on to mention the ultra-feminist and lesbian representation sent as the Canadian delegation to the preparatory conference for the upcoming Beijing conference and their proposal supporting the removal of alleged barriers due to sexual orientation.

In contrast to this, the Reform Party has long recognized the importance of family to the stability and prosperity of our society. Principle six of our party states: "We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society".

To date the Reform Party is the only political party to have defined family. Our family task force, which I chair, has researched and developed a policy on the definition of family. We define family in the following way: "Those individuals related by the ties of blood, marriage, or adoption. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman as recognized by the state".

This is the traditional family unit, which is the fundamental building block of our society. I believe it is the best social institution for the cultivation and protection of values and culture in our society, for the raising of our children and the nurturing and provision of the care of all family members.

This having been said, the Reform Party reaffirms the traditional definition of the family and opposes any efforts to redefine it.

These efforts and challenges have been made in spite of the well entrenched views of grassroots Canadians. In June 1994 a Maclean's -CTV-Angus Reid poll found that 68 per cent of Canadians believed that the best type of family in which to raise children has two heterosexual parents.

Over 600 petitions have been tabled in this House, with over 70,000 signatures from grassroots Canadians stating their opposition to the extension of benefits to same sex couples and the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Contrary to the expressed will of so many Canadians, this motion is another example of the efforts under way to redefine

the Canadian family. The motion calls upon the House of Commons and the federal government to take measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

What is legal recognition? It is undefined in the motion. What would it mean and what issues would it raise? Would legal recognition automatically result in benefits to same sex partners? Would legal recognition mean that same sex partners could be married? Would it mean that homosexual couples could adopt children? What and how many federal and provincial statutes would have to be amended?

The legal recognition of same sex spouses would ultimately entail the revision of many federal and provincial statutes, particularly those that relate to the tax law that defines spouse, marriage, and family. Our research has indicated that up to 40 federal statutes would have to be amended if this recognition were to occur.

Provincially, in Ontario the word spouse is contained in over 80 provincial laws and statutes. Presently, marriage between individuals of the same sex is not permitted in Canada.

Adoption of children, although a provincial matter, is a question our society will have to deal with. Last year, Bill 167 in Ontario, which would have allowed for adoption by same sex couples, was defeated, largely in response to a huge public outcry. In June 1994, a Maclean's -CTV-Angus Reid poll found that 67 per cent of Canadians oppose giving homosexual couples the same legal status as mothers and fathers.

There is another question. Would this motion strengthen arguments in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act? Clearly it would.

Again, a majority of grassroots Canadians do not support the proposed amendment to the act by the justice minister. The minister's proposed amendment is in so much trouble that he has publicly asked the homosexual community to support his efforts "to keep a prod on the government to move forward on these matters", in spite of opposition from Canadians, opposition in this House, and opposition in his own caucus.

I would like to conclude. This motion, if passed, like all other approved private members' motions, would express an opinion of this House. This motion is a votable motion and thus would be a clear and distinct expression of the opinion of this House. The expression of this opinion would send a moral signal and provide a moral direction for our society on this particular issue, which flies in the face of the expressed will of Canadians.

This House faces a choice. Which path will we choose for the future of our society, our families and our children? I say that this House should choose a path that has guided this country and many others and has provided stability to our society.

Therefore, I oppose this motion and call upon my colleagues on all sides of the House to vote in favour rather of the traditional Canadian family and against this motion.

Interpretation Act April 25th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-254 as chair of the Reform Party's task force on the family. I am pleased to do so.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the rights recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.

I would like to devote the majority of my time in reviewing the significance of the convention on the rights of the child to Canada and its families.

In May 1990 the Mulroney government signed the convention that was ratified by the House of Commons in December 1991. It officially came into force in January 1992. The intent of the convention is to provide a set of standards that confirms the respect our society gives to its youngest and most vulnerable members.

The convention is nobly phrased and seems well intended in attempting to address the needs of children from all corners of the globe. But does it or is it even wise to attempt such a task? There are some very real inherent problems with the convention that I wish to address today. First, the convention creates a new international bureaucracy, the committee on the rights of the child.

Under the convention each signatory state is required to submit reports to this committee through the UN Secretary-General every five years and it is: "to provide that Canadians become better informed of the obligations undertaken by Canada, to apprise them of measures taken by the various levels of government and to enlist their support and co-operation in efforts being made to promote the rights of the child".

The committee is made up of 10 experts elected for a four-year term from nationals of the signatory governments. It reviews the reports, makes suggestions and recommendations to the signatory governments and the Secretary-General as to what they think should be done. These reports and suggestions are passed through our internal guardian of family affairs-it has been known as the children's bureau-that then wields its interpretation on Canadian families.

The process of representation is at best flawed. Who represents Canada at international conferences? Or for that matter, how can we know whose agenda is being put forward? How do they know whether grassroots Canadians agree to the principles that they endorse? Who are the elite that interpret the ongoing directives that come back?

The record shows that Canada automatically signs many international conventions and treaties without really allowing for input or even the time to consider the long term implications

of the agreements. Then too, I would guess that our representatives are likely the very special interest groups or experts that determine our often flawed domestic policy direction.

Children in this country face numerous problems. We have heard a few from members already; abuse, poverty and others. The solutions implemented, let us face it, have been an abysmal failure. Now this UN convention seeks to expand those very same solutions on even a grander scale.

Presently a very real conflict is forming between international obligations and domestic policy as supported by Canadians. I would like to address this for a moment.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code provides legal protection for parents and teachers who use reasonable physical discipline of children. The current justice minister has stated that the government is reviewing this section of the Criminal Code "to determine that it meets the international obligations to which we now subscribe". He refers, as have other vocal groups, to Canada's obligation under article 19.1 of the UN convention of the rights of the child.

This is the agenda being pursued by the government, even though an overwhelming majority of Canadians support the use of reasonable physical force by parents in disciplining and correcting their children's behaviour. In March 1994, as reported in the Toronto Star , 70 per cent of those surveyed supported this view.

Canadian parents are being threatened by a movement to repeal section 43. For example, a triple amputee Calgary mother has recently been charged with assault for spanking her 11-year old daughter. Today an American visitor to our country is in court answering charges for disciplining his five-year old.

I support section 43 of the Criminal Code along with a majority of Canadians. I believe that parents and teachers should have legal protection to physically discipline children if they deem it necessary. A distinction has to be made between reasonable physical force in disciplining children and physical violence that constitutes abuse. In no way do I condone abuse against children. But if this section were to be repealed, parents and teachers would be powerless to impose authority by way of physical discipline on children even if circumstances warranted it.

The bill being debated today advocates that every act of Parliament be interpreted within the context of the UN convention on the rights of the child. As with section 43, my main concern is the impact that these externally imposed duties and responsibilities of a foreign UN convention would have on parental responsibilities now and in the future.

Article 3 of the convention would empower: "public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies" the responsibility to safeguard "the best interest of the child". No mention is made of parents or families safeguarding the best interests of the child. All of these bodies will be able to interfere in family matters, driving a deepening wedge between parents and children. In this way parental authority is undermined and usurped by government and bureaucrats. Excessive and unjustified government interference already is at the source of many problems and difficulties Canadian families face.

Let me conclude with an anecdote. Last week I had the opportunity to meet with some of my constituents. They came from all walks of life and wanted me to hear them out and carry their concerns to Ottawa. One request relates to our discussion today.

Two parents came to meet me with four of their seven children. The oldest of the seven is nine. While they shared with me their concern about this very issue their four boys waited patiently at the next table. Those boys' politeness and good behaviour were a testimony to the millions of families that do know better than the government or any bureaucrat will ever know how best to care for the best interests of their children.

I believe the duties and responsibilities for the rearing and safeguarding of children rests within the family unit, specifically the parents, the mother and father and extended family members if that is the case. It not the responsibility of an international committee of experts to suggest or recommend what our governments, families and parents should be doing to assist or protect children. Parents can do that independently without the interference of an international organization or committee of experts.

Government authorities should only be recognized when there is absence or real abuse of that parental authority. When will the government recognize it is our families that should be at the heart of every public policy debate? The best interests of our children are met by those healthy families.

Governments must not replace families. Disaster is at the end of that path. Governments must strengthen families so that they can do what they do best: nurture future generations that will build a strong Canada.

Criminal Code April 25th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Canadian parents and families are being threatened by a movement to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.

Section 43 presently permits parents and teachers to use reasonable discipline on children should the circumstances warrant. Repeal would reduce parental authority and replace it with state authority.

This government interference would undermine the integrity and viability of Canadian families.

Today in the news there is a case in London, Ontario of an American tourist charged with assault for spanking his 5-year old daughter. In Calgary a triple amputee mother was similarly charged.

The justice and health departments have been reviewing section 43. The government has to come clean with Canadians as to its intentions. Polls tell us Canadians do not want more government interference in their homes and families. It is the parents who know what is best for their children, not interest groups, bureaucrats or so-called experts.

I call on the justice minister to reaffirm parents' rights to reasonably discipline their own children.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 April 3rd, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-76, the budget implementation act, which is intended to legislate into law certain aspects of the government's budget tabled in February. I would like to focus my remarks today on how this bill and budget impacts upon Canadians.

"Government really does know what is best for you, rather than what you know yourself", seems to be the message of this government. Where is its trust in Canadians? Where is its confidence in individuals, families and communities to make their own best choices? I will attempt to illustrate the reasons for my concerns in the next few moments.

I want to review the four principles the government put forward in its budget. First, the government says it must get its own fiscal house in order and focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes. Before this budget was presented, I heard Canadians say they were taxed to death. I heard Canadians say they wanted no new taxes. Well, guess what? In this budget the government gave them new tax.

The second principle is that the priorities of this country must reflect the needs of the people. Canadians need an economic plan that promotes jobs and growth. I do not think the government gets it yet, that government does not create real jobs; individuals create real jobs. The money left in the hands of taxpayers will create real and lasting jobs.

The third principle it put forward was frugality, that every tax dollar counts. I ask this government, does that include the tax dollars that are going to go toward your pensions? Does that make those tax dollars count, obscene pensions by this government?

The fourth principle is that we must be fair among regions and among Canadians. Again, I take that point. Is an illegal pension plan for MPs fair to Canadians?

I would like to add a fifth item to this list of principles, and I wish the principles had been followed. This principle is one to add. We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals in society.

The Reform Party has recognized the importance of family as a principle since its very inception. The Reform Party has established a task force on the family, which I chair, that is developing policies that specifically address issues that directly affect the family. This government must shift its focus and seriously consider the impact of the policies, both in its budget and otherwise, and how they apply to the Canadian family.

First, I would like to take a look at the debt-deficit circumstances of our country. This government, as with previous governments, is pursuing a reckless fiscal policy that sees our national debt mushrooming to alarming proportions. The total national debt as of today, April 3, 1995, stands at $540 billion plus.

The government has not laid out its plans to achieve a balanced budget yet. It has only set a target of 3 per cent of GNP for a deficit to GNP ratio. This target is totally unrealistic and duplicitous. Our debt continues to grow with an ever present deficit. The government's own statistics in its budget documents show that since it has been in power the debt will mushroom to $508 billion in 1993-94 and to a projected $603 billion in 1996-97, all other things being equal, $100 billion more in debt within its mandate, and it considers this a wise budget.

The percentage of net public debt to GDP will increase from 71.4 per cent in 1993-94 to 73.4 per cent in 1996-97. World standards would say that is completely unacceptable. The interest payments on that debt have increased from $38 billion in 1993-94 to a projected amount of over $50 billion in 1996-97.

I go back to my original statement: What do these statistics mean to the Canadian family? First, it means Canadian families are overtaxed. They have less disposable income because of their high level of taxation, and that makes a virtual necessity for two income earners to support a household. This government is driving two parents out of the home to make a living.

As Statistics Canada recently reported, family income has actually declined in real terms since 1989; that is, from $56,000 to $52,000 in real 1993 dollars. That is a decline of 7.5 per cent from 1989 to 1993. Meanwhile, the number of dual income families has been forced to increase. The decline in family incomes from 1992-93 was 2.6 per cent alone. In the meantime, day care demands increased thanks to taxation and government policy.

The second thing these debt and deficit statistics mean is that money will not be available for social programs that Canadian families require.

The interest on the debt is consuming one-third of our tax dollars. This means that with increasing debt and added deficits, less and less money will be available to fund our needed social programs. The government claims to be protecting the interests of Canadians and their families. Yet even in this budget, under the new Canada social transfers, block transfers to the provinces will actually decrease from $26.9 billion in 1996-97 to $25 billion in 1997-98.

What is needed? A fiscal remedy is needed. The focus of government spending on need and relief for the Canadian taxpayer and family is needed. A whole new approach and focus is needed by this government. Canadian families and individuals must be empowered to create opportunities for themselves and for their future. The government must get off the backs of Canadians. This is the Reform Party's approach.

In February, before the government tabled its budget, our party released its taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget and provide social and economic security for the 21st century. This unprecedented action of presenting a budget before the federal budget combines both a remedy and relief.

First, this budget offers a clear solution for our fiscal problems and the debt-deficit crisis. This plan includes a balanced budget within the life of this Parliament. A balanced budget will result in a government that lives within its means.

How do we achieve this? With $10 billion in savings from government operations and $15 billion in affordable savings from targeted social programs. The government has not yet released its plan for achieving this vital goal, whereas Reform has, both during the election campaign and now.

It is interesting to note that in Reform's zero in three plan back in the election campaign, we predicted cutbacks of 30,000 in public service positions. This government at that time said absolutely nothing. Now it throws 45,000 public servants out of work and still keeps digging a bigger debt hole. That is not giving the full story to the Canadian people.

Reform, by contrast, reduces government spending honestly and realistically. At the same time, Reform offers a promise of empowerment for Canadian families. We define empowerment as the provision of better tools and increased opportunities for individuals, groups and provinces to improve their own social and economic security. This is relief.

How would Reform empower Canadians and Canadian families? First, the taxpayer protection act, to give the taxpayer a say in how government spends their hard-earned tax dollars. This would say first, that government spending and taxes would have to be balanced over the business cycle. Second, total government spending and taxes could not exceed a constant proportion of national income and could only be increased by extraordinary legislative means. Such an act would prevent the reoccurrence or continuation of our debt-deficit problem, which has plagued government for so many years. It could be somewhat like a taxpayers' rehab centre for a government addicted to overspending. It would force discipline upon the spending addictions of both government and its politicians.

Second, the empowerment of Canadian families would come through reform of our social security programs. Politicians have always worked with the premise that Canadians' personal security needs are best met by government. This has led to a centralized, bureaucratic, expensive system that is insensitive to individual needs. This has ignored both the ability and opportunity of many Canadians to help themselves and others.

Right now total spending on social programs in Canada exceeds $140 billion. That is $18,000 for every family of four in Canada. Reform would suggest that government programs may in fact be the worst way of providing for the social security needs of some of those Canadians.

We would like less government intervention in personal security. We have suggested the RPSP to put the future plans of Canadians in their own hands.

I would also like to see less government intervention in families, where, rather than a national day care program, government rewards and recognizes families for taking care of their own children. We need less, not more government. We need the empowerment of families, communities and local organizations.

Reform has a vision for building a new and better Canada. The security of Canada is not in government but in allowing wise choices to be made by families and individuals in Canada.

World Conference On Women March 30th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, a delegation from various government departments including Status of Women is now in New York for an international conference.

Proposals from the conference will dictate the agenda for the fourth UN World Conference on Women to be held in Beijing in September 1995. The government has established a $102,000 bureaucracy to co-ordinate the effort.

The appointed unrepresentative Canadian delegation has proposed an amendment to the conference's platform for action that discrimination based on sexual orientation be recognized as a barrier to women.

How could the government justify spending tax dollars to promote a policy on the international front that has failed to receive approval from grassroots Canadians on the home front?

I call upon the government to cease and desist from subverting the democratic process and the rule of law by covertly promoting its own agenda on the international stage.

Divorce Act March 13th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill today. I would first like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of many grandparents. I welcome them here. These are people interested in this issue and I encourage them to listen and to work with us as we look to this legislation.

I also recognize their contribution, especially as seniors or grandparents in our society, to the past, the present and hopefully the future of this country.

Bill C-232 addresses the issue of granting access and custody to grandparents. This is a very real issue in our society. There are a growing number of grandparents and a growing complexity of marriage breakdowns and blended families within society.

As chair of the family task force of our party, we have done a fair amount of work looking at families and the importance of families in society. In that process we have determined a definition of family that we are using as a benchmark, those individuals related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption, where marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognised by the state. It very much includes relations of blood, which means that grandparents are an important part of family and should remain so.

I will illustrate something that happened this week within my riding. We have a unique French community, one of the original French communities in British Columbia. It was established with the logging industry on the banks of the Fraser River at the turn of the century.

It was a thriving community, a mill town, called Maillardville. Every year we have the festival du bois which recognizes the importance of that in our community. This year there was a rededication of the original Millside school. It has been renovated and changed with the changing neighbourhood.

I talked with seniors, many of them watching with pride as being part of this community. In that crowd there were also second and third generation people, seniors who had attended that school in the 1920s. It was a French community of people who had shared in that community throughout their lives and watched their children and grandchildren raised there.

Through them and through their activity within their families, they have managed to maintain the language, the culture, the knowledge and the pride of their heritage, the sense of belonging in and around their community, the sense of history, the values they share and a sense of permanence within their families in this changing world.

There was an understanding between those generations. It was not an externally imposed understanding but an internally shared understanding between the members of families.

Is that typical in our society? Unfortunately it probably is not. We have had changes because of the tremendous new pressures in this society. Seventy-five per cent of mothers of school aged children now have full or part time work which keeps them out of the home. The average number of working hours in the 1950s was 48 in order to earn an average family income.

Today an average family income requires two people on average working 65 to 75 hours every week. The stress on families is tremendous. Therefore, as we have heard today, there is a high incidence of divorce and separation within families. With that comes the stress, the uncertainty, the conflicting loyalties, et cetera, that we have heard.

It is interesting that we have the same number of husband-wife households now as we had in the 1940s. Eighty-seven per cent of households are husband, wife and children. However, many of those households are second and third marriages or blended family units.

We do have single parent families in our communities which are very much a reality. The term single parent family denies that a family had two parents at one point and four parents at some point related by blood. Single parents should not be deemed as alone and isolated in our society. There are relations and support within society for them.

There are the factors of immigration and the mobility of families across the country. These put further stresses on ties of

blood but these separations are not as complicated by the tensions that we find in family break-up situations.

Death, separation and divorce are three real factors of our society and they all lead very much to the breakdown of fundamental family ties. What we are asking today is what we can do about it.

In this Chamber we should be asking about the government's role in doing something about this very real problem in our society. This Chamber recognizes in many ways that one of its primary responsibilities in society is to recognize the importance of heritage.

We hear in eloquent speeches the importance of heritage for our native peoples. We hear the importance of heritage for our visible minorities and our many cultures. However, I would like to see what the importance of heritage is in our laws for Canadians generally.

In family law there is an overlap between provincial and federal jurisdictions. Provincial law dictates what happens within relationships when a parent dies or when there is abuse within the family or when parents separate.

In B.C. when those situations come into the legal process, grandparents may be granted access by application to the courts on the same basis as anyone else. Within that province, as in most provinces, there is no recognition or privilege of any kind by the state given to a blood relationship outside of parenthood. There is a presumption that perhaps the court will make this decision but in law there is no recognition of that blood tie.

What we are looking at today is part of the Divorce Act. Forty per cent of grandparents who have access problems fall under the Divorce Act legislation. Anyone, blood or otherwise, can apply for access, and all non-parents must be given permission by the court to have that access. A parent comes into that situation with same status or same right of access as a bus driver or a neighbour. Their status in law is the same.

We have just come through the International Year of the Family. There are a couple of publications from that period, "A Focus on Canada: Families in Canada" and a look at the statistics in our society, "The State of the Family in Canada". These were extensive studies that looked at Canadian families. They made reference to care of the elderly, reference to relative care, divorces and marriage. There was no mention made of grandparents in Canadian families.

This is in contrast to the fact that within those studies it was pointed out that the most common choice of child care in Canadian homes was by a relative in the relative's home or a relative in the child's home. Grandparents probably made up a large proportion of that. They are a very important part of what is happening in our society and yet they are not recognized as such.

In aboriginal communities blood ties are recognized for many generations, not only one or two. It is only within the last few years that our immigration laws have been changed to not include grandparents.

As a legislative body we have recognized the importance of blood connections through multigenerations in other cultures. What have we done in the Canadian population? We have recognized child care by grandparents in unspecified statistics. They are disguised in a general statistic.

The recognition of rights of access in the laws both federally and provincially is no different than those for any non-parent or any person in society other than the parents.

I have discovered that within tax laws and support in foster care in the provincial jurisdiction, strangers have more support than grandparents when the state mandates the care of a child. Grandparents have been marginalized in our society.

This morning I heard about the rights of the child and the rights of the parent and even the rights the grandparent. What do we do when these things conflict? It is time the government recognizes the importance of family, not multiculturalism or state run day care or even government programs, but looking at what creates a strong society. Strong families create a strong society. Strong families create strong cultural ties. Strong families create a just society. Strong families create a strong economy. A child's best interests are society's best interests because that child is going to grow up in that society.

One step is to recognize the rights of access by grandparents in law and the right of inquiry as to the well-being of their grandchildren and their right to know about their health, education and general welfare. Bill C-232 is the right step in the direction to empower families and underline their importance in our challenging and increasingly difficult role.