Sharon Hayes

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is interesting. That the Canadian Association of Defence Lawyers feels that this will take innocent people to jail is of great concern and certainly reflects some of the concerns that I had in developing my thoughts with the presentation I made.

I feel, given the conflicting needs and certainly since coming to this place and my involvement in different committees and different debates within the House, the conflict of rights at various points within Canadian society is more and more of an issue. There are basic rights and certainly the right to maintain innocence within the judicial process should be a pre-eminent right for all Canadians. The justice system is there for the protection of those who are innocent, law-abiding citizens.

My concern is that this bill will-I am not alone in that concern obviously-trample on the very rights of those who are innocent. That is of great concern to me and should be a concern to the government obviously, even though it may not be but certainly it should be to the Canadian people. I thank you for the question.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-46 regarding the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.

As I was beginning to ponder this bill a symbol came to mind, the very symbol of justice. Therein we see a woman holding a scale. In the symbol is a picture of a balance. A weighing of evidence and actions are put to that balance where the rights of the accused and the rights of victims are weighed; all people are equal before the law.

The scale in that picture is the legislation that we craft in this place. That legislation should be designed to be fair. It should be designed to be free from built-in bias. It should be crafted outside specific cases so that it serves the best interests of all.

The woman in that picture is blindfolded, typifying that the human judgment factor of justice should display an absence of all prejudice. There should be equal rules for all in the justice system.

Increasingly in our system, the rights of the accused and the rights of victims come into conflict with our rules. Increasingly the purpose of the justice system is in debate in the public sphere. Is it to protect law-abiding citizens? Is it to rehabilitate criminals? What are the priorities that must be established in our justice system?

As the weight is shifted from the rights of the public to the rights of the accused, we see a consequence in our social fabric of lack of accountability, an increase in crime, more victims because of it and those victims left out of the process and often revictimized by that process.

A major concern of the Reform Party is that justice serve all Canadians, that it serve as a deterrent to crime, that it demand accountability of those who would break the laws of this country, that it uphold the rights of victims. The bottom line is safer streets and security for our families and for the citizens of Canada.

Bill C-46, this debate, deals with the pursuit of justice in cases of sexual assault. It seeks to strike a balance between complainant rights to privacy and accused rights to a fair trial and full disclosure in that trial.

The discussion is extended in this debate to a right for equality for the complainant, equality based on items such as race and gender.

The difficulty of balance is part of the history of Canada's rape shield law, the law that was designed to shield victims from being cross-examined about their sexual history and making judges responsible to decide when questions are permitted in that sphere.

Originally in law a man accused of sexual assault had an absolute right to cross-examine an accuser about previous relationships and their sexual history. Changes in 1992 to section 276, known as the rape shield law, resulted in most of the alleged victims' sexual history being out of bounds. The decision to allow evidence to come forward was made by the judge in a private hearing at the beginning of the trial.

However, opposite to the anticipated results of this change came demands for counselling and other private records. Counselling centres were besieged with requests from the courts so they began to minimize the records that were kept. Some records were destroyed. There were costly fights over subpoenas. Indeed, victims were not coming forward because they wanted to avoid public disclosure or review of their private past.

In December 1995 there was a supreme court ruling where the defendant in a sexual assault case need only establish records "likely to have relevance in order to be produced", and therefore such workers as doctors, priests, health workers and counsellors could turn over records to the alleged assailants.

Bill C-46 severely limits this access by defendants to records of alleged victims in sexual assault cases. Applications for production of records are determined by a trial judge and there is a two stage application put forward by this bill.

First, the accused must establish that the records exist, that there is specific grounds for requiring those records and that they contain information relevant to the issue.

The second stage is that the trial judge will review those records privately, determine which ones will be released and take into consideration privacy safeguards in so doing.

Both third party and crown records are included in this debate, as has been clarified, which is in direct contradiction to the supreme court ruling of 1995.

My colleague mentioned that records can be produced through the process in Bill C-46. Will they be produced with so many checks and balances? There is no prohibition for production of records but, given the rules and the criteria, would they amount to a prohibition of the records?

As I reviewed these issues there were more that came to mind. The issues range from the priorities of the justice system and the priority of a complainant versus the accused within the system.

Would the system affect the willingness of a citizen to come forward with charges?

Then there is the issue of the definition of who is a victim. In this case, can a victim be the complainant or can the victim be the accused if justice is not served in the process?

The process of justice is another issue and the basic principle in law that someone is assumed innocent until they are proven guilty.

Another issue is the role of the crown and the accountability of the accuser when the crown takes their place.

There are three more definitions and applications. Where does the definition and application of sexual assault charges stand in the law? Where does the definition and application of privacy rights stand in Canadian law? Where does the definition and application of equality rights stand in Canadian law? All these issues surround Bill C-46.

Many of the issues have been discussed in previous debate. Of particular note is the issue of the protection of the complainant versus the false accusation that might come from that individual. This could break down into two situations.

First, there could be false accusation without intent. That is, as we have heard, false memory syndrome which was put forward very succinctly by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth. I will not repeat the arguments.

The other issue is false accusation with intent. I will get to that later in a brief discussion of Bill S-4 and how that could put forward protection for an individual against false accusation with intent.

A second issue that has come up in previous debates is victim rights. This is of course a priority of our party. Too often people in the justice system who are victims are revictimized. Certainly we have seen in the last month or so the dismal failure of the Liberal Party, which had an opportunity to change the criminal justice system to revoke section 745. Section 745 allows for the application for early parole after 15 years for first degree murderers. In the last little while we have had victims revictimized by having to relive the horror in order to accommodate the killer of their children who is once again in the public spotlight.

This party, which forms the Government of Canada at this point, could have supported the repeal of that section of the criminal code. This party could have served Canadians but it chose not to.

The greatest slap in the face to British Columbia residents is that B.C. Liberal members chose to avoid supporting the repeal of section 745. A murderer, who was in their own backyard, came into the public sphere again. This abused the public's sensibilities of not only the victims but of the population of our province.

The stated intent of the bill that we are looking at today is commendable: increased protection of victims of sexual assault and to serve better their needs in the justice system by eliminating any disincentive for them to come forward for justice.

However, today I would ask what the government is doing, how effective it is and how selective it is in the process. As we have seen in section 745 and this government's treatment of that bill, very often justice and legislative proposals are brought forward to suit political purposes but do not serve the real victims, whether those victims are the accusers or the accused in the process. Thus too much legislation does not serve Canadians as a whole.

Today I would like to focus on three areas of discussion in particular, the definition of sexual assault in Canadian law, privacy concerns of the Liberal government, and special rights based on historical disadvantage.

First, the definition of sexual assault as proposed by the Liberal government was changed in 1988. Bill C-15 under the Conservative government redefined sexual assault. In doing so, the age of consent was lowered to age 14 from age 16.

Today I put to the House that the most tragic victims of sexual assault are children aged 14 and 15 who are exploited by adult pimps across our country and who are virtually untouchable by our laws. Child prostitution in Canada rips families apart and destroys the lives of young people. This fact is obviously not a priority of the Liberal government.

When I questioned the justice minister on March 3 he gave an equivocal answer to that question and obviously displayed no will to change, ignoring the recommendation from provincial governments and ignoring the incredulity of the public when it realized that the age of consent in Canada was 14. This issue was actually made worse by the Liberal justice minister who refused to challenge an Ontario court decision in 1995 that actually broadened the definition of sexual consent of children aged 14 to include homosexual activity. The Liberals are not only unwilling to protect our youth, but they would broaden the potential for sexual predators to destroy the lives of young people and not bring to account those who set about to destroy those lives for their own gain.

The second issue is privacy and the Liberal government. A recent tour by the human rights committee on the public concerns about privacy brought to light that the public is woefully unprotected in privacy matters in Canada. The Privacy Act is virtually without enforcement and applies only to the public sector. Other

jurisdictions in other countries are far ahead. The Canadian public is not well served in privacy matters.

There is general scepticism about both invasion of privacy by private sector and public sector concerns. Privacy rules are subjective and serve the purposes of government priorities.

The Employment Equity Act violates the privacy of businesses by making their business plans open to review procedures. On the other hand, in refugee hearings through privacy choices of the government, records relating to the individual are not available to the committee reviewing the refugee hearing.

In my constituency the latest government household survey, the detailed census, provides a severe penalty for non-compliance. This invasive questionnaire sent to households invades the privacy of individual Canadians and is now being challenged in B.C. courts because of privacy concerns.

I would like to draw the attention of the House how the government deals with the privacy rights of children. I quote from a report by a government committee in Beijing which states: "Human rights activists applauded a Canadian breakthrough in Beijing that recognizes children's evolving rights to make their own decisions. The issue pitted the child's right to learn about issues such as birth control against the right of parents to prevent access to subjects in which they do not believe". That is pitting the rights of children against parents by citing the privacy rights of children.

I heard the other day about privacy rights in foster care, a provincial matter, but it illustrates how governments can use these matters to their own end. In B.C. it is illegal for a foster parent to inspect the room of a foster child for weapons or drugs. Governments seek to protect children from parents but does not protect those children from those who would abuse them.

In Bill C-46 the restriction on access to complainant's records is limited to cases of sexual crimes. Today we recognize the sensitive nature and the trauma of the events that might surround them and we recognize the need for some privacy. However, we must also recognize the vulnerability of the accused if the accusations that are made are false but unchallenged. The credibility of the complainant is an important factor in all legal proceedings.

Bill C-46 however states that the fact that the records may disclose a prior inconsistent statement of the complainant is not grounds for getting access to the document. Previously defence lawyers could show that the complainant had lied before. If all players within the legal system are not accountable, then equal treatment in that legal system is denied.

Bill C-46 would also prevent access to crown records, not just third party sources. This is unique and precedent setting in the justice system. It implies special case treatment. It implies rights imputed to the complainant and because they are imputed to one party, rights are denied to the other.

I would put to the House that we cannot know the victim until guilt is established. A victim in this case can be the complainant or the accused. We cannot know which one could be victimized by the process until justice is served.

I mentioned Bill S-4 previously. It creates three new offences in the Criminal Code. It would make known false statements outside a tribunal illegal. It would make illegal proceedings that are instituted primarily to intimidate or injure another person. It would also make illegal knowingly deceiving a tribunal.

The bill introduces the concept of accountability of the accuser in the process. It underlines the concept, and I will quote from the hon. member who introduced this bill, a concept to "uphold the principle that truth is central in judicial proceedings and pivotal to the interests of justice". It was introduced on behalf of those whose lives were destroyed or could be destroyed by false accusations. I know in my riding, the reputation, the family, the careers of individuals can be destroyed through false accusations. Those things cannot be recouped through any court. We must make sure that great care is taken for the protection of all citizens in our laws.

The legislation is also founded on equality rights, particularly equality based on race and gender. This is a common theme of the Liberal government. It includes the concept of historical disadvantage.

These arguments have fueled legislation such as the employment equity legislation which grants special rights by way of hiring quotas for women or visible minorities. As we have seen in society, the results of these kinds of policies have been reverse discrimination in the marketplace. Very great care must be taken in this place that the balance of justice is not re-engineered with the same principles. Just as we cannot make up for past discrimination simply by reversing the targets of discrimination, we cannot and should not make up for past injustice by creating a system of future injustice.

Today my concerns have revolved around the definition of sexual assault and the lack of protection given by the government for our most vulnerable citizens, our children; second, the capriciousness of the privacy policy of the Liberal government and the selective response by the government in different areas of jurisdiction; and third, the disturbing and destructive recurrence of the Liberal mind-set of special rights based on historical disadvantage.

The track record of the Liberal government has been one sided, agenda driven justice policy. I will go back to the symbol of true justice. It must be maintained by the government in the best interest of all Canadians. The legislation requires checks and balances to assure fairness in the system and amendments to guarantee the assumption of innocence of the accused. That is basic in Canadian law so that the final result is that the privacy of the

complainant is balanced but with the protection of a fair trial of the accused.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the possibility of records being available from third parties if they meet the criteria of the selection process in the review of a trial judge.

Could she clarify if it is just records from third parties that go through this process, or did I read in the legislation that records collected by the crown could be blocked in the same way?

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her presentation. On review of the legislation and her comments on the legislation there I have a question that was not covered by your presentation.

[Unified Family Court, March 7th, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider, in conjunction with the provinces, the active promotion and implementation of the Unified Family Court in order to emphasize mediation in family law issues, and to improve the administration of the interjurisdictional aspects of family law.

Mr. Speaker, for the record to be complete, I am pleased to speak to this motion and I will repeat the motion now:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider, in conjunction with the provinces, the active promotion and implementation of the Unified Family Court in order to emphasize mediation in family law issues, and to improve the administration of the interjurisdictional aspects of family law.

I brought this motion forward because the landscape of family life in Canada is changing dramatically and radically. Many factors are involved in this change.

Those factors range from changes in technology to the mobility of persons, changing expectations even within society. But I would put to this House that perhaps the most notable change of all has been the change in marital breakdown within society.

Divorce in Canada is too important to be ignored. It is too important for government to step aside and let what is happening happen. The patchwork legislation such as Bill C-41 is simply not enough, so I am pleased again to bring forward some suggestions that are in the process and relate to this very important item of divorce.

Divorce is under federal jurisdiction and was made so in the British North America Act in 1867. At that time divorce was granted only if it could be proven that one spouse committed adultery. The jurisdiction was shared between the federal Parliament that enacted the law and provincial legislatures that gave courts the authority to grant divorce.

In 1968 the grounds for divorce were expanded to include marital breakdown and marital offences where breakdown was defined as such things as desertion, imprisonment and separation for at least three years. Marital offence was defined as physical or mental cruelty. It was quite a span of time from 1867 to 1968 before any changes were made at all to the law.

In 1985 the Divorce Act was opened again. It was amended so that marital breakdown was deemed the only ground for divorce. That was defined as separation of at least one year, adultery and/or physical or mental cruelty.

It is interesting to note that the no fault provision, that is separation for at least one year, was used in 91 per cent of the divorces in the first year after the passage of that bill in 1985.

Between 1965 and 1988, before the first change to the bill and after the second, Canada has the record of going from one of the lowest rates of divorce to one of the highest in the industrial countries. The latest statistics state that approximately one in every two marriages today ends in divorce, showing another increase.

This eight fold increase in divorce since the changes in 1968 underlines a fundamental shift in our understanding of the basic concepts of marriage, children, relationships and others. They reflect a change in things like social mobility, lower birth rates, equality rights and entry of women into the labour force.

Even though divorce is rampant, it is true that seven out of ten Canadians remarry. Marriage is not forgotten. However, the process of divorce takes its toll.

As a society our concern is the major effect of this process on children and, therefore, the social and economic effects that result from that.

Children are our country's most valuable resource. Scientists have said that there are certain developmental and cognitive predictors we can look at to see how successful they will be and how they will contribute to society.

Scientists have noted life changes that affect children and have listed and quantified them. Some of the life changes that have dramatic effects on children are negative economic circumstances, particularly of women after divorce; erratic or no contact with the non-custodial parent; ongoing parental conflict or less availability of the residential parent because that parent may have to work.

In contrast, the top factors that work toward positive consequences in the event of divorce would be the extent to which parents resolve the conflict surrounding the divorce, the quality of the custodial relationship and the extent of not feeling rejected by the non-custodial parent. These all have positive effects on children.

As the government looks at legislation relating to divorce it has a responsibility in these areas, not in just one or two of them because they all affect children, the products of the marriage, and all too often the victims of the divorce.

The signs of stress from this epidemic are everywhere. Youth suicides are escalating, teen pregnancies are escalating, youth violent crimes doubled in the last few years. Even such things as academic achievement, which has been shown to relate specifically to the security of the child and the feeling of belonging, in recent days has shown to be lacking in Canadian standards.

When I think back to what the government did in Bill C-41, I see it as a dismal failure. Bill C-41 will create renewed legal wrangling between custodial and non-custodial parents and that will work directly against the best interests of children.

The Liberal government is out of touch with the realities faced by Canadian families in their homes and in the process of divorce. Bill C-41 essentially relegates the non-custodial parent to the role of a money machine. The guidelines lack any recognition or encouragement of special circumstances or commitments of time or resources unless it is above a 40 per cent access threshold. It encourages an all or nothing mindset as to whether someone is a custodial or non-custodial parent. The justice minister has claimed that this legislation is designed to reduce conflict. Because of this legislation, the battle lines will be drawn earlier and the battle will go on longer.

Other factors are that access to the non-custodial parent are ignored and the non-adversarial atmosphere that is recommended is ignored. The government is blind to the real needs of Canadians and has refused to consider support and access together, despite the testimony of many Canadians and experts.

One thing the government can do is move in the direction of a valuable change to promote more aggressively something that came through in 1974 from the Law Reform Commission of Canada. This was a suggestion to establish a unified family court system across the country.

Federal officials say that the government has supported the idea of a unified family court ever since the law commission issued this report. Yet 27 years later we have very little to show for it. In 1974, the Law Reform Commission said: "In some provinces, as many as five different courts may handle family problems. Overlapping and fragmentation occurs in the areas of custody, wardship, adoption, maintenance and divorce. This not only leads to multiplication of effort, but can produce irreconcilable decisions". Twenty-seven years later, this is still the case.

The commission also said: "The most distressing effect of the present state of affairs is the despair, confusion and frustration it causes to the participants". I would add, to the children of the participants. Divorce and separation are traumatic enough without being made more difficult by the court system. Yet little has been done to remedy the situation.

Shortly after the commission report in 1977, Ontario implemented a unified family court pilot project in Hamilton. In 1978, Saskatchewan set up a unified family court. Today, Saskatchewan has a family court in three urban centres and Ontario has it in five. Also, Manitoba and Newfoundland provide province wide access to a unified family court. Previous debate in B.C. and Alberta about the implementation of a unified family court has collapsed.

Twenty-three years after a commission report, we have a convoluted variety of family court systems with no visible national commitment to establish a nation wide family court. Meanwhile, those who are suffering from the lack of action are families, especially the children.

Stronger leadership is needed from the federal government to encourage all the provinces to establish unified family courts for the sake of children.

A unified family court, according to the Law Reform Commission, should have the authority over most family matters, including the formation of marriage, divorce, judicial separation and separation orders, alimony and maintenance, custody, access, adoption and child neglect. The commission recognized differences of opinion over such matters as interspousal or interfamilial torts and contracts, guardianship of the property of minors in interspousal or

interfamilial offences of a criminal nature including, of course, family violence.

A unified family court offers several clear advantages for litigants over the present system. First, it will eliminate the problem of overlapping and fragmentation in many present rulings along with the confusion and frustration litigants face with this state of affairs. It can also save time and money.

As the Law Reform Commission said: "Present systems cause duplication of effort by judges, lawyers, witnesses, court administrators and the parties themselves". This naturally leads to increased costs.

Consolidation of family law jurisdiction in a single court would reduce the cost of legal services to the litigants. Not only are initial costs lowered but future costs can be as well.

A spokesman for the Hamilton unified family court said:

If you come back to the court, say, five years later to seek a variance on a ruling, you can apply for it in the unified family court through a motion, which is simpler and less costly than the usual application that is required in other courts.

The Hamilton unified family court has also implemented case management, a more efficient way of processing court cases. A case is assigned to one judge who is responsible for seeing it through to completion. He can deal with the various aspects of the case and while doing so develop a familiarity with the litigants and their problems which will help him to guide them through the process as quickly as is helpful to them.

Further to these benefits is the commitment in unified family courts to consider the dynamics of family conflicts. Judges in a unified family court specialize in family disputes and therefore can more effectively work with them on a personal and individual basis. A judge having developed a familiarity with a case can often offer advice. Also the litigants are saved the confusion of having various judges involved in different aspects of their situation offering contradictory advice.

Family court judges also look differently at situations than criminal court judges. For example, they are responsible to take into consideration the best interests of the child. In the case of a wayward child, if the judge knows the child is involved with social workers from within the same court he may well treat the case differently from one in which the provision of help for the child is less clearly defined.

Unified family court can also facilitate more effectively the use of mediation, an alternative to the adversarial and more destructive litigation process. Mediation is becoming increasingly popular as people experience the benefits of this approach to conflict resolution.

I will speak specifically to mediation. Last year the civil justice task force report by the Canadian Bar Association made strong recommendations for increased use of alternative dispute resolution instead of litigation to resolve civil cases. Noting the increased use of dispute resolution methods such as mediation in place of litigation that is already taking place, the Canadian Bar Association urged even more dedicated commitment to pursue that such methods be made.

It recommended that every jurisdiction make available as part of the civil justice system opportunities for litigants to use non-binding dispute resolution processes. While it did not advocate mandatory mediation it did suggest the use of incentives to encourage litigants to use dispute resolution methods and to do so as early in the process as possible.

The Ontario government has recently launched a pilot project that imposes mandatory mediation as the first stage in all civil disputes. Interestingly enough it has accepted family conflicts.

Why do we want to stop and look at mediation in family disputes? The Canadian Bar Association did not go specifically to matters of family law, but the principles and recommendations made by the bar have also been used effectively to resolve family disputes and are being used to one degree or another in different jurisdictions in Canada.

The main concern about family conflicts that led to their exemption from the mandatory mediation pilot project was that in some cases it could involve domestic violence and other power imbalances in family relationships that some say would disadvantage women in the mediation process. However all provinces have had quite a bit of experience with mediation already and screening systems can be implemented to filter domestic abuse cases out of the mediation channel.

The Divorce Act already requires lawyers to make their clients aware they can pursue mediation in place of litigation and to different degrees provincial governments encourage the use of mediation.

Let us consider mandatory mediation. The commitment to mediation in family disputes must be stronger than simply a suggestion. Extensive documentation already exists about the negative effects of divorce on children. The adversarial nature of litigation and common battles over child custody leave even more scars on these innocent victims.

As the Canadian Bar Association stated, court trials should be seen as "an option of the last resort". Rather than mediation being an option within the hands of lawyers I suggest that lawyers become an option only if mediation becomes unworkable.

Is mediation the entire answer? Should consideration be made for counselling as well? The idea of courses before divorce, premarital courses, marriage and parenting courses has some real validity. The government minimizes by neglect the implications in societal contribution of strong marriages and so ignores such suggestions. The government minimizes by neglect the devastating effect of marital breakdown on children.

As usual government policy is working against families without these recognitions being in place. Financial incentives for counselling such as tax credits or at the very least a GST exemption for counselling services would be a step in the right direction.

Whether we make mediation mandatory or simply offer strong incentives which make it or counselling a more appealing alternative in most cases, the federal government needs to urge each Canadian jurisdiction to take seriously the importance of providing Canadian families with a practical alternative to litigation.

The Law Reform Commission of Canada report calls for reform in our court systems to aid families. The recent Canadian Bar Association task force suggests dispute resolution approaches that are already proving effective in resolving family disputes in some jurisdictions. The benefits of unified family court and mediation process offer families something that is not now there in the process.

Due to the growing concern over family conflict with today's level of divorce, due to the non-partisan nature of concern for Canada's children and due to the recognition there is much that can be done to prove their lot in society the motion deserves more than just one hour of debate. I therefore ask for unanimous consent to make the motion votable.

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions specifically about gender analysis.

I am aware that because of the fourth UN conference on women, to which Canada was a signatory, it was recommended that there be a review in every federal department. It was interesting to note that the hon. member suggested that it was going forward and was in place at the present time.

We should review all legislation as to how it affects women in particular, which is called gender analysis, although I think the secretary of state would say it is men an women, but it specifically goes to issues dealing with women.

I know my hon. colleague is very concerned with families in Canada and certainly realizes their importance. I would ask if she feels that a similar kind of review should take place as to how government policies affect families in Canada. Are they not as important an institution as any other in this country? Should there not be a similar kind of government activity addressing how government policy affects family units in Canada?

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, I think my colleague has addressed some of my concerns very well.

The government that thinks it has the solutions to all Canadians rather than leaving those solutions and those choices in their hands is a government that is headed for disaster and is heading our country and our children into disaster.

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to start with what I have just heard. From employment equity to child poverty, this government's policies are abysmal. It has caused the very child poverty it is talking about. It used to take 40 hours a week to maintain a household on an average wage. Now it takes over70 hours a week to maintain a household in this economy.

How in the world can a single parent on an average salary not be in poverty with what this government has done to our Canadian families? Is it any surprise that single parents are in the highest percentage of poor people in this country? It is simply because they cannot survive on what this government has done in the marketplace.

We have a policy that we brought forward that is very different in concept and philosophy to what the Liberal government has done. In our fresh start program we state that we must first reduce the size of government. We must go through government programs that have duplication and are wasteful. Let us take $87 million to Bombardier, for instance. That may be a good start. We have programs that give money to crown corporations which waste Canadian tax dollars. It is taken from programs that it wants to have and it is taken from the pockets of taxpayers.

We must first reduce the size of government and then give tax relief to families. Our tax relief proposals will take 1.2 million Canadians off the tax rolls altogether. Right now, why should someone earning $30,000 a year pay any tax at all? We would take the vast majority of those same Canadians off the tax rolls altogether. That is how you help the poor. Do not tax their families and say we are helping the children. That is Liberal logic and makes no sense at all.

[Supply, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise today to speak to this motion put forward by the Bloc which condemns the federal government's lack of political will in refusing to take positive action in its areas

of jurisdiction to promote economic equality between men and women, and so on.

Today, as I speak to this motion, I would particularly like to dwell on the elements of the motion that deal with economic equality between men and women and the government's place in that.

It certainly is a discussion that is appropriate for this, the day before International Women's Day, and in the period of International Women's Week.

As I speak to this idea of economic equality between men and women, it is an issue that affects those in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. As I go forward, I want to address two issues. First, what has the government done on each of these parts of the question, and what has the government done specifically on the economics of this country? Second, what has the government done in terms of equality issues in this country?

Lately the government came forward with its budget. This is a government that has been in power for the last three and a half years. I would like to put to this House that the Liberals are hiding the facts of their record within that time period.

We now have in Canada record consumer debts. We have in Canada record personal bankruptcies. Today there are 1.5 million Canadians unemployed and 76 months straight of unemployment at over 9 per cent. This is the worst record since the depression.

Today two to three million Canadians are underemployed. Today one in four Canadians is worried about losing their job. We have to show for the last three years over $100 billion more in debt and now we have a record $600 billion debt to pass on to our children as they come into the workforce. In this time, average family incomes have been cut by $3,000.

Earlier today I heard Liberal MPs saying that it is up to Canadians who have had to make tough choices. There have been cutbacks. I want to talk about those in a minute.

I hear Liberal MPs talking about tough choices to other Canadians while increasing payroll taxes by approximately 73 per cent and making the tough choice to maintain their own pensions. It is five times greater than what other Canadians can have. Is that making tough choices on that side of the House?

Most of the deficit fighting this government has done has been on the backs of taxpayers with 36 tax increases since 1993. Most of the rest has been on the backs of the provinces with $7.5 billion reduction in transfer payments.

About 92 per cent of the reduction in the deficit to this date has been a direct result in tax revenue increase. As I have mentioned, they are ready to kill more jobs with the CPP tax increase of 73 per cent.

While with the transfer cuts they have cut funding to health and post-secondary education funding, the government will spend $4.2 billion to subsidize its crown corporations like the CBC and Canada Post.

This government's vision, the Liberal vision, is a country where average taxpayers send $10,200 to the federal government each year, and $3,400 of that every year from every taxpayer is to service the debt alone.

The Liberal vision is a country where 7.3 million Canadians earning less than $30,000 pay 17 per cent of their incomes to the federal government.

What has this government done in terms of economics? It has slashed transfer payments. It has made choices that have not been the priority of Canadians, like health care. It has increased our debt. It has made no commitment to deficit elimination and it has done poor service to Canadians.

What has this government done on equality issues? I would like to spend most of my time, as other speakers have, on this area. Canada has taken a leadership role. I saw that firsthand at the UN Beijing conference. It has taken up the standard of gender equality along with other nations. With this gender equality stance, it has promoted the theme of equal outcome for men and women.

The Reform Party looks at this theme and says equal outcome is not the issue. Individuals, regardless of who they are, should have equal opportunity in the job opportunities.

Success in terms of gender thinking is measured by full workforce participation and economic independence and autonomy, as we have already heard from the secretary of state many times today.

I ask, is this true equality? I say to the House that a person, whether male or female, who has equal protection under the law of the land and the equality of choice and opportunity in society: that is equality.

If we look at the history of the women's movement there have been equality seekers, first in the fight for the right to vote, the opportunity to put their name on a ballot. There has been equality of entry into occupations. There have been pioneers throughout the years who have put forward arguments to put women in certain occupations. There has been equality for entry into positions of leadership. Women have been elected to the House who are helping to lead the country politically; there are women business leaders, in teaching and in the sciences.

The history of the women's movement is the fight for equal opportunity, for their place in society and they have done well. The history of the women's movement is the freedom to make economic and political choices according to their own desires and dreams. Women want freedom to make those choices. True feminism is a belief in women and in the choices and in the wisdom of the choices they will make. As I have travelled through Canada and through my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam my belief in that kind of feminism is strengthened by what I see. The majority of students graduating from university are women. They are taking positions of leadership with great success.

More women than men are starting up their own businesses. Statistics show that the likelihood of their success is greater than that of their male counterparts. They have shown excellence in non-traditional roles. Yesterday I learned of an insurance company that in four of its six regions the top sales persons were women. There is also excellence in the traditional roles.

The Liberals are out of touch with the real women, with their potential. In their very policies they deny women the respect for the abilities they possess.

The greatest concern I see in gender analysis and equality philosophies is the rejection of diverse opinion. In gender analysis there is a blindness to constructive alternatives to ways of doing things in society. The main theme of gender analysis and policy making, as I saw in Beijing and I see in government policies, is that it drives always and ever to economic independence and autonomy for women. It drives to equal outcome and equal participation in the workforce. It would demand a social revolution, a remaking of society, and a mandate for people to follow in its dictated choices in order to do so.

In the last 20 years we have been witness to the progress of this agenda. In the last 20 years the movement has been toward two working parents. Presently it is seven out of ten households, up from three out of ten. However, within that time the total household income is virtually the same.

Seventy per cent of women are now in the workforce. In the last 30 years divorce has increased 800 per cent. In fact, Canada has one of the highest divorce rates in developed countries. As we have heard, the tragedy of that is the poverty rate. It is greatest among the single mothers who are very often the product of those family break-ups. It is shown that the economic impact of divorce is the greatest on women.

Federal taxes of the average family, according to the Globe and Mail , November 1992, was $1,894 more in 1990 than in 1984. Recent statistics have told us that the after tax earnings of an average household have actually fallen by $3,000 since the government came to power. As I have mentioned, 36 tax increases have been implemented by the federal government alone to help make that happen.

These kinds of things happening in society have very real results. They are not just numbers. According to government statistics child poverty has increased by 40 per cent since 1989. Youth violent crime has doubled in the last nine years. Canada is among the highest in the world in youth suicides. Today we have less money because of cutbacks to direct toward needed programs for those who actually need government help because of debt servicing charges and wasteful government spending.

In the last couple of days we have heard about government spending going toward a prison art foundation in New Brunswick of $100,000; $87 million to Bombardier; $300,000 to friends at the Shawinigan Industrial Centre. Are these the choices of the men and women in Canada? Is this compassion? Do these programs reflect the priorities of most women?

Who sets the goal? Who defines the standard of success for women? Do most women define success as equal workforce participation? Or do most women define success for themselves, that of their friends and of their communities as safety in their streets, an opportunity to achieve for all Canadians, a government that can provide help for those who cannot achieve hope for their youth and for their children and strength in their homes. This is what most women and men define as success, not equal workforce participation.

The government, as I mentioned, rejects diversity in its definition of gender equality. The government has chosen to follow a gender feminist philosophy. Quoting from the government's material: "Status of Women works to ensure women's equality is integrated into all federal government legislation, policies, programs and initiatives" .Women's equality is defined as autonomy and equal workforce participation. What is the price of that? The simple dollar price for the status of women in the main estimates is $17 million of tax funds every year plus $8 million more in grants both in 1996 and 1997, and that was tripled from the previous year, 1995-96.

The price of the status of women policies goes far beyond the dollars that go into that program. I will quickly give three examples. First, the government's commitment is to women working. The finance minister in a letter refused to even consider tax change proposals that might be a disincentive for a spouse to work.

I have with me today a letter from a constituent who supports the fresh start platform of our party which increases the spousal exemption from $5,380 to $7,900, thereby levelling the field for parents who choose to stay home to care for their children and extending the child care deduction of $5,000 to every preschool child, including children whose parents stay at home to care for them.

My constituent states: "Before my child was born in 1994 I was employed as a social worker for the B.C. government. I saw the effect of parental absence from the home in young and teenage children and decided that to raise a child properly I needed to be in the home caring for my child. My husband and I have faced extreme financial hardship as a result of this decision but still feel that children and family are the most important factor in our lives".

She goes on to say: "I hope that all women and men merely have a choice to be parents first, and to find this role to be of equal importance to a career".

The Liberal Party rejects Reform's proposal of a child care tax credit to all parents, and instead chooses to reward only those who put their children in receiptable day care.

The government shows zero tolerance feminist style. It seems appropriate that I mention a Vancouver planning meeting at the the Vancouver status of women location which was held last November. I have the notice for that. It says: "Come help organize for the 1997 International Women's Day event". This meeting was held on November 19 at 7.30 p.m., at the Vancouver Status of Women, Grant Street, "all women welcome".

Two women were refused entry at that meeting. They were identified by the people there as pro-lifers. Not only were they refused entry but there was attempt made to forcibly remove them. Police were called. By the time the altercation was finished, medical attention was required. Cameras were broken and bruises were received.

The Vancouver police have recommended to the crown prosecutor that charges be laid because of this event at the Vancouver status of women location. The Vancouver status of women has received federal grants which total $917,000 since 1984. When the Secretary of State for the Status of Women heard of this, she gave her apologies but replied in a statement that this was not in her backyard. This mind-set is in her backyard.

Last year she made this statement: "This government believes each and every individual, group and community in Canada must be treated equally and with respect". Yet what has she done to address this very real event that occurred at the Vancouver status of women location which is connected with her department?

Status of women and the gender equality thing is no equality of choice and no recognition of various sentiments or ideas of many women. It does not recognize the importance of parenting. It does not recognize the importance of other opinions.

Another example of rejection of other opinions is what we saw lately in Bill C-41, a bill that spoke to child support and access. Like so much of what the Liberal government does, it referred to one side of the argument and forgot that there are two players. In fact in Bill C-41, which dealt with divorce and child support, there are more players. There are the custodial and non-custodial parents and the children.

This bill gave rights to the custodial parent, responsibilities to the non-custodial parent and basically left the ball there. Who will pay for unequal treatment? Who will pay for a bill that does not address the real needs of those who are involved in child support and access issues? Who will pay for the unequal treatment of Canadians in Bill C-41? Not only the non-custodial parent but the children involved in the process of a divorce procedure which will not serve their purposes.

I will reiterate. We have a society that would like to recognize the uniqueness and the freedom to make choices for all Canadians. It is not equal workforce participation but things like safety on the streets, incentives to achieve, help for those who cannot, hope for our youth and strength in our homes which is where most Canadians feel the priorities of government should be.

[Petitions, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I present is from my riding and contains 76 signatures. The petitioners call on Parliament to not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.

The third petition, containing 260 signatures, is again from my riding and other lower mainland constituencies. The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate their support of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading materials.