Sharon Hayes

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, that is short work for some interesting points.

I remind my friend of the red book. If the Liberals are so concerned with family, why is it just mentioned once?

With respect to government targets and the ability of government to meet them, it still has no specific goal for deficit elimination. In terms of that we can talk about money spent here but what about the record personal bankruptcies that Canadian families are addressing across this country? We have a 10 per cent unemployment rate.

Whatever the government is doing certainly it does not seem to be getting to the people who need it the most. I remind my colleague that because the government has not addressed its deficit position, real income in the last three years has decreased for the average family by $3,000.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and also to split my time with my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. My colleague and I share some of the same community. Certainly that community like other communities across Canada is very much affected by the decisions of this House and the priorities it sets. The topic of today is how government priorities affect children and parents, indeed all people of this nation.

Today, one day after national child day, we want to highlight the Reform Party's proposal make tax relief for Canadian families a priority in government policy.

The proposal I will elaborate on today reflects a recognition of the importance of family units and the importance of choices for parents in public policy. The greatness of our country today is a reflection of the legacy of the greatness of the families which have built it, families both from abroad and those that are Canadian born. Today we must not forfeit the source of our success as a country.

Existing government priorities seem only too eager to ignore the family unit. For instance, there is but a single reference to the word family in the Liberal red book. This certainly illustrates the reality of government neglect of this important institution. The years of sowing the seeds of neglect of the family in public policy are now yielding a whirlwind of social, economic and judicial consequences. Our homes, our streets and even the statistics on youth crime, youth suicide and teen pregnancy all give too great evidence that government priorities and policies must change in this area.

What are the government's priorities and policies? What is the Liberal vision of government? Today I would like to remind the House that we have a government that is wedded to big spending, high taxes and big government. The Liberal government is addicted to expenditures exceeding $150 billion a year and it has shown no sign of changing that philosophy.

The deficit reduction that has been accomplished has been accomplished on the backs on the Canadian taxpayers, the families of this country. The reduced deficit is due only to the increase in revenues.

The Reform vision in contrast is a vision of smaller government, lower taxes and more choices for the Canadians who must pay those taxes. We would like to reduce government expenditures by $15 billion a year. We would like to balance the budget, not just talk about balancing the budget. That would give tax relief to our overtaxed Canadian families.

A major plank of the Reform fresh start program will extend the following child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home: $5,000 for every preschool child and $3,000 for every child seven to 12 years of age. We will make this as fair as possible for families of all income levels. We will turn the deduction into a tax credit so that everyone will receive the same saving.

The Liberal plan that now exists for the child care deduction is very unfair. It favours parents who choose to have paid child care over those who choose to take care of their own children. It also favours rich parents over poor because it is a tax deduction.

How does it favour parents who choose to have paid child care? The Liberal plan for the child care deduction applies only to receiptable day care expenses. Therefore it denies the value and the choice to care for one's own children. It denies the flexibility of the family to choose to have another family member look after the children or to have some kind of co-operative arrangement within the neighbourhood.

This morning in the Globe and Mail there was an article which described how many children are in step-families. The article stated that in 1994-95, 32.4 per cent of children under 12 years of age were in the care of someone other than the parent. In other words 67.6 per cent were cared for by a parent.

These choices in child care are completely ignored by the Liberal plan for the child care deduction. The government through its plan rewards those who would use outside care. The government discriminates against 67 per cent of parents who want to take care of their own children in their own home.

This government by its policies denies choice to parents. Also it denies the value of parenting.

I mentioned that the tax deduction given by the Liberal government is more valuable for higher income earners. If we look at a quick example, a tax deduction of $5,000 to a person earning more than $100,000 could be worth approximately $2,500 at the end of the tax year. To a struggling Canadian who is making $20,000 a year, that tax deduction would only be worth approximately $1,500. It is a discriminatory practice which works against those who need it most.

For all the puffery of the finance minister, perhaps he would like to admit that he fails to mention that his rich friends benefit the most by the present system of the child care tax deduction. That same minister is also proud of extending day care deductions to 16-year olds from the 12-year old ceiling. These two things illustrate the misplaced priorities of government policy. Is it not those who need it most that should be given the greatest attention in government policy?

Earlier I mentioned that the government has no appreciation of the value of parenting. More and more I see that interest groups, from day care advocates to affirmative action zealots, all ignore parents in order to push their own agenda in government policy. With what this government does and its priority in budgeting, and I noticed something unique in the government's budgets in that it recently tripled the budget for the status of women while other budgets are being cut. What kind of priority does this show to families?

The priorities of government in budgeting and in legislation are predicated on other things, not the priorities of the nation's families. For example, when the finance minister claimed that doubling the working income supplement helps families and also stated that our party did not support the bill, he failed to point out that this provision, that is, the doubling of the working income supplement, was but a small part of the amendments to the Divorce Act.

Bill C-41, like so many bills brought by the government to this House, had some good elements in it. Tragically however the incidence of divorce, the bitterness of the disputes in a divorce and the resulting devastation on the children and families will only escalate given the mindset of the provisions of Bill C-41. It totally ignores essential elements or provisions that should have been put in place, such as mandatory mediation, unified family court and more basically, equal treatment of the parties involved in divorce so that enforcement of access and support are both looked at by government.

Divorce hurts children. Single parenthood and broken families are the surest way to predicate financial needs. It is a cruel joke for the Liberals to increase the working income supplement and in the same legislation fuel the number of families that will need that supplement.

When Reform challenges the Liberal government for its lack of concern for Canadian families, the only answer is a list of programs through which increased funding will be given to targeted groups. The federal government has in place over 25 programs which specifically target at least a portion of its spending to children, over 25 programs costing billions of taxpayer dollars.

Many of these programs have existed for years, yet the government over the last decade has never undertaken a thorough evaluation of them to determine if they are accomplishing the intended outcome. Using the government's own figures, child poverty has risen from 15 to 20 per cent since 1989 despite all of the government spending that took place on behalf of children. Where is the evidence that more spending is going to reduce these figures?

This government is clearly not interested in evidence. It would rather listen to the people who tickle the ears of the Liberals with cries for help. They like to listen to people who see government as their source of funds.

Reform makes families a priority. The well-being of our nation's children cannot be separated from the well-being of our nation's families. A happy child is not the sum of government programs, but it is found in the strength of personal relationships that surround that child. Reform's fresh start seeks to strengthen families with the basic philosophy that a dollar left in the hands of the taxpayer is better than a dollar in the hands of any bureaucrat.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide tax fairness for all Canadian families by extending the Child Care Tax deduction to all families of all income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the tax bias against parents caring for their own children.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak on national child day on behalf of Canada's children.

It is not an exaggeration to say that for most Canadians children are our greatest and our most precious resource. Children are an investment. In the short term they are an investment in dollars and cents; in the long term in the very future and success of our country.

According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, the total monetary cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $157,000, and that only represents the short term financial commitment.

One cannot think about the commitment of time and energy or the emotional commitment involved in raising children without recognizing how important these young people are in our lives. For many families they are indeed what makes life worth living. They are our future and we want the very best for our children.

We commend a good initiative like the attempt to return abducted children to their homes, as announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs today.

In my riding the threat of unaddressable fears of child abduction became only too real just this year. A parent there was faced with the reality of having no assurance that a child, under a Canadian court order to join a parent overseas, would be returned or could return to Canada. As the custodial parent he faced the uncertainty of the cruel reality of international child abduction.

For the sake of all parents and children in Canada, I urge the foreign affairs department to press forward and actively encourage all countries to sign on to The Hague convention.

The stresses and fragility that exist in families are reflected in the tragic statistics of runaways today. Too often these kids run from a home barely coping with increasing pressures and they run right into situations of danger, abuse and violence.

Today on national child day we must underline the importance of addressing not just the symptoms but the causes of such tragedy.

The tragedy in Canada in 1996 is that government policy today is constantly working against children and their families. Child poverty, which is a reflection of family poverty, has not improved under today's tax and spend Liberal government. How can it if 49 per cent of the average family's income is taken from it in taxes? Canadian families need tax relief.

Canada's low and middle income families need to keep more of their own money that will be used to alleviate their financial pressures, money that will be used on behalf of their children.

On the weekend we read another report about the tragic increase in suicides among Canada's young people. That rate has quadrupled in the last three decades. Experts say that one of the primary reasons for this increase is hopelessness and fear of the future. And that we see in our present economic situation.

The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent while it is half that in the United States. The government has cut transfers to provinces dramatically without offering any substantial strategy for securing the access of Canadians to higher education and health care over the long term.

Despite the fact the government can no longer offer the security it once did, this same government refuses to allow Canadian families to keep more of their own income so that parents can fill this gap by making their own provisions for the security of their families and especially their children.

Presently there are about 30 federal programs which target spending toward children or issues that impact children most. The government has never done a substantial evaluation of those programs to see if they are producing the desired outcome. Yet its philosophy is simply to create more programs and throw more money at the problems.

What is needed is for Canadian families to keep more of their own earnings and use those earnings on behalf of their own children.

[Taxation, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, may I say that the government has nothing to brag about with respect to transfers to the provinces.

Today is national child day. Reform's fresh start directly helps families and their children by reducing taxes dramatically. We will reduce taxes by 89 per cent for families with incomes of $30,000 and free over one million Canadian families from the tax rolls altogether.

In recognition of the importance of our children, will the Liberals commit today to increase the spousal deduction and extend the child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home?

[Taxation, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's policy of high taxes and big government means that more and more Canadian families need a second income just to make ends meet. The average Canadian family will have to pay $27,000 this year in taxes alone. Too many Canadians are working for the government instead of their families.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Reform will give Canadian families a $2,000 tax break by the year 2000. What does the government have to offer to Canadian families?

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-62.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am pleased to rise on behalf of many of my constituents whose concern over the management of the western fisheries is far more than just academic. Many of my constituents and those of my colleagues have been and are directly impacted by government fishing policies. Unfortunately, this impact lately and largely has been detrimental due to the injustice reflected by present Liberal government policies.

Bill C-62 rewrites the Fisheries Act and combines with it the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

What do we see in the fisheries today? There are problems in the fisheries. Much of them are the result of government mismanagement. On the east coast much of the fishery is closed due to the collapse of the groundfish stocks. On the west coast there are severe problems. There are continuing problems with the Alaskan

catch of Canadian bound salmon which remain unresolved with the Pacific salmon treaty.

On the west coast we also have the salmon fishery which is our key fish stock. It is a fishery which is in total disarray. There have been almost no non-native commercial fisheries on the Fraser River, which borders my constituency, for the past two years. The government native only commercial fishery is also in disarray.

Unfortunately the fisheries act which is before us today does nothing to address the foundational problems which exist in the government's high-handed approach to the fisheries.

Fisheries mismanagement has already had a deep impact on the livelihood of many B.C. fishers. I fear that continued mismanagement and the mindset we have seen hold dire consequences for the future.

Perhaps the most significant injustice in the present system and one which has received a fair amount of press coverage in my area is the manner in which the government has flaunted a supreme court decision that has literally established a race based fishery policy which benefits B.C.'s aboriginal fishers at the expense of the rest of the fishers in the province of British Columbia. In doing so it has trounced Canadian legal tradition and thus violated the rights of all Canadians.

In 1992 the fisheries minister of the day told fishers that the supreme court decision of Sparrow v. the Queen required the establishment of an exclusive native only commercial fishery specifically in law. In 1995 after the Fraser report's scathing condemnation of the government's race based policy, the supreme court declared unequivocally that its previous ruling did not call for such a system.

The native only commercial fishery was undermined by the supreme court's August 1996 Van der Peet, NTC Smokehouse and Gladstone decision. The court ruled against an aboriginal right. They have no right to an exclusive fishery. B.C. natives do not have a constitutional right to catch and sell fish commercially. Once the decision came down in August, regular commercial fishers, including my colleague, started to fish with the native commercial fisheries and had a full right to do so.

Thus, with no mandate from the courts, no mandate from the Canadian people and no mandate from Parliament, this government today maintains an unjust and, I will say, discriminatory policy in the fisheries on the west coast.

Specific to this management of the fisheries and specific to the item I have just mentioned, there is nothing that government can do under this new fisheries act that it cannot do already under existing legislation except, which I point out very specifically, for the right to extinguish the public right to fish. This essential change with respect to fisheries management is that the minister gains substantial powers to do what currently requires the specific authorization of Parliament or cabinet. This flies in the face of democracy and the good interests of the public fisheries in Canada.

The fisheries act which Canadians hoped would restore equity in the system fails to do so. As a result, the Reform Party cannot support this bill.

Today, I would like to take the time I have been given to read into the record a report that throws much light on many of the issues we are talking about today. It is a report written as a response to the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board. It is of note that this report is an evaluation commissioned by DFO on the performance of DFO with regard to the recommendations of the Fraser report which I mentioned earlier.

I will proceed to read this response into the record so that we can see the whole picture and how DFO has responded to what needed to be done. Some of the department's responses to the recommendations of the Fraser report are incomplete and others are still under study. The comments of this evaluation fall into six categories: management; institutional arrangements; the quality of the management principles; the aboriginal fishing strategy; the environment; and user groups views and responsibilities.

Under the title of management, specifically risk aversion management, the first recommendation is:

We recommend that DFO retain and exercise its constitutional responsibilities and not in any way abrogate its stewardship of resources under federal jurisdiction. Conservation must be the primary objective of both fisheries managers and all others participating in the fishery. The conservation ethics must prevail throughout and be adhered to by all.

The comments on the evaluation were:

-DFO did not achieve its escapement targets for Fraser sockeye in 1995.

-stock-specific conservation of Fraser River sockeye is threatened.

DFO cannot hope to succeed without a clear vision of what it is trying to achieve i.e., achieving conservation is more than just meeting escapement targets. The first requirement, therefore is an explicit definition of "conservation".

There can be no conservation of Fraser sockeye salmon in the long run without equivalent care and protection for the habitat on which fish stocks rely. In this light, the pending expiration of key programs as the Fraser River Action Plan, and the funding base that has supported it in recent years, is of utmost concern.

In terms of outcome, however, DFO was not fully successful.

DFO came close to achieving its escapement targets in 1995-It did not, however, fully achieve them. There were escapement shortfalls relative to target levels for all major run groupings with the most significant for the late runs.

The escapement shortfalls in 1995 indicate the need for even more prudence in DFO's planning and management than it exhibited in 1995.

Retaining and not abrogating: DFO officials do not believe they have in any way abrogated their responsibilities, but recognize there is perception of this, particularly in commercial and recreational fisheries. DFO did not directly respond to this part of the recommendation or the perceptions or concerns that underlie it.

Conservation must be a primary objective: Again from DFO's point of view this is a problem of perception, not substance.

There is a difference between recognition of intent and confidence in success. In 1995, run sizes were significantly overestimated, and fishing effort was sharply curtailed-As a result, public confidence in DFO's ability to achieve its conservation goals have been underestimated.

I can attest to that.

While escapement targets are above levels necessary to preserve the runs in aggregate, they are not in themselves necessarily adequate to preserve weaker stocks.

DFO did not achieve its escapement targets because it overestimated run size both pre-season and in-season-DFO was not always able to curtail fishing effort as much as required.

Failure to meet these targets, even if it does not place the resource-in aggregate-at risk, does point to the challenge of ensuring that DFO's conservation goals are achieved.

The unprecedented poor returns in 1995 suggest that DFO may also need to reconsider the targets it aims to meet. There is the longstanding concern about the diminution of weak stocks and the growing number of strong stocks-Making conservation a top priority requires reconsideration of their targets themselves and not just how they might be more consistently achieved.

Those are comments to the first recommendation. The second recommendation:

We recommend that DFO take immediate steps to initiate a process of planning for the future of the fishery, addressing all critical problems affecting conservation and sustainability, through an ongoing consultative forum. Among the problems to be considered would be over-capitalization, user-group allocation and ensuring equitable treatment under the law.

Comments to this:

Fleet reduction, in itself, will not address the fundamental problem underlying over-capitalization of the fleet-the common property nature of the commercial fleet.

The intersectoral allocation issue may not get resolved as planned. It is not clear whether a supportable framework will in fact be developed and implemented.

To date, DFO has not established a broad, multi-stakeholder consultative process to plan for the future and address critical problems affecting conservation and sustainability. DFO has not identified the responsibilities and composition it should have, nor its relationship to existing processes.

The third recommendation:

We recommend that DFO and PSC adopt a risk aversion management strategy because of the great uncertainty on stock estimates, in season catch estimates and environmental problems. Conservation goals must be achieved before any other priorities are addressed.

A risk averse strategy has not yet been developed. We found in our evaluation that DFO's actions were not the result of an explicit, well-defined risk averse management strategy, but rather were a response to the unprecedented events of the 1995 fishery.

DFO's actions were not based on a well-defined risk averse management strategy. The question of how DFO defines risk averse and how risk averse is expected to promote conservation must be addressed. Without this clarity there is no way to test if DFO's activities are in fact guided by well conceived and well defined strategy or whether their activities in themselves define what DFO means by risk averse.

The fourth recommendation:

We recommend that DFO, in conjunction with provincial authorities, First Nations, commercial and recreational fishing groups implement (both in marine and in-river areas) a revised system to ensure that catch information is timely and reliable, given that accurate counting and timely reporting of catch are fundamental to conservation. The system must also include a more stringent paper trail. There must be stricter control of landing and sales slips and a retention of sales slips with fish through to retail sales or export.

We recommend that DFO explore the application of new technology to collect information on stock levels in ocean areas in order to supplement catch statistics.

They made recommendations on institutional arrangements. We recommend that DFO develop better co-ordinated, inter-party communications among its staff and between staff and PSC, First Nations, commercial and recreational fishing groups with a greater degree of co-operation aimed at enhanced in-season management and post-season evaluation and at fostering working arrangements among all parties, and facilitate clearer and more transparent management and allocation policies.

The recommendations are an institutional arrangement and there are a number. We recommend that DFO and PSC give First Nations greater and more meaningful access to and involvement in the management process.

Quality management principles is another area. We recommend that DFO make a commitment to quality management principles in the management of fixed stocks by specific region and in this context for the third party quality auditing organization be contracted to provide ongoing services.

There is a litany of recommendations and a litany of where DFO has fallen short in meeting these recommendations.

I recommend to the House that the department again reviews all of these recommendations and the shortfalls so that, indeed, what is in the bill today will better reflect the well founded concerns and act accordingly.

In conclusion, I would like to put forward an amendment from the Reform Party. I move that the amendment be amended by adding:

"and that the committee report back to the House no later than June 19, 1997".

[Divorce Act, November 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-41. This bill establishes a framework for the use of child support guidelines and measures to tighten enforcement of support orders, to be effective May 1, 1997. It amends the Divorce Act, Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

It is my understanding that it does not apply to unmarried or separated persons but it is expected that the provinces will enact similar legislation and that the provisions will be applied unilaterally in the provinces.

It is assumed following the passage of Bill C-41 we can expect changes to the Income Tax Act to make child support payments taxable in the hands of the non-custodial spouse, or ex-spouse in this case.

This bill follows a federal-provincial territorial task force report which did encompass the areas of custody, access and maintenance. It is interesting to note that this bill virtually ignored two-thirds of that report and simply went to the issues of child support guidelines and enforcement.

This bill passed report stage on November 5 and the Reform Party did express concerns and amendments at that time. First was the consideration of the appropriateness of the process of guideline review. Those guidelines are out of sight of public scrutiny and are not as flexible as we felt would be necessary.

Second was the consideration of the payment and the ability to pay and who it was that would be taken into consideration in the payment of the child support.

Third was the lack of direction in the root causes and the damage done through divorce proceedings and substantive measures to address those root causes. That involves the issues of access and the process of the divorce itself. I will be addressing these topics today.

It is not often that the Divorce Act is opened up and when it is, it is an important enough topic that Reform feels that surely the government should take the time and the effort to do what is necessary, to do what is best in this area. Today I ask this government what indeed are the best interests of the child. Certainly that is an issue that surrounds this whole issue of divorce, one that needs to be answered in relation to the issue of divorce.

To whom do our children belong? Do our children belong to one parent, both parents or do our children belong to the state? How best do we address the needs of these children through what we all know is the painful and often destructive process of divorce?

These questions I fear are not well addressed in this bill and today I would like to speak to that. Divorce indeed is a tug of war between parents and perhaps the interests of government and how it then proceeds to oversee that tug of war.

On the issue of the differences, I can see three principles where the Reform Party would differ from the Liberal Party, and certainly in my discussion today I would like to bring these out. These are principles, not the specifics of the bill. I will mention them now so that these can be considered as we look at the elements of the bill.

The first principle is the importance of families in our society and the importance of government to support those families. I am afraid in so much of what I see in what this government does. It has forgotten that basic fact. Here we have a government wedded to the idea of big government that would like to tax families into oblivion with the stresses that come with the taxes that they give, families that have to work half a year simply for the government and then in light of that earn less and less each year as they work harder and harder.

This government has forgotten the value of parenting and perhaps even it has forgotten that within the family context divorce hurts. Divorce hurts the families. The family breakdown now is epidemic, going up 400 per cent in the last 30 years.

The root causes of many of our social dilemmas and the stresses that we see I believe can be found in this very epidemic that we see, whether it be youth crime, whether it be suicide among our youth, whether it be the welfare rolls or poverty itself that concerns each

of us in this country and in this place. What are the root causes? Much of it can be traced back to this very institution we talk about today.

Divorce hurts families. It hurts parents, it hurts the grandparents and those around and, I would put to the House today, most of all it hurts the children that watch it all go by.

The second principle is we have a government that is seized with its own importance, a government that thinks that government can solve all the problems, a government that thinks coming to a bill such as this in an easy, fast manner, that wants to put a legislative, legalistic quick fix to a problem that is much too major. It shows a mindset of a government that is set on itself, a government that believes in lawyers rather than people, a government that would make decisions behind the closed doors of an order in council rather than bringing them to a public place where they can be discussed.

That is the kind of government that we see at work, a government that would spend millions of taxpayer dollars on poverty programs but forget to solve the underlying issues, thinking that government can solve these things and forgetting that it is people and the families in which they live who solve the problems that are causing these very stresses; a government quite frankly that is stuck on itself.

The third principle is true equality, the equality in the processes that this government oversees, the equality of men and women, of two parents coming into a situation such as divorce, both senior partners treated with dignity and equality in the process the government puts forward.

These three issues, the importance of family, the overriding intervention of government and equality of people in the processes, are the three principles that go through the discussion that I want to bring to this place today.

I would put to the House that the government's solution, as proposed in Bill C-41, is really no solution at all. What it does is create greater inequity within our families. It creates greater insecurity within our families, greater potential rancour within the divorce process and greater potential economic loss to the parties involved with the potential need for greater litigation.

There are several concerns that I want to bring forward today which are specific to the bill. First is the guidelines, their control and application.

These guidelines will not be developed within the House of Commons. As the justice minister mentioned, there will be a review in five years and I do commend the government for putting in place a specific review process. But in the meantime these guidelines can be adjusted and changed. Again, I agree with the adjustment factor for the guidelines. However, I disagree that the adjustment be made behind closed doors, without accountability to the Canadian public. This is much too important.

The principle of order in council, behind closed doors government decision, I remind members on the other side, is something they spoke out against when they sat on this side of the House. Again in this legislation, as in other legislation, there are regulations, orders in council determining the direction of things that affect Canadians in a very real and important way.

The process of the review of the guidelines must come back to Parliament, back to the committees of this place. The process must be accountable to Canadians. The pattern of the government is all too common. It shows that the government again thinks too much of itself and too little of the Canadian people.

How would the guidelines be applied? How would they actually work in the lives of Canadians who are already in distress, in a situation which is causing them and their children much pain?

I feel that the principle of the guidelines is well intentioned. Largely guidelines can bring about a fairer process. They give parameters wherein perhaps we could have a system that would treat those involved in a fair and equitable way.

The system that existed before these guidelines were put in place was criticized for producing different awards for individuals in similar situations. It was felt that it allowed too much judicial discretion. Therefore people who were in identical support situations but with different judges and in different provinces would receive vastly different awards. The new system will produce similar awards but for very different scenarios or circumstances. In effect, we have taken the danger from one side and actually overcompensated. The solution suggested by the government could be just as dangerous and just as unfair for the Canadians who will be using the system.

The system for which the guidelines are proposed is constructed on the assumption that the non-custodial parent is basically a source of funds and that the custodial parent has the exclusive care of the child or children involved in the divorce. This is a simplistic approach to the issue. It could be a detrimental approach to the families that go through this painful procedure.

The first thing I would like to do is put forward our concerns about the guidelines. The process that is put to the guidelines withdraws the joint financial responsibility from the parents; it is one parent's single responsibility for the support of the children. The non-custodial parent is exclusively considered the source of the funds for the support of the children.

One part of the bill calls for the removal of section 17(8) of the original Divorce Act which states:

A variation order varying a support order that provides for the support of a child of a marriage should

(a) recognize that the former spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the child; and

(b) apportion that obligation between the former spouses according to their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of the obligation.

I repeat that this section has been removed. Reference to joint financial obligation or relative abilities of both former spouses is removed. Perhaps this is the most apparent place where the underlying function of the guidelines is clarified. Within the guidelines and the setting up of the guidelines and as I said with the removal of this section it becomes very apparent there is no longer joint financial responsibility for the support of the children.

A child is the product of two parents. Until a divorce is encountered, there is a shared responsibility for the support of that child. It is worked out between the parents and in no way does society dictate that one should support and one should not. The choice is there and should be there for both parents. That child then walks into a court with the two parents and within a few minutes, on a variation of an order, when that child walks out of the court the financial responsibility for the support of that child rests solely on the non-custodial parent. The guidelines are based on one income only and the ability to pay of that one income only.

Given the situation of a professional custodial parent and a non-custodial parent who perhaps works on commission or works seasonally or whatever it might be, it seems to me to be unfair to say that one is sole owner of the responsibility for support of the child when indeed both could work that out together.

Presently in order to change that or to revise it, perhaps at the time the decision is made the non-custodial parent is able and will be determined to be able to make that support, but the only review of that situation would be based on undue hardship. Again it would still fall back to the non-custodial parent. In the meantime, the custodial parent could have resources far beyond those of the non-custodial parent and be willing to use those resources.

This system suggests an unequal value to the ability and the desire of parents to put their resources toward their children. The way this system is put forward, it is not the ability to support the child that determines who supports the child but simply who does not get custody of the child.

If we think of that, the very rancour in the divorce proceedings centres around the custody battle. The changes to the Divorce Act the last two times it was opened-the only two times it was opened-with no fault divorce were to make the litigation process quicker, easier and less rancorous. However, battles are fought on custody considerations. Now something has been added to that battle.

Not only does the battle concern custody but the battle for custody will dictate a winner and a loser. I would suggest that the winner takes all. The winner takes the child, the winner takes what is given within the custody order. The loser loses the child and instead becomes the payer and is completely responsible for the support of the child. The ante increases in the custody battle. There is a winner and there is a loser. Not only is there a loser in the decision of who will be the non-custodial parent, but within this extended battle the loser is the child who sees the rancour involved.

The guidelines ignore the non-custodial parenting process outside the support payment responsibility. As we have said, the non-custodial parent is fully responsible for the support payment, which is based solely on the non-custodial parent's gross income. The parent in this process is defined simply by the dollars and cents they will be giving to the child, the dollars and cents that will be ordered for payment within the child support decision.

There is no allowance in the process for any expenses, direct or indirect, no matter how significant they may be, which the non-custodial parent may put toward the child they will be supporting. The guidelines completely ignore any other support in the form of expenses. The guidelines cannot be challenged without proof of a condition of undue hardship.

What about a non-custodial parent's costs for housing, transportation and food, or costs in their activities with the children? These are not even considered, nor can they be within the guidelines. This results in a very great inequity in the value of parenting between the custodial and non-custodial parents. Perhaps worse, it may be a disincentive for a non-custodial parent to put resources toward the child.

They will pay the same award regardless of how they interact with the children after divorce. The non-custodial parent who spends one day a week with their child will have the same order as one who spends three hours with their child, or perhaps one who spends every other month with their child. The actual child support guidelines will give each an identical award.

I see this as the government's lack of recognition of the value of parenting. A non-custodial parent is a parent, as is a custodial parent. Both have valued input to the child. That is not recognized and there may be a disincentive for that activity. This will lead directly to greater custody battles. If payment is all that counts, once someone becomes a non-custodial parent perhaps the custody becomes all that much more valuable. Perhaps this too gives a greater chance of payment delinquency.

In my riding and in meetings, non-custodial parents already feel abandoned by the system. Anger and betrayal are felt by non-custodial parents. They care about the children of the families that have been broken up. They have been affected in very real ways by the break-up of the marriage. It has been shown that children are affected in very real ways by the removal of one parent. They are affected by the rancour of a divorce proceeding. There is already enough anger in the court decisions and in the access problems. We need no greater anger or greater potential for anger.

The government claims that the guidelines will ease tensions and expedite the process. As I have said, the main area where acrimony arises within divorce is within the custody proceedings. By putting these guidelines forward and the way that these guidelines work, the government has upped the ante on the battle that will go on in the custody courtrooms of this nation.

This legislation means there will be more to lose in the process for the loser and there will be more to win for the winner. There will be more rancour in the process and unfortunately, the children of divorce will be caught in the middle.

Outside the guidelines, the second major portion of the bill would be the enforcement considerations that have been proposed. The Reform Party strongly supports compliance with court orders. It supports justice being done. It supports people obeying the law.

The Reform amendment that was put forward suggested that more notice be given for federal activities such as the withdrawal of passports or federal licences for the fairness of all concerned. We also recognize that the present statistics of non-compliance are indeed shocking. We want more investigation done about the reasons for this non-compliance and the sources for this data. The reasons are incredibly important. Unfortunately, because investigation has not been done on why or how the information has been gathered, we must speculate on what the reasons are for the non-compliance.

An interesting study was done in 1992 in the United States by the general accounting officer. Typically when people are investigating non-compliance, they ask the custodial parent what the situation is. In the study 66 per cent of custodial parents reported not receiving child support because the non-custodial parent was unable to pay.

Part of this legislation is the ability to pay. I would hope that indeed the guideline is met by the judges and the guidelines that are put forward. It would seem that most people feel the guidelines are a good start in that direction.

The three best predictors of compliance are the fairness of the original order, the non-custodial access to the child and the work stability of the non-custodial parent.

The fairness of the original order depends on the reasonableness of the guidelines. As I have already mentioned, the guidelines which have been put forward ignore the value of parenting and certainly the value of co-parenting. The fairness of the order must be flexible. The guidelines must allow flexibility. They should include flexibility beyond simply a condition of undue hardship. The fairness of the original order depends on a workable review of the circumstances and an equitable review of the situations of the two parents and their ability to pay support.

One of the predictors I mentioned was the work stability of the non-custodial parent. Part of that depends, of course, on employment opportunities. The unemployment rate stands at 10 per cent. That is affecting non-custodial parents who want to support their children and comply with court orders. The 10 per cent unemployment rate is very much a part of the problem which non-custodial parents face.

The final predictor which I mentioned was non-custodial access to the child. This is a determining factor of compliance. While it cannot be linked directly, however, one does affect the other. Access goes to the heart of the matter when it concerns non-custodial parents. Access and the issues surrounding it underlie the value of parenting.

In the report of the provincial-territorial task force, access, custody and support were interwoven. Divorce, access, custody and support issues cross federal and provincial jurisdictions and take us into territory which is confusing to both judges and the people going through divorce proceedings.

In B.C. in the 1980s an experiment was carried out in a family court. Federal and provincial jurisdictions were combined under one roof.

Another experiment was carried out in Manitoba in 1989. It investigated legislation that would enforce court awards that granted access of the children to non-custodial parents. It was a pilot project. It was different in that it provided access assistance. It did not enforce access. Rather than necessitating a court proceeding, it offered assessments, counselling, supervision, conciliation and arbitration. Going to court in this process was a last resort. Even then if the parties found that court was necessary for an access determination they had help available through this pilot program of assessment counselling and supervision.

As I looked at what was brought to me by different individuals in terms of access, there are three kinds of access available. The first is called reasonable access awarded. In perhaps two-thirds of cases this would be the norm. It assumes communication between the parents and that access is negotiated through that communication but sole custody would generally be allotted to one parent. It is less flexible than it sounds in that it tends to be specific but not specific through a court order or a court agreement. Reasonable access is then left up to the parents to determine the details.

It is this very process of reasonable access awarded by the courts that seems to be open over time to changes, in some cases abuse by one spouse or the other. It can lead both partners back to repeated court visits, demanding perhaps court orders to make it work.

The new system proposed would not be helpful in this type of situation. About one-seventh of orders are specified access and that is when non-custodial visitation rights are given within certain time limits. This is specified in the court agreement or in the court order. This might be a second step for a couple from reasonable access to specified access. However, couples find that within the process there is little or no enforcement of access orders provided within the court, within the system that gives them.

Within this legislation there are no enforcement measures proposed for this important area. It has been suggested to me that the provincial enforcement agencies that are proposed to enforce the child support orders could also enforce the access orders, but this has been totally ignored by the proposed government legislation.

We have reasonable access or specified access but from what I have seen the most reasonable and positive is the award of joint custody. Perhaps 20 per cent of divorce cases go toward joint custody. Sometimes it is de facto and sometimes it is de jure situations but mostly through court ordered situations. That is where parents agree to share the custody and the decisions, including access to their children. In most cases it is extremely flexible. With joint custody it can be equal or it can be that the children are mostly with one parent, but it is a custody and access decision that has flexibility without the winner and without the loser implications that we have discussed.

It does not regard children as property to be bartered over but as something valued by both parents and can be taken care of and parented by both parents. It is interesting to note in terms of enforcement and the compliance to a child support order that the best case scenario is found in joint custody arrangements.

The member for Prince George-Peace River has put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-242, that would make this type of arrangement, joint custody, the rule instead of the exception in divorce proceedings. This indeed would address the enforcement of child support and the whole issue of child support in a far more positive way than what we see within the present bill.

The government version that we see today is actually a disincentive to this type of arrangement which allows both parents to parent and both parents to dialogue. According to the government version if this joint custody is what is decided, then the guidelines must minimize the differences in the standard of living in the two households. This is a unique situation and applies to the joint custody arrangements. This implicitly then includes the entire households involved with the two parents. It includes spouses, it includes children, it includes changes in circumstance and it is very difficult. It is very hard to imagine how this will work, with changing circumstances, new families and ongoing circumstance provisions.

Someone deciding how they will have access and custody orders made would see joint custody arrangements as having a greater potential for invasion into the privacy of their home, greater potential for acrimony in the decisions and unpredictable obligations of child support in future years.

It would be less likely for spouses to take a chance on joint custody because of the unpredictability of what their obligations might be.

As I mentioned, this is the best approach. Yet this legislation would penalize those who would potentially want to take this best approach of joint custody. It would penalize those who would look at their responsibilities of shared parenting with the greatest importance. Those who want to contribute most in the co-parenting process would actually be discouraged from doing so.

What is the purpose of the Divorce Act? I would like to say that it is to protect the best interests of the child in difficult circumstances. It is to protect strong family ties and try to keep a connection with those ties and with those family members both in the process and after the process of divorce.

This takes me to my final point, rethinking the whole divorce process. A recommendation of the law society would remove the adversarial approach. I say that the process needs change. The process should go to a unified family court. The process, to be optimum, should go to compulsory mediation that would force communication rather than adversarial approaches. It would protect the best interests of the child by putting connection between the members who are going through divorce.

The Liberal version is big government, unbalanced responsibilities and rights and a blindness to the child's best interests. We need a balance to the roles of parents, equal treatment of the spouses, valuing the role of parents and making government accountable for its actions and motivations.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be on record as opposing this motion.

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition with 74 names from the Vancouver area. This petition is sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of Andre Castet and it includes names from my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.

These petitioners unequivocally reject Bill C-37. They call upon the government to enact legislation to address the public demand for substantial revision of the Young Offenders Act and substantial reform of the justice system.