Sharon Hayes

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise this evening to speak to this bill, I listened to the rhetoric of the member across the way. I hear in that rhetoric a hollowness that does not reflect the loss of hope of many Canadians who are looking at no job. They are looking at the potential of no position that matches the training for which they have invested their time. They are looking at the possibility of losing the job they presently have.

For all the numbers and all the rhetoric Canadians do not feel secure today. That is compliments of the activity of this Liberal government.

Tonight as I rise I address the issue that is at the very heart of this discussion. That issue is at the heart of the disillusionment of Canadians. It is at the heart of the national distress, the national feeling of insecurity for the future. That is not helped by the rhetoric that we hear tonight.

It is the history of politics of Canada, the history of promises, promises, promises that lead to taxes, taxes, taxes. We have seen that in the last three years. It is a history of governments bent on serving their own interests.

The members across the way try to say that taxes have not gone up. Twenty-six billion dollars more is coming into the federal coffers every year from the Canadian taxpayers than there were three years ago.

Governments are bent on serving their own interests, not the interests of the Canadian public. Canadians now look to an insecure future. They look to the future of their children as being unknown, without jobs and possibly without the means for an education or a means to use that education.

Tonight we are specifically talking about the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This member I believe is an honourable and concerned individual, as many members are, and he certainly qualifies for the position to which he is going to be appointed.

It is interesting that this member was the driving force behind a report referenced in the red book during the last election. In that reference this member co-authored a report entitled "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy", something that perhaps many of us came to this House for. However, this was the Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform. That very member, when he co-authored this report, made a recommendation that two of the junior Chair positions in this House be occupied by members from the opposition members. That is two of the four positions. That was in the red book and part of the Liberal promises during the last election.

In the last while the Liberals in this term have a record of patronage appointments in different areas. Recently they have had a resignation of a senior minister, a minister of the crown. I remind the public and this House that it was certainly under questionable circumstances. Now they have had to shuffle ministers and mix people from bench to bench without notice to this House. Our party made mention of that.

This same individual, who was appointed without notice to answer the needs of shuffling patronage appointments and the resignation of a minister for a real cause that perhaps was not identified in his resignation, is the same person who, in his own words, said that he should not be the one to fill the position but someone from the opposition. He will be four of four Liberal members occupying the Chair of this House and he will be occupying it as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.

Where is the integrity of those who would ask him or where is the integrity to accept that appoint? I challenge that member to own up to his own words and to deny that appointment. This, may I mention, is one day after a convention when these same Liberals, who are nattering at me at this moment, said that they have kept their promises or will keep them. We have a promise they made in their book and one day later they are blatantly against what is in that book. Where is the honesty and commitment to serve the people?

We wonder why there is cynicism and disillusionment that grows in the public minds. Each person in this House pays the price for promises broken. I take exception to that because for many of us that is the reason why we came to this place. It was because of that very cynicism that we felt three years ago. Perhaps the choice three years ago of the majority of this House was not as wise as it could have been.

This same party gave itself a rating of 78 per cent in keeping its promises at a recent convention. I wonder if any mention was made of this issue as part of that percentage and I wonder how many students in a classroom would grade their own papers and come up with such a poor mark.

If we listen to radio shows or if we take our own poll of those same promises we get results of 30 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent. Seventy-eight per cent is a construction of the very party whose behaviour we are considering.

We hear that the Liberals have reached their target of 3 per cent of GDP. They have a target the size of a barn door. In the last three years the debt of this country has gone up by $111 billion. We have a deficit of $27 billion. It does not make sense that a government could be proud of that.

We have promises broken. I want to go on but I must discuss the promises of NAFTA to look at the subsidies, to look at the resolution mechanisms, to take a closer look at that legislation. That has not been done.

There were promises for day care spaces which have not been answered. The GST fiasco has been blamed on everything, as my colleague mentioned, from acts of God to loose lips. Nothing has been done to make that real. There has certainly been a sellout of the Canadian people in a $1 billion plan for a partial program that will probably cost the taxpayers across Canada, including the very places concerned, more in the long run.

The aboriginals have completely rejected government progress in terms of their priorities. Where are we with interprovincial trade barriers? Nowhere. Health care? We have line-ups growing. Seniors, people from coast to coast do not feel secure with our health care system. CBC funding, stable? Let us take another look at it.

Youth unemployment is at 18 per cent. Overall unemployment is at almost 10 per cent. As I mentioned, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and 2 million to 3 million are underemployed. What is wrong? What is wrong with what the government seems to feel is just fine, thank you? I suggest it is the basic philosophy of this government, as with governments before. The questioning of that philosophy is what brought many of us as Reformers to this place.

That philosophy is one of government knows best, government will solve all the problems of this country. Government will create jobs. Government will sustain Canadians. Government will sustain aboriginals. That is rejected by them. Government will sustain and protect children. I believe government cannot do all things and that individual Canadians should be trusted and empowered to do those very things that this government and pervious governments have felt they can do in a better way. With the basic philosophy that government knows best, we have bigger government, more intrusive government.

Taxes have grown by $26 billion in the last three years. We have a less responsive, less accountable, more arrogant government as it takes the reins and control of the lives of Canadians. This is in stark contrast to the Reform approach.

In our fresh start program we feel that government can be less. Government can be less expensive, less intrusive, $15 billion less, from $109 billion to $94 billion in government expenditures. With this philosophy we will balance the budget by March 31, 1999. With that we will provide Canadians with the ability to create the employment they need, to create the freedom from government that they need. By increasing the basic deduction for every taxpayer in Canada and matching the spousal deduction to the basic deduction to $7,900 we would level the playing field for one and two income families. That would give Canadians a choice and more money in

their jeans, more money to use in the economy, more money to create the jobs that are needed.

The Liberals are afraid of the new and fresh approach they see from Reform. Maybe it boggles their minds to think perhaps things could be done differently. I saw in this morning's paper: "Liberals turn sights on Manning". They have labelled us with things which simply display their own arrogance and their discomfort with something which may be different and that might work.

One thing the Liberals have said is that Reform does not understand the modern family. I find that very interesting. What is Liberal definition of a modern family? I would like to tell the House what I see their definition of a modern family to be. I would like to ask Canadians if it is their definition.

The Liberal definition of the modern family is two wage earners by decree having to pay exorbitant taxes on what they earn. If they have a job they are afraid of losing that job. They are unsure of their children's future. They are unsure their pension plans. They are earning less and less after tax income each year as the government strips more and more money away to fund programs that it invents. That is the Liberal definition of a modern family. That is the way they would like every family to be. I question if that is what Canadians want.

We have a government which gave $87 million to Bombardier and in the meantime families pay higher taxes. In my province the coast guard has been cut by $7 million, the fish hatcheries which create a livelihood for many people in my riding have been cut back. They have cut back the staffing of light stations which many people depend on for their security. This is a choice which certainly does not serve the families in my area.

There is a $23 million flag program. We are not sure which budget it comes out of but it certainly comes out of the pockets of taxpayers. In the meantime health care has been reduced by $6 billion in the last three years. People are worrying about what will happen if they need care in a short time.

Our plan would give tax relief of $2,000 to the average family by the year 2000. We would create job opportunities through a capital gains tax cut of one-half of what is now being paid, down to 37.5 per cent. We would reduce job killing payroll taxes by reducing the employer's contribution to UI by 28 per cent. We would remove the surtax and move toward a simplified flat tax.

What do Canadian families care about? They care about the best possible care for their children. That, as opposed to the Liberal view is choice, not coercion in day care. Canadians would like to have the choice of how and who takes care of their children, including being able to take care of their own children.

Presently the day care deduction is only for receiptable day care. Reform would change that to a deduction for every child below the age of 13 years. Families could choose to take care of their own children or they could have grandmother or Aunt Bessie or Uncle Jim. Right now that choice is not theirs. It has been stripped by the Liberal vision of the Canadian family, and a wonderful vision it is.

Reform values choice. Reform values parenting. Reform values the safety and security of Canadian families in their homes. Reform wants to address the issues of family violence, child prostitution and child pornography. Reform wants to look at the issue of victims' rights and address them. Reform wants to eliminate the parole of violent offenders. We want them to serve their full sentences. Reform wants to take a look at the Young Offenders Act, eliminate it and make young offenders more accountable in the process.

In terms of the social safety net what do we want to do? We want to give priority in education and health. Those are the priorities of Canadian families.

In the last four years the Liberals have worked hard to destroy the health care system. They talk about supporting it but in fact they have taken $6 billion away from health and education through their CHST changes. Reform would like to restore the UI program to something that works, something that is restored to its original purpose.

Reformers would like Canadians to have security by having control over their own pensions. Certainly it would like the security for existing plans. Our fresh approach to national unity just boggles the mind of a Liberal. We want that plan to speak for all Canadians. We want it based on the equality of all Canadians in all provinces.

Reform wants greater control given to provinces and to municipalities and we want the federal government to focus on what it does best.

Much of tonight's discussion has been about promises. Reform will give money back promises in the form of our democratic reforms in recall where we can fire a liar if necessary. We will give those tools to Canadians and that will be a cure for a political trend that we have seen for too long and too often. We look for real democracy, legislation that can be brought through citizen's initiative, decisions by the people through national binding referendums and free votes in this place. MPs must represent their constituents' wishes if those are known.

Not too long ago an MP on the other side asked about accountability. Reform does what it says. One promise the Liberals made that they did not keep was to reform pension plans. The pension plan held by most Liberals is still five times greater than any other Canadian can get. Reform was presented with that same decision and Reform rejected the gold plated pension. One member probably lost $3 million when she signed her name on that line that said

what she could accept. The integrity of the member for Beaver River made her say: "This is not good enough. This is not what Canadians want. I lead by example".

Members on the far side of this House will not lead by example. In fact their leadership is something that Canadians must and will challenge in the next election.

Integrity is on this side. Reformers do what they say they will do. We walk the walk. Fresh start is the option to old politics. Instead of promises and big government and old politics we believe Canadians deserve better. There is a choice for change. The cruel reality is that Canadians made the wrong choice last time. They will be able to change-

[Women's History Month, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about Women's History Month.

Women have worked alongside men from the beginning of time in making history and have accomplished great things, sometimes independently and sometimes in partnership with others.

I do not accept the assertion of the minister responsible for the status of women that women's contributions to history and civilization have gone largely ignored. Great women have been recognized for their greatness in every generation. Political leaders from ancient civilizations through modern times such as India's Indira Ghandi, Israel's Golda Meir, Britain's Margaret Thatcher, have all been esteemed for their unique contributions.

Many other non-political examples also exist, including Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa and Canada's own Laura Secord whose actions saved Upper Canada from Americans invading from the south.

The primary focus of this year's Women's History Month is culture and arts but it is important to recognize the significance of women in the whole of history and recognize the extent of their success even before any affirmative action movement for women's rights came into existence. In terms of this year's particular focus, women have in fact been the most significant contributors to culture throughout history.

Most in this House are probably well acquainted with the saying: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". This reflects once again the truth that the transmission of culture and tradition takes place primarily in the home. In this respect women have left an indelible mark on the lives of history makers throughout time.

Women's History Month is a celebration of women's unique and diverse accomplishments. This year the fifth Women's History Month honours women in the arts and their contribution to culture. I recognize and applaud the contribution women have made to the artistic and cultural development of our country.

In addition to the many individuals who have been mentioned today, I assert that equal recognition is well deserved for the role that women have played and continue to play in the preservation and protection of the family, a role that requires creativity, inspiration and compassion.

I salute the women who daily meet the realities of day to day living in their homes, striving to create order and harmony in an increasingly complex society. Women have a unique place in society as strategic partners in the future economic, social and cultural direction of our country. As key players in our families, they enhance this important and fundamental building block of our

society. They play a key role in the transfer of our nation's values and cultures.

Women both inside and outside the home deserve our recognition as pivotal players in the growth of our nation.

[National Family Week, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the confusion, perhaps I can give an example.

Seventy per cent of women with young children have stated they would stay at home to care for their own young children if they could afford to do so. Recently a letter from the finance minister in response to a question about taxation policy stated that government taxation policy must not work as a disincentive to a spouse seeking to work, but made absolutely no mention of those who are desperately seeking to stay home.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Will the Liberals show respect for all Canadian families and commit to a level playing field by giving families real choice in the provision of care for their children?

[National Family Week, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of national family week, a week co-sponsored by Health Canada.

There is a record of government programs for the past quarter century that have spawned increased child poverty, teen suicide and more, surrounded by epidemic marital breakdown.

Could the Minister of Health please tell the House what his department has planned to highlight National Family Week and what, if any, new strategies he has to change the existing confusion over meaningful family policy?

[The Family, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of National Family Week and, on behalf of the Reform Party, I want to commend all Canadian families for the vital role they play in the stability and survival of Canadian society.

Without question, the family is our most valuable institution and the heart of our social order. It is the place where children are brought into the world and cared for. It is where they learn, or ought to learn, trust, love and security as well as the values and behaviour that will make them good citizens and in turn good parents themselves.

The family is where our most deeply held beliefs are passed on to future generations. It is where social stability and prosperity begin.

That is why since its inception the Reform Party of Canada has recognized the importance of strong family units in building a successful society. The party's constitution states:

We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

Put simply, families represent the future of Canada. It is in the best interest of us all to make sure they are healthy and thriving.

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 101.

The motion presented by my Reform colleague from Yorkton-Melville has three main points to which I will speak today. First, the government will not provide any more public money on non-parental day care initiatives. Second, existing expenditures should go to the needs, not the method of care. Third, the subsidy should be to the parents and children, not to institutions and professionals.

The Reform policy is described in the blue book, which my colleague from Yorkton-Melville has explained. There is so much I could say on this issue but I will not repeat much of what he has said.

However, this week is most appropriate to address matters relating to the family as this is national family week. Families do not exist separately from government policy. The government attitude to the importance of family is reflected in its attention to or its neglect of families in its policies.

I will look briefly at the Liberal government's record and its shabby treatment of families in its public policy. This government, that spends tens of millions of dollars every year on gender issues, billions of dollars on children's issues, seems to have a very myopic, shortsighted vision of a stronger country through stronger families.

The legacy of this myopia is seen in the record of the last quarter century, which has been controlled by the old vision of old governments, the legacy of the failure of the Liberal vision, of more taxes, more government in the lives of Canadians and quite frankly, the wrong priorities in public policy.

The first statement in this motion is that government should not spend any more public money on non-parental day care initiatives. The plain truth, which I can say quite briefly, is that the government is now bankrupt both of ideas and of money. The government has been forced lately, with the help of the Reform Party, to start to put its House in order. However, we still need a clear statement of deficit elimination because sadly we are still digging that debt hole.

The legacy of the government's spending will add within its mandate $100 billion to the national debt. The interest alone on that increased debt will be paid every year even when the budget is balanced. If we stop to think for a moment, the interest only on that increased debt courtesy of the present Liberal government would be enough to pay 100,000 families in excess of $70,000 every year from now until forever. Let us decide right now that we do not need increased government spending.

The second point in my colleague's motion is that existing expenditures should go to need, not to the government's prescribed method. When families are looking for solutions to their problems, do they need to go first to government, particularly the federal government? Would I want a federal bureaucrat coming to my kitchen table and saying to me: "I am here from Ottawa, I came to help?" Hardly. Le probléme c'est Ottawa.

Where has this brought us, this feeling that Ottawa can solve the problems of this country? Child poverty in the last 20 years has not been brought under control by government policy. In fact it is more of a problem now than it used to be. Youth and child crime are epidemic. Teen suicides have grown in epidemic proportions. Our families are disintegrating around us. Just last week we heard that teen pregnancies, the greatest precursor of poverty in our society, will be more of a dilemma for the next generation than it has been for this one. They have gone up 20 per cent since 1987.

The history of the involvement of government in people's lives has been costly, has been through misdirected social policies and in fact, as we have already heard, it parallels the growth of duel income families.

Do families today have the choice? Hardly. As my colleague stated, 70 per cent of women with preschool children told an Angus Reid poll recently that they would remain home if they felt they could afford to do so. However, the government has removed that choice from them. In other words, misdirected government spending eventually translates into greater demand for the programs set up by the government to deal with those problems. How convenient for a Liberal minded government that simply wants an excuse to justify programs and to continue its existence in the future.

The history of government in the involvement of private affairs of law-abiding families is a history of greater and greater intrusion, a vicious circle which can only be alleviated when the government withdraws its meddling hands from the lives of Canadian families and when it allows them to keep more of their hard earned income rather than taking half of it.

This is the product of the old vision for a Canadian society which still grips the hearts and the minds of those who are determining government policy on that side of the House. Government programs must be directed to need. Government programs must not create greater dependency and thus create a greater problem for society.

There is not a need for dependence in our society but a need for empowerment through a recognition of wise choices, not government choices, and of faith in Canadians and a faith in Canadian families.

The third point in my colleague's motion bill is that the government's interest should be in a subsidy to parents and children and not institutions and professionals. I often hear the mantra from the Liberals concerning the best interests of the child.

They would translate that into a saying that the best interests of a child are more government programs, more government spending.

I question their child care expense deduction. In fact the Liberal member mentioned that. Right now that program is only of benefit to those who can present receipts. How in the world can a parent at home present receipts to a government and yet that care is valid. In fact that care is preferred by the majority of Canadians.

We talk about the best interests of the child, Liberal style. In fact, it is the worst interest of the future of our country. As I have said on the expensive programs, those very children as adults will be passed the bill for the very programs that supposedly were for their good. That debt is passed on with interest over the years and it is the children who will be paying that. Their jobs and their security will be at risk because of it.

As my colleague mentioned, studies such as the 40-year study compendium put forward by Dr. Genius of the National Foundation for Family Research and Education said non-parental day care of more than 20 hours a week in early childhood posed a significant risk factor in developing insecure bonding with parents. Once established, that insecure bonding is a central factor in social and behavioural development.

That has been ignored by the other parties as they have talked to this bill. In 1993 there were 2,232,250 children in licensed day care in Canada. That is not the choice of parents but courtesy of misdirected government policy. There are other problems as well. I speak today of the spread of disease and the long term complications both to individuals and society because of that, the long term risk of overuse or early use of antibiotics and that overuse to public health.

Today I have brought a few clippings from June 9, 1996. The number of recurrent ear infections, the bane of preschool children and their parents, rose 44 per cent in the 1980s. This increase was blamed largely on the earlier entry to child day care and exposure to germs. Also I have an article by Dr. Harrison Spencer, chief of parasitic diseases at the Centres for Disease Control in Minnesota. I quote: "Day care children are at risk anywhere from 2 to 18 times as much as non-day care kids for certain infectious diseases that run the gambit from diarrheal diseases to respiratory and flu like illnesses".

As well, Winnipeg disease expert, Dr. Ron Gold says: "The 200,000 plus Canadian children in day care are twice as likely to get sick as those cared for at home. There is a horrible litany of day care related diseases, as they are called. Over 70 per cent of clinical cases of hepatitis A can be traced to a day care setting", and on it goes.

The Liberal response to these problems presented by day care are that they would choose their well-funded feminist agenda that state funding of day care is a priority and that women must be in the workplace.

I recently received a letter from a constituent which reflects the priorities of the government and refers to parental care and its priorities in the taxation system. The letter actually states that the government rejects a certain method of taxation because it can involve work disincentives for the second spouse to enter the workforce, that is, the government has said that it rejects a certain taxation system because it might stop the second spouse from working. Does this not reflect a bias toward having both parents in the workforce? This is full in the face of evidence which says that children need their parents at home and many parents would prefer to stay at home.

The government's social engineering policies have been tremendously effective. In the 15 years from 1977 to 1992 the number of mothers with children under the age of six who were in the workforce grew from 38 per cent to a full 63 per cent. But this choice, as I said before, was not made freely.

There is a new vision required for children in Canada, a vision that requires aid to those who are truly in need, a vision that empowers people instead of fuelling institutions-

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. On his comments about domestic violence, I would agree that if we do not look at prevention at the root causes of these things, we do not do justice to the solutions we find.

I certainly feel that not only do we need a more sure and effective criminal justice system, we need to look at the root causes. I would agree that the issue of alcohol is very intertwined with what is happening in society in those cases. That does need to be looked at. I challenge the member to go forward with his initiatives and the government in recognizing his initiatives in that area.

Second, the question was on the issue of access. It is interesting that the member brought this up. Again, I was in discussion with a lawyer. Because this issue is so important to me, I tried to get input from various sources.

I am not sure if every province is the same. In my province of British Columbia there is implemented quite an effective technique of child support enforcement. It has created a whole section of personnel to put that enforcement into place.

A comment was made to me by this knowledgeable friend, a lawyer, that the same structure, in fact the same offices, could be used to make sure there is enforcement for access. The same individuals who make enforcement happen for support could make enforcement happen for access and could check the compliance to the court order. Both are court ordered. Both are legal requirements.

As I mentioned in my speech, both parents have rights. Both parents have responsibilities. The present situation only enforces the right of one parent and the responsibilities of the other. Surely if the federal government can intrude or take the initiative to have guidelines that in fact overtake a provincial enforcement-as our Bloc friend has suggested, the guidelines for support are in their case and in most cases provincial jurisdiction-if the federal government because of its interest in this can take initiatives in that direction, initiatives in the enforcement of support, why can it not take initiatives in the enforcement of access and direction to the provinces?

Certainly if one is up for discussion, the rest should be as well. We have two parents, we have rights and responsibilities of each. To be fair, to be just, governments should act for all citizens in this country.

[Divorce Act, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-41 today, an act to

amend the Divorce Act, the Famil Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

In contrast to what the hon. member for Halifax said earlier, she made the statement that governments cannot legislate loving families. I would like to put to this place today that in fact governments can legislate things that will destroy loving families through the very policies they put forward.

Government and the laws that are made can and do have a profound effect on those institutions that are the bedrock strength of our society. Integrity for instance, the most important single quality for any individual or nation, is born and thrives in the bosom of the examples and the conversations in the homes of this nation.

A healthy family is a place of nurture and growth for those qualities most essential for the success of individuals and nations. Within the walls of our nation's homes we learn to find our security and the acceptance and the unmasked behaviour of our family. We learn about ourselves through the interaction and sometimes blunt appraisals of those who know us best. We learn to wait and to compromise. We may hone our debating skills or even our self-defence techniques on our siblings, or we may find the value of that same brother or sister as a loyal ally on the far side of the school yard or on the mean street corner.

We answer to one another. We share responsibility in small and larger tasks. We see the value of shared love and caring, of complementary but equally valuable tasks as mother, father and children working together. We acknowledge the growing potential of family members. With greater freedom comes the greater acceptance of accountability to family, to society and to ourselves.

We face the consequences of undone tasks. We learn right from wrong. We share the benefit of a common purse. We grow in the knowledge of the stories of the past, the guidelines of custom and culture and carry those gifts forward to share with our children.

Sadly, the picture of the nurturing caring family is becoming less and less of a reality in Canada. It in fact has become the chief victim of our unfolding times and defective government policy. Divorce rates have increased 15-fold since the 1950s. It is projected that more than half of our young people will spend at least part of their growing up years in a single parent family.

Family break-up is a recipe for trouble for our youth. Many seek community outside their own homes with between 100,000 and 200,000 Canadian youth now homeless by choice. According to a UNICEF 1995 report, Canada has one of the highest teen suicide rates in the world. Since 1960 the rate has quadrupled to where almost 12 out of 100,000 of our young people, mostly boys, choose to put an end to their own future. "There is a mountain of scientific evidence showing that when families disintegrate children often end up with intellectual, physical and emotional scars that persist for life", points out social scientist Karl Zinmeister.

The failure of the justice system under the Liberals is also a threat to families. Canadian families are victims of a justice system that is more concerned about the rights of the criminals including violent offenders than about law-abiding citizens.

As part of the criminal justice system but within the walls of our homes is the issue of domestic violence. Domestic violence needs desperately to be addressed but not simply through a gender biased lens that prevents an accurate assessment and real solutions to the problems that exist. The Young Offenders Act does not take child crime seriously and, coupled with other legislation that weakens the role of parents in their children's lives, prevents parents from effectively tackling some of the criminal influences in their children.

What effects are there on the economic front? A Fraser Institute study demonstrated that the average family of four pays 46 per cent of its income on taxes. The same study found that taxes on the average Canadian family have risen 1,167 per cent since 1961. That number takes on greater significance when we find that real family income has actually decreased since 1988. Real income has actually been eroded by successive Conservative and Liberal government tax and spend policies.

A recent StatsCan report stated that since 1989, after tax family income has fallen 6.5 per cent, bringing it to the same level as at the end of the recession of the early 1980s. That income to maintain a household, it should be noted, now takes almost twice the number of paid hours it did 20 years ago.

This runaway economic policy has remoulded the neighbourhoods of our nation. In 1986 only 12 per cent of Canadian households were made up of one person in the workforce and a spouse full time at home.

The stresses are multiplied many times over for the single parent family. The precious commodity of time for communication or simple renewal is rare indeed, and the natural ally of a caring and understanding alternate adult is missing. Also of crucial importance is that money most often is too scarce. More than half of Canadians living in poverty are single parents and the overwhelming majority of these are women. However, because of debt levels and continuing government spending and the flawed appreciation of the importance of family, these patterns will continue to be the raw truth for our children and, unless something is done, for our children's children.

The Liberals like to talk about wanting to put the best interests of the child first in their legislation. It has become a common refrain from that side of the House. Yet as usual, the actions of the

government do not bear up under scrutiny when compared to its claims to be considering the child's best interests.

One would think that addressing an issue such as child support and marriage dissolution would be one of the best places to help a person focus most accurately on the issues of children and their best interests. However, again the Liberals are mired in their misguided concepts of the role of governments. They refuse to realize that the best interest of the child is a family that is supported and encouraged as the most important institution in society. Let me ask the Liberals some questions about their version of the best interest of the child.

Is the best interest of children shown in policy that passively sits back assuming that the present nature and rates of divorce are there without attempting to discover why and then attempt to do something substantive about it?

Is the best interest of children served in making institutional day care facilities more prevalent at a price that puts further economic burdens on families leading then to a greater use of those facilities as a second parent goes out to work just to make ends meet?

Is the best interest of children served by universal social programs that the government cannot afford instead of targeting those programs to those, particularly children, who are in legitimate need?

Is the best interest of the child served by stripping authority from parents so that they cannot effectively raise their own children?

Put simply, the most profound destructive force on families today is tax and spend, intrusive and divisive family policies that emanate from Liberal policy makers today.

The Divorce Act which we are talking about today which originally granted federal jurisdiction over matters relating to divorce has been re-opened twice before, once in 1968 when no fault divorce was established and in 1982 to institute further changes. For the sake of speed through courts and presumably less acrimony for the sake of children, all accountability for actions of either side was removed except in decisions relating to child custody.

It is significant that it is the very matters relating to children which still remain the most divisive and sadly, with this legislation that will not change. The full ramifications of the changes to the Divorce Act in the past or those which are before us today will probably never be quantified.

Opening the act up as we are again today however, with the records of social devastation that are before us, must demand that the government look seriously at its responsibility and all the realities of our present situation. The kind of tinkering and ideologically based approach that is being suggested in Bill C-41 reflects a bankruptcy of thought and conscience.

The bill addresses the issue of enforcement of support payments. I applaud both the recognition of that need and the attempt to look at real enforcement procedures. Legally binding decisions should have that force of law for the sake of all those who are involved. It would be nice if this mindset of enforcement would extend more generally to the protection of law-abiding citizens in a wider criminal justice system but we will leave that debate for another day.

Custodial parents do need protection in law for the rights that are granted to them in law. However, the government is using a one sided, gender biased approach which increases the commitment to enforce support payments but says absolutely nothing about the importance or the enforcement of child access agreements, something which is of equal importance to the child involved.

There are two parents in any divorce involving children. There is usually the custodial and the non-custodial parent, yet the proposed changes do not show the same respect for non-custodial parents. Both parents have responsibilities and both parents have rights.

The courts overwhelmingly make men the non-custodial parent. Sixty per cent of families living in poverty today are headed by men. Financial pressures, including high levels of taxation, have a powerful and destructive impact on the cohesiveness of those families. Men are involved. So are women. Yet the present system makes recourse difficult for the men who want to dispute a judge's support or access ruling.

Personally, there have been men in my office who have gone bankrupt. Some of them have told me they are contemplating suicide because their lives have been ruined by endless court battles launched to gain access to their children without avail. How does Bill C-41 address their concerns?

There is no commitment in the bill to enforce child access. Neither is there equality in the system in other areas. For example, Bill C-41 proposes to give the custodial parent access to the income information of their former spouse for three years. That is a radical departure from accepted principles of privacy. If consideration of those kinds of exceptions are being put into place, the same provisions should be there for both parents, for both sides of the divorce equation.

Divorce hurts children. The pain experienced by children of divorce takes many forms. In addition to the many costs to society, there are of course the economic stresses which I mentioned earlier. One of the significant reasons for the financial problems is the

simple fact that it costs much more to maintain two households than it does to maintain one.

I find it strange. The government claims to be concerned about child poverty. That has been a dominant theme which we have seen in this government. However, the government cannot be taken seriously if it ignores the much greater risk of poverty that exists as a natural result of divorce.

The economic difficulty comes a distant second in importance to the emotional trauma of divorce for children. Divorce is a very difficult experience for older children let alone the younger ones. The pain is dramatically multiplied by acrimonious legal proceedings which are further complicated by lawyers trained in adversarial methods which pit one spouse against the other.

In 1970 the Law Reform Commission of Canada released a major study on family law which argued that adversarial proceedings in divorce actions should be eliminated. The primary reason for this change is the detrimental effect it had on children.

Here we are 26 years later, and what have successive Liberal and PC governments done during this time? We have a win-lose approach to divorce settlements that involves legal wrangling from beginning to end both in the courts and in lawyers' offices.

We have an adversarial system that constantly succeeds in only one thing, destroying the relationship between the two combatants. It is designed to hinder the possibility of maintaining an ongoing relationship subsequent to the divorce that would be of benefit to the children. And what does the Liberal government, the government that claims to be family friendly and child centred, propose to remedy this situation? Absolutely nothing.

Here in Bill C-41 the government has its best opportunity yet to initiate substantive and constructive change. What is it offering as a solution? Absolutely nothing.

The Liberals are content to pursue their half measure, one sided, pat answer approach for an opportunity for real substantive change to this critical legislation. The government has dismissed completely the importance of the overall process. To the government the answer is simply enforcement and an inflexible payment schedule.

Recently a marriage counsellor was in my office. As one who is on the frontlines of dealing with marriage difficulties, he expressed serious concern over the present situation. He confirmed that there is no prevention component in the present process dealing with partners concerning divorce.

We have a government that advocates crime prevention, that pushes for greater health. Why in the world is there no interest in reforming the divorce process with a preventive component? Does the government ignore and discourage counsellors in the present situation? There is a determined lack of recognition of their value as front end prevention people to this crushing social problem. In addition, the government even charges the famous GST on their services.

So who does the government victimize? Family breakups hit poor families the hardest, and that makes situations that are already difficult worse by divorce.

I was talking to a local family lawyer in Coquitlam not long ago. He has spent 25 years in the practice of law. In his experience within family law he remembers only a handful of cases that actually avoided going through with full divorce after coming through his office.

The present system feeds conflict. The present system adds fuel to the fire. The present system breeds anger and suspicion between the partners, and the victim is the child.

However, there is an alternative, one that will help the legislative process and thus help the families involved. Presently the process of separation, spousal and child support, divorce and property division crosses provincial and federal jurisdictions.

The child support decision is decided in a federal court, whereas the enforcement is generally a provincial matter. For the sake of those involved, this issue must be addressed. First, I would propose the concept of a unified family court, a place where all matters related to family breakup can be addressed under one roof. Accordingly, the many facets of decision making can be brought together in a fairer, broader context so that equity and enforcement can be better applied.

Such a concept was introduced in B.C. with excellent results. It is time the federal government recognized the need for such a system and also showed leadership in making that happen.

The second issue was advanced not only by the Reform Party of Canada but recently by the Canadian Bar Association: the necessity of the process of mediation. Mandatory mediation through a unified family court is a cornerstone of an effective process for addressing divorce.

An effective system would make mediation mandatory in situations involving children. It would demonstrate itself as a process that facilitates solutions, not as the present system does, facilitating destruction.

The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is mutually acceptable and mutually respected. This process has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of win-lose situations that leave at least one party victimized by the process.

This individual personalized approach to divorce proceedings is impossible in the present adversarial, one size fits all type of approach the federal government is putting forward.

In conclusion, we need to think of the best interests of the child. Children come into this world with two parents. The decision that goes toward that child must embody more than simple numbers, values and dollar figures.

A child is more than the money that the parents bring in. It is composed of the genes, the extended family history, the ancestry and values of that family.

The government, with this legislation, owes an apology to the whole population because we are all stronger if families are valued and nurtured.

I cannot support the bill which is totally blind to the real opportunity we have before us for strengthening the foundation of society and rather would simply look at a small slice of the total picture.

The value of families and children needs recognition in government policy. I challenge the government respectfully to recognize that this is but a small beginning that it has proposed and that the crisis of family disintegration is far too great to let wait any longer.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion M-205 of my colleague from Comox-Alberni.

The defence of property rights is arguably one of the most worthy matters of debate in a democratic society. The weakness of property rights protection in Canada compels us to revisit this issue today.

The 1982 charter of rights and freedoms which protects Canadians' right to life, liberty and the security of the person makes no mention of property rights. For Canadians that protection lies only in the common law tradition and in the bill of rights which guarantees "the right to enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process".

Close inspection reveals the guarantees in the bill of rights are only marginal at best. Also, both of these protections which do exist can be overruled by any other statute law. Even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property".

Canadians need stronger guarantees on their right to own private property. Motion M-205 opens up the debate on this issue by highlighting the weaknesses of the present system. It guarantees a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It guarantees fair compensation within a reasonable amount of time. It allows for the protection of the rights of others by prescribing reasonable limits to property rights demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Historically, property rights have been fundamental in the interpretation of individual freedoms. Individuals and democratic nations have defended these rights through history and history has recorded not only the struggles but the consequences for those nations which choose to ignore these basic rights. Take for example, as my colleague has just mentioned, the record of the USSR where lack of property rights, due process and fair compensation left those citizens powerless in the face of an intrusive state.

In short, there are many compelling reasons to discuss property rights. The government has argued against this notion. One of its objections is that property rights should not be unlimited. However this proposed legislation does recognize the importance of establishing parameters as well as offering recourse within the definition of reasonable limits as outlined in the motion.

Thus the proposed legislation continues to protect society for instance against crime even if it is committed on one's own property. More fundamentally, it provides protection for individuals and families when competing interests arise, and it provides redress to ensure protection and consideration for all parties. This is important in a variety of situations including, as has been brought forth by other members, divorce property settlements and recourse in the case of neighbourhood disputes.

Within these parameters however it does offer hope for families with protection against devaluation and confiscation of their property. For example, let us say the government needs access across personal property for a new road or power line. While the motion allows for such action, if it directly affects the family's investment or its very security and future, it also ensures just remuneration in the law. There is no such guarantee in Canadian law today.

The fact that the Liberals have indicated they do not support such a fundamental principle of freedom is troublesome indeed, especially when considering their existing record of abuse of property rights. I can think immediately of Bill C-28 and Bill C-68. Bill C-28 of course revoked the former government's Pearson airport contract without providing due compensation to the contractual

partners. Bill C-68, the gun control bill, has dramatically devalued possibly millions of pieces of private property again without guaranteeing due compensation.

Let us examine in more detail another of the concerns submitted by the justice department. The parliamentary secretary said that environmental legislation must not be restricted by private property protection and alluded to problems in the U.S. over such concerns as protecting endangered species. But in the United States, despite the nation's strong record of private property protection, two pieces of environmental legislation, that is the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 1973 Endangered Species Act, bypassed the constitutional protection of property rights and did so with some scandalous results.

In one case a rancher made a lake on his own property; as a result it classifies as a wetland. Instead of encouraging this private initiative, the U.S. government warned him that he would be charged if he violated wetlands regulations. This included accessing his own property with his own truck.

In another case a land owner was sentenced to three years in prison and a $202,000 fine for violating the Clean Water Act by dumping landfill on his own property without a federal permit. A stream bed that was dry all year except when it backed up briefly during the rainy season justified the reclassification of his property as wetlands. The existence of skunk cabbage and sweet gum trees helped build the government's case which was originated by an unrelated complaint of a disgruntled neighbour who did not like the noise of the trucks driving past his house.

A vast amount of research in recent years has demonstrated the superiority of private property ownership over government regulations in resolving many environmental problems, not least the protection of animal species from extinction. A growing number of environmentalists are among those who are beginning to recognize this fact. Nevertheless, placing ideology before valid research, the environment minister refused to acknowledge competing evidence in a recent op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen .

The plight of the buffalo has been blamed on the tragedy of the commons: the fact that no one owned the buffalo or the land on which they roamed. If they had been privately owned, the owners would have had a vested interest in ensuring that this resource was not destroyed. The illustration of the buffalo is often contrasted with the survival of horses or cattle which have been bred as valuable resources for centuries.

Another illustration of this principle is the ivory trade. Most nations have argued for banning international trade in ivory while elephant numbers continue to decline due to poaching. However in Zimbabwe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government transferred elephant ownership rights to regional tribal councils. This privatization made game ranching possible with substantial profits accruing to the property owners. This financial incentive has guided the behaviour of property owners such that the elephant population in Zimbabwe increased while it declined in the rest of the continent.

Another example of the importance of property rights comes from western Canada. Here there is much debate over the large tree-cutting projects which largely exist on public lands. It is of interest to note that in Sweden not long after forest land was largely sold into private hands, the government had a forestation crisis, not a deforestation crisis, on its hands.

The simple fact is that private ownership is wedded to the reality of sustainability. Forests owned either by individuals or by the companies which harvest them have been shown to fare much better than land purchased from governments at below market value as is done in Canada.

The concept of property rights is evolving with new technologies. The Liberals argue that the protection of these rights should not be stricter so as to accommodate these new issues. One such area that has already been recognized as important and will continue to grow in its importance is intellectual property.

Here again though the government's position appears questionable when compared to the way it uses the existing flexibility in property rights against Canadians. Just this month the front page of Ottawa's leading business paper, the Ottawa Business Journal , featured a story which revealed Industry Canada's violation of business owners' property rights over intellectual property.

The study, which has been buried for a year, revealed that despite a Treasury Board policy that says intellectual property rights belong to the firms contracted by the government, bureaucrats have been claiming these rights for the government. According to testimony from some business owners, especially small business owners, these rights were often surrendered for fear that obstinacy would make it more difficult to win future contracts.

It is this very insecurity, the fear of law-abiding citizens that they cannot appeal to a justice system to protect their basic freedoms and the results of their often many years of hard labour, that is anathema to a free society. Canadians must be assured that their property is protected from the arbitrary hand of government by the guarantees such as those proposed in Motion M-205.

In conclusion, the principle of property rights is basic to the freedoms inherent in a democratic country. As the Liberals refuse to endorse the explicit protection of property rights in law, they perpetuate a troublesome trend of real and potential government

intervention in matters that I say belong not to the state but to the citizens of Canada.

[Terry Fox Run, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on June 28, 1991 Canada mourned the loss of a courageous young man from Port Coquitlam: Terry Fox.

Although Terry's cancer prevented him from finishing his marathon of hope, the legacy of hope he left is one that is carried in the hearts of all who participated in the Terry Fox run this year in Canada and around the world. They have taken up his quest for a cure for cancer.

The spirit of Port Moody-Coquitlam was evident again last Sunday as 5,700 local residents participated in the 16th annual Terry Fox hometown run. This year over $9 million will likely be raised by an estimated 600,000 Canadians at 4,200 run sites, including 2,600 school events. Thanks to the 1,700 volunteers who were also involved.

Shortly before his death Terry said: "You don't have to do like I did-before you take the time to find out what kind of stuff you're really made of. You can start now".

In tribute to this man and the potential in every Canadian and every member of the House, I challenge us all to get involved in a fight to find a cure for cancer.