Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was women.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Halifax (Nova Scotia)

Lost her last election, in 1997, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Divorce Act October 1st, 1996

In separation cases.

Divorce Act October 1st, 1996

The source is Statistics Canada. If the hon. member wants to get into sources he may be a little sorry.

One of the things I want to say with regard to the hon. member's comments is that we have to be very careful in attempting to draw a correlation between the children of divorce and participation in the criminal justice system. If the hon. member has sources for that kind of allegation we would be very interested to hear them on this side of the House. Given the fact that divorce rates are high, I believe we would be seeing an increase in the crime rate, as opposed to a decrease, which is what we are in fact seeing.

However, for all the goodwill that came from that speech and which comes from the hon. member opposite with respect to this matter, there is a naivety which needs to be corrected.

As I said before, the post-divorce world is not the best of all possible worlds. People get divorced because, in general, they have come to the end of their tether in a relationship which is the most personal and intimate relationship people have on this earth. When the emotional response turns from one pole to another, the reaction and the fallout can be horrifying, not just for the husband and wife who are going through the divorce, but clearly, as the hon. member has noted, for the children.

Every piece of legislation in this country that relates to children in any way, whether it is the Divorce Act or provincial legislation on maintenance, custody, or whatever, has in it somewhere the phrase "the best interests of the child are paramount". One of the tragedies of our country is that we have still not learned, whether as legislators, as lawyers or as jurists, how to truly implement that phrase. If the parents, the people most directly concerned and the people who allegedly should care the most for the best interests of the child cannot do it, it becomes insane to suspect that anyone else can do it.

In the post-divorce world children are going to be traumatized. As legislators we have to bring in legislation which will minimize the trauma and maximize the benefit. No one has ever suggested, nor should anyone suggest, that solutions which come from the legislature will be a panacea. It is not possible.

When I started to practise law in 1978 the rate of child support and maintenance payments which were not enforced was over 90 per cent. Eighteen years ago over 90 per cent of support payments in this country were unenforceable. Since that time we have

improved. I do not know the statistics today, but I believe we are fluctuating in the area of 60 per cent. That is still unacceptable.

One of the things which I saw time and again as a family lawyer, acting for women who were attempting to enforce child support payments, was what I would refer to as the brow-beaten syndrome. They had come to the point where it was not worth it. The child support payments would be late, if they came at all. The process in the family court or even, from time to time, under a divorce decree in the Supreme Court, meant that those women took time off work. They worked themselves up into an emotional state. For most people, appearing as a witness in court, particularly in an area as sensitive as one which involves both the financial state of the individual and the state of their personal relationships, causes great stress.

Time and again a client would call to say that the support payment had not come in again and I would say we will go to family court and we will do this. Then she would say: "No, to hell with it. I cannot be bothered anymore, it is not worth it, I would rather do without than put up with all of this".

This legislation, which relates to settlement agreements, is being brought forward in an attempt to alleviate that kind of problem. It is also being brought forward because whether hon. members opposite like it or not, on divorce the woman's standard of living falls considerably and the man's rises. Do you want statistics on this? Just check. I will bet that you could even check with some of the hon. members opposite who might know about it. There is no question that women across the board do not have the same access to money, to jobs, to promotion, et cetera, as men. It is a fact of life.

Second, if the woman is paying tax on top of this money and is in a lower category to begin with, she is going to get hit with a bigger bite. This is another thing that this legislation is here to do something about.

The whole thing, however, comes down to the recommendations that are being given to judges and those who are going to hammer out the settlements either in the courts or in mediation ahead of time. Spot news for the third party, mediation has been in place for quite a long time and it works. That is probably the reason we are down to around 60 per cent on enforcement of maintenance orders. However, that is still not good enough.

This problem will not be solved by saying that fathers who do not pay or parents who do not pay are just misguided. They are not just misguided, some of them do not want to pay. They just absolutely do not want to sign that cheque. Enforcement is and continues to be a problem. Again, this legislation is aimed at addressing some of those problems and alleviating them.

This is not a world where mothers and fathers are going to reunite after they have broken up. That kind of thing happens in the odd movie that is released at Christmas time and tragically in the minds of many children of divorce, but it does not happen in reality. Let us not go on talking about how we can heal the personal relationship and wasting our energies there, which is no place for the legislator at any rate, and talk about how we can ensure that the financial burdens and the financial problems are at least taken care of in such a way that children and single parents have some small chance of making their lives a little bit better than they have been.

I am sure there are other areas in our society and other professionals and other people who can work on the emotional reconstruction that may be possible in a limited number of cases. That is not our job just as it is not our job in this legislation to deal with the question of access. Our job is to deal with the question of amendments that will handle corollary relief under the Divorce Act. That is what we do.

A number of questions were brought up by the hon. member opposite that relate purely and simply to matters within provincial jurisdiction. It is all very well for people to question jurisdiction. Jurisdiction matters. Certain things fall within the provincial purview and other things fall within the federal purview. This is something that falls within the federal purview. It is something that we can do. It is something that we are doing.

It is something that has been long overdue. It was given its impetus by the Federal Court's decision in the Thibaudeau case. It was given its impetus by the hon. member for Nepean who came forward and championed this cause from the beginning. It is something that I am proud to stand here today and support.

Divorce Act October 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, as I commence my remarks I want to pay tribute to the member for Mission-Coquitlam and her advocacy for grandparents. I may not agree with the legislation she has put forward, but I certainly agree with the spirit and intent of her advocacy.

I also want to take a line from her comments just now when she said, in conclusion, that if we do not care about everybody and particularly children we are going to be in trouble. That is refreshing and, I know from that member, a true statement of her feelings. It is also refreshing to hear it from the Reform benches.

However, the best way to put this is that there is place for everything legislatively and everything in its place. While I understand the member's frustration, given her advocacy on the question of access to grandparents in a post-divorce world, this bill does not deal with access. Access is something separate which may have to be dealt with at another time. This bill deals specifically with corollary relief and the situation faced by, for the most part, mothers attempting to deal with their financial lives in a post-divorce situation.

Sometimes to explain why amendments are taken in the manner in which they are taken and why the government decides to act in the way in which it decides to act, particularly in these circumstances, it becomes necessary to talk about the real world.

While I applaud the hon. member, I think there is a touch of naivety in the comments. This is not, particularly when we talk about post-divorce families, the best of all possible worlds. Indeed, for those of us who have long experience in the realm of family law, the post-divorce world is survivable for those people who have gone through it only if the legislation is strong enough to ensure behaviour that allows survival.

This is not a world to be looked at with rose coloured glasses. Post-divorce for a number of years and sometimes many years can be described best as a page out of hell for the people who are involved in it.

I would like to correct a mistake in statistics that I am sure the hon. member did not mean to make. The divorce rate in Canada is not 50 per cent, thank God. The divorce rate fluctuates somewhere between 3 and 3.9 in 10. This is not terrific but it is not as bad as 50 per cent. Maybe it should be at 50 per cent given some of the things that happen in marriages that still stay together. Nevertheless, just in the interest of accuracy, the divorce rate is somewhere between 3 or 3.9 out of 10.

Divorce Act October 1st, 1996

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the hon. member could clarify when she says "biased like the member opposite" to which of the members opposite she is referring. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River-

The Constitution June 3rd, 1996

Think how much better they would perform if they had a good system.

The Constitution June 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, on his very lucid and erudite comments on this matter.

I compliment him particularly on his comments with regard to the protection of minority rights and what proposition 17 does not do. It bears repeating. The hon. member and I have a long history in fighting to protect minority rights. In both our support for this proposition there is an acknowledgement that neither one of us would support this if we felt minority rights were in any way under attack.

With regard to religious education, it might come as a horrible warning for some of the people who are against the amendment to know that I am a product of Catholic religious education from age 5 until I graduated with an honours degree in English literature at the age of 22. Be careful, gentlemen from the Reform Party, you may get in more trouble.

That may account in some ways for the fact that I do speak very strongly for minority rights. Nonetheless, I want to put a specific question to my colleague from the South Shore.

The hon. member for Delta spoke a few minutes ago a fuzzy question. I ask the hon. member for South Shore, a practising lawyer, what he thinks about the following question, whether he thinks it is at all fuzzy, as a practising lawyer, as a former schoolteacher, as someone born in Newfoundland.

Does he support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational, educational system, yes or no? As it was put to the people of Newfoundland, I ask the hon. member for South Shore if he thinks this is a fuzzy question.

The Constitution June 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member for Delta, when he talked about the amalgamation of school boards he may have been speaking in a British Columbia context as opposed to a Newfoundland context. The idea that in any of the small Atlantic provinces the vast numbers he thinks are being dealt with is a little unusual to those of us who come from Atlantic Canada.

When he talks about 50 per cent plus one, I wonder if he understands that the referendum in Newfoundland was actually 55 to 45, which is a fairly substantial 10 point difference.

I am not being tongue in cheek here, but I wonder if the hon. member really does know about the Newfoundland school system and the divergence in the level of schooling of the two ridings of Grander-Grand Falls and St. John's East. Does he understand how great a divergence that might be in the province of Newfoundland? Does he know any of these things?

Supply May 30th, 1996

Yes, I know. I was being alliterative. I know the hon. member opposite and other members of the justice committee will soon be travelling again, listening to and consulting with Canadians on further amendments to make the Young Offenders Act a better act and to ensure we make the kinds of interventions that stop young people before we lose them entirely.

Crime overall is decreasing in Canada, but that is not a good news agenda our colleagues in the third party want to hear about. When it comes to things they note in this unusual and rather silly motion, I and a lot of other Canadians are getting a little tired of this. We have a government in which ministers are responsible to the country, who consult with the country, who listen to Canadians and who respond. They even respond to some of the unusual and bizarre questions put forward by the third party. Let us talk about integrity in government. Let us talk about Sheila Copps.

The promise that was made in the red book was kept. I am tired of the members opposite and their bad news agenda. I am tired of sanctimony. I am tired of judgmental attitudes and a meanspirited reaction to any and all people who do not share their narrow, rigid, blinkered view of this country and its people.

Did Sheila Copps go far during her campaign? Yes, she did. Did she go further than the red book promised? It can be suggested she went too far. The hon. member over there called her toast. I suggest the hon. member wait until the day after the byelection. We will see who is toasted the day after the byelection.

Those of us who are proud to call Sheila colleague know that her energy, her commitment and her sheer exuberance can sometimes cause her to say and do things that may be over the top for the duller of wit and slower of eye that sometime sit in the House. I say God bless Sheila. God bless her fearlessness. Without her the country would be without a powerful, articular and courageous advocate.

With regard to her action in the wake of her own private promise, perhaps those in the Reform Party do things without consulting their executives, their colleagues and their families. Sheila made her decision, the correct one, after consulting and informing those people who were, are and will be in future part of her team. She did it right. She marched to her own drummer. She said she would resign. Because she could not keep the promise she made, she resigned. She never said she would not reoffer, because the people of Hamilton deserve and have a right to the best representative they have ever had and every could have.

To the member for Medicine Hat, the author of this funny little motion, I will wager anything he would care to wager, name it, that Sheila Copps with her great heart, with her great spirit, with her courage, her determination, most particularly with her horror of bigotry, with her horror of racism, with her horror of injustice, will back in the House. She will shine in the House when the third party

is a dusty footnote in a dusty textbook on a forgotten bookshelf. I leave my wager open to the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

Supply May 30th, 1996

I remember on television somebody asking who will you believe, me or your own two eyes? The words are, crime is not up in Canada, it is down.

That does not fit their agenda. They do not like it. It only happens to be the truth. To get back to my mutton, what have we done on safe streets? We passed the hate crime legislation, which they did not support. We passed amendments to the Young Offenders Act, and the justice committee as we speak is going around the country consulting with Canadians to see how we can better-

Supply May 30th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I really do not want to change the subject but I would like to get back to the topic. I read the resolution put forward by the hon. member from the third party. The resolution shows the hon. member is certainly talking through his riding name, Medicine Hat.

There a number of things that need to be addressed in response to this opposition motion. I will discuss job creation, which the third party seems to think is a broken promise. I will throw a few words around like infrastructure. The number of infrastructure projects in my riding alone has created an incredible number of jobs over the last two years, water and sewer projects, highway projects, bridges, et cetera.

I will not talk about in Halifax the construction of the new Neptune Theatre which is not just creating jobs but a magnificent cultural centre in the Atlantic region. I will not even talk much about St. George's Church, one of the great historic sites in Canada that was nearly destroyed by fire. Through a variety of funding sources, and not an inconsiderable source from the federal government, jobs were created in Halifax in the north end of Halifax where jobs are crucial and necessary. We created very special jobs, bringing back old trades, old arts and crafts and artisanship that we would have lost in Atlantic Canada and in Canada across the board. The department of heritage was really doing something to ensure this part of our heritage was preserved.

I want to talk for a minute when it comes to job creation, in which the member for Winnipeg Transcona is interested, about ACOA in my region, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which has created 80,000 jobs in our region in the last two and a half years. Again, the hon. member is clearly talking through his head covering.

The same money from ACOA that created 80,000 jobs has seen over the last two and a half years a two dollar return in taxes in Atlantic Canada for every dollar spent. I ask everyone in this House, is that value for money? I'll say it is. Is that good investment? I'll say it is. Is that keeping our promises in Atlantic Canada? I'll say it is.

I have two words for hon. members across the way about safe streets, gun control. I could not be happier that I was a part of the party and the government that saw that law passed to increase the safety of Canadians on our streets and on our country roads.