Jan Brown

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8, on page 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 9, on page 2.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In viewing the motions on the Order Paper this morning I noticed a misprint in Motion No. 12. It should have read: "That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 7" and not clause 4 as it is reported. I would like the assurance that this will be corrected in Hansard .

[Multiculturalism, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this fall I had the privilege of speaking at a symposium in Banff hosted by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Members of the association were asking the government to recognize injustices that had been taken against their group during World War I.

In the early 1900s thousands of people came to Canada from all over the world. Many of these settlers had come from Austria-Hungary, fleeing their oppressive government. When the first world war broke out these people were declared aliens and were made to report weekly to the government. Failure to do so resulted in arrest and deportation to labour camps.

Unfortunately this treatment was not limited to people from Austria-Hungary. As the minister explained, people from various ethnic backgrounds were treated in a similar fashion and the only reason they were treated so poorly was their membership in a group, in these cases an ethnic group.

I am elated to see the Liberals following the lead established by the Reform Party. They recognize as we do that Canada has never entered a war spontaneously or without great consideration. Canadians prefer peace and mediation to the horrors and atrocities of war. Further, Canadians cherish the equal rights of all individuals in society and recognize that they should not be compromised.

It is not possible to determine who has been negatively affected by these government decisions or exactly by how much. Giving money to these groups to redress the mistakes of the past would not fix those mistakes. We do need to look to today and to the future to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not unjustly compromised. The secretary of state has suggested that she will proclaim the Canadian race relations foundation in order for the government to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Unfortunately the Canadian race relations foundation will not meet this noble goal. The Canadian race relations foundation will cost $24 million just in an initial capital output and it is suggested that its yearly operating costs will be several millions of dollars.

However it is not just because of costs alone that we oppose the foundation. We have some of the same concerns expressed by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Let me remind the House of some of their earlier criticisms.

The member for Winnipeg North suggested that the foundation should not exist because the responsibility for the program could be accomplished elsewhere. He stated: "Social harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary contests or even by co-operation between business and government or direct government action. The real challenge is in the hearts and minds of each of us as individuals".

This foundation will have over 30 GIC appointments; yet another opportunity for patronage at its worst.

The member for Eglinton-Lawrence stated: "One of the most important questions is: How do we finance some of the philosophies the minister says this foundation addresses?"

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt when in opposition also criticized the foundation. He said the foundation "gives the minister a great impact on the direction taken by this organization and could lead to it becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece for government policy. It could lead to the assumption that the foundation is more of a political organization than one of a proactive association for the needs of the furtherance of race relations". He continued to say that "the funds available for this foundation will act only as a vehicle for the government of the day to put out its policies and to place into position people who are supporting it. Probably it will be the president of the foundation, somebody who has raised funds for the government".

This foundation is required by law to be housed in Toronto. The Liberals criticized this fact as well. Winnipeg is the most multicultural city in Canada yet it has been given no consideration as a possible site.

The motherhood ideology of multiculturalism and anti-racism is noble. However support for the programs caring for the policies is already in place. Consider the efforts and positive results accomplished by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This in conjunction with programs in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has taken Canada a long way toward reaching the goals of a tolerant society.

[Violence Against Women, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, violence against women is a sordid reality and not a fantasy confined to the pages of a tabloid newspaper or a pornographic magazine.

The history of violence against women is like Pandora's box that when opened reveals the ugliest side of the human condition. We would expect by now that complacency would be shattered amidst the tales of horror and abuse that so many women have lived to tell. What of those who have died?

It was inexcusable for the justice minister who professes to champion women to artfully dodge my question of last Friday. We do not need the minister's platitudes nor his citing of statistics to tell us we have a problem of domestic violence in this country.

What specific plan does this government have to get at the root causes of violence against women? Until gender roles are eliminated, until the family no longer serves as that convenient arena for male violence, until wife beating is no longer a logical extension of male domination and until our justice system demonstrates its capacity for justice, we do not have a blueprint for change.

Intellectual and political anguish have become meaningless. Violence against women exists. We have endured enough.

[Gun Control, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, domestic violence is a serious problem in need of remedy, but increased gun control is not the answer. Less than half of all spousal homicides are committed with guns, whether they are registered or not. Domestic violence has been studied for over 20 years. It has been studied to death and there has been no action.

My question is for the justice minister. What specific plan does he have to address the root causes of domestic violence other than ineffective gun registration?

[Executive Salaries, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a single question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage during question period on Friday, November 25.

I asked the minister to explain why cabinet had decided to order a review of the CRTC exemption order on direct home satellites. Even though cabinet had made its decision for the review, even though cabinet had directed the details of the review to be gazetted, even though cabinet had decided who would conduct the review and who would be on its advisory council, even though cabinet had decided that the CRTC would not be the body to conduct the review, the minister refused to answer the simple question I posed.

I was aware of the details concerning the review. Surely the minister was informed so he could respond to my question. It is unfortunate that he could not explain the reasons supporting this decision. The decision had been made on Tuesday and yet three days later, on Friday, he still refused to explain fully to Canadians the basis of the decision and why it was made.

Telecommunications policy in Canada is rapidly being outpaced by the developments that are being made in the industry. Technological convergence is occurring at an exponentially increasing rate and the government must recognize that it can no longer adequately regulate the industry while providing fair treatment.

Competitive fairness is what this issue is about. The Reform Party does not oppose the idea of a review of the direct to home satellite distribution policy. We encourage such a review. However, we must ensure at all times that this review like all matters of government is dealt with fairly.

In order to maximize the level of fairness the process should be as unbiased as possible while still securing a high level of competency. At no time has it been suggested that competent people should be excluded from making contributions to the debate. However, we must ensure that no one interest is given more weight or is seen as being given more weight than any other.

The cabinet also decided to appoint three members from private industry to advise it on the decision. First, I would like to know the criteria for the selection process. Second, how much will this six month process cost? Third, how much are these advisers to be paid? Fourth and last, what exactly is their role?

It is not even clear why the government needs advisers on this issue. Surely there are competent people within heritage, industry, and the CRTC who understand how DTH policy will affect both the industry and Canadian culture.

As well, the review calls for interventions from the public and then it allows for comments on the interventions. Without advisers the only one who could influence the process would be the minister. However, if the minister wants an independent review of DTH policy and how it affects Canadian culture, then he should either let the CRTC do it or give it over completely to an independent public panel where there will be no undue influence.

In conclusion, I support the review of this policy. It is important that we ensure government regulations accurately reflect the needs of the industry and allow for all interested parties to compete on a level playing field.

Unfortunately, the minister's in house review with advisers who many in the industry believe will favour one company over another cannot accomplish these goals unless he makes it non-partisan. No matter what decision results from the review it will be viewed with skepticism from the industry because it will appear to have been influenced. The only way to ensure a quality review is to overhaul the process before it begins.

[Multiculturalism, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism continue to deny Canadians their fundamental right to choose, to choose for themselves how to protect and promote their heritage and culture.

I will continue to ask questions that challenge the way we spend our money while at the same time encouraging ethnocultural communities to fully participate in Canadian life adding to it their unique diversities.

We in the Reform Party reject a big brother, paternalistic approach to cultural imperialism that the minister continues to preach. Instead we believe we should provide jobs for Canadians. We should tax them less. We should allow them the freedom to develop and pay for those cultural programs that interest them.

This government should realize the importance of empowering ethnocultural communities to be themselves. Then truly it will have abandoned its culturally imperialistic and arrogant multiculturalism policies.

[Crtc, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is it indeed articulation of government policy that two of the three members of the government's so-called non-partisan committee have strong links to Power Corp, strong links to the Prime Minister and his associates or both?

The review process has not even begun and the fix is in. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage restore the public's confidence in the process by dismissing the proposed committee and referring the matter to a joint heritage-industry subcommittee?

[Crtc, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

On Friday the government announced its decision to override the CRTC by holding a review of our direct to home satellite policies. This review is being held in house and behind closed doors. Even though there will be public interventions in the

process, the decision will be made by a committee appointed by the minister.

The minister should prove that he is not trying to play favourites in the industry. Will he not allow the CRTC, his arm's length, independent organization, to give this issue its due consideration?

[Divorce Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, a bill put forward by my hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.

Bill C-232 would amend the Divorce Act in such a way to give grandparents the right of access to their grandchildren. In this the International Year of the Family is it not the perfect opportunity to legally recognize the important place that grandparents occupy in the family unit? I am pleased to see support in this House as we take the initiative in this important area of family development.

Today's family structure is threatened by a host of uncertainties, tensions and stresses which can be attributed to unfortunate financial circumstances, job loss, career or vocational instability or family breakdown. There are occasions when the provision of adequate care for children within these situations becomes secondary to the unexpected disturbances or turbulence within the family setting. The very urgent and oftentimes invisible needs of the children in such an environment can be overlooked.

I am sure all of us here have met adults who, despite being adequately nourished and cared for physically as children, demonstrate the impoverishment of their emotional upbringing. While it is unlikely that any single event can be said to be responsible for all adult distress, we can nonetheless argue there is abundant evidence to suggest that the adult personality is constructed to a considerable extent from childhood experiences and that those who care for young children determine and define the nature of these experiences.

As we consider this bill, let us not forget to address how best to meet the needs of children in dysfunctional settings, acknowledging that those who care about the children are also likely to be better able to care for them.

Under the provisions of this bill and in the case of divorce the trial judge would be permitted to address the needs of the whole family at a time when it is least able to deal with problems. It is difficult for children after a marriage breakup to adjust to this change and if in addition they lose their grandparents, it can be devastating. It is devastating for the children because they lose what may seem to be the only stable element in their young lives and devastating for the grandparents because the children they love can be taken away from them with little legal recourse.

Since most grandparents are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to initiate a court action to help their grandchildren maintain some security and stability in their lives, I believe the government should intervene to alleviate the fear of losing their grandchildren. Many grandparents experience a sense of tremendous loss during divorce proceedings and this sense of loss in many cases becomes a reality. Bill C-232 sets out to change this.

The bill before us would amend the Divorce Act in such a way as to provide a person wishing to make an application under the Divorce Act to be granted access to or custody of any of his or her grandchildren and shall not be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an application. The bill would also provide that a person who was granted access to any of his or her grandchildren shall have the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

To make sure these amendments to the Divorce Act are actually serving their intended purpose they would be subject to a review by a parliamentary committee every four years after their enactment.

Most grandparents are concerned about the well-being of their grandchildren. This whole subject was debated in the Alberta legislature. I would like to read from its Hansard . In her speech Mrs. Hughes quoted a study by Jim Gladstone from the University of Guelph. Gladstone conducted a study in 1986 that reinforced the importance of grandparents, that relationship of grandparents to grandchildren.

That report concluded that when marriages break down, grandmothers have more contact with their grandchildren than before the breakdown. Gladstone believes this means grandparents have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and emotional upheaval of their grandchildren. Previous research on children of divorce has suggested that young children have very little opportuntiy to talk about the breakup.

Gladstone believes that through the child's unique relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of counselling, comfort and reassurance that they need providing they have continuous access.

In the Winter 1991 issue of Your Better Health Magazine , a writer Jane Widerman writes of the personal devastation experienced by estranged grandparents: ``Until recently when it came to the fallout from divorce, the primary focus has been on the nuclear family''.

Professor Edward Kruk of the University of Calgary does social work there. He first began to formally study the effect of divorce on the extended family. He says: "Mental health practitioners have tended to ignore the extended family and the importance of the grandparent-grandchild attachment, which doesn't decrease after divorce".

Social work experts are beginning to recognize that the phenomenon of estranged grandparents is larger than was first suspected and Kruk agrees. In his recent study of non-custodial fathers he found that more than 50 per cent lose contact with their children. By extension, the fathers' parents probably also suffer the loss of access which, says Kruk, likely translates into major mental and physical health problems for grandparents.

It is called involuntary child absence syndrome when referring to non-custodial fathers. The symptoms encompass a range of health problems including disrupted sleep, anxiety attacks, grief, mourning and depression. It is bad enough that anyone should suffer. But what parents may not realize is that if the grandparent-grandchild relationship is sabotaged the children are casualties too.

Kruk says that older relatives represent stability, giving children a sense of personal history, a sense of personal belonging. This becomes even more important when one link in the familial chain is removed. During the trauma of divorce grandparents can be a huge source of comfort to the children, a sort of neutral territory in the divorce battleground.

Children cut off from their grandparents experience the double whammy of separation from the non-custodial parent as well as one set of grandparents. Therefore, there is a necessity for creative legislation to protect access for grandparents. Bill C-232 would legally recognize these unique relationships.

We need to also look at the precedents in legislation. For example all 50 states in the United States have similar types of legislation. In Canada, Quebec in article 659 has dealt with this item as my hon. colleague previously mentioned as has Ontario in article 59(4).

It therefore seems to be at the very least reasonable and psychologically sound to argue that children should be nurtured and cared for by people who have actively chosen to be with them and to have a commitment in their development and well-being. I urge all hon. members of the House to give thoughtful deliberation to this bill and based on its merits and for grandparents and grandchildren everywhere give it their vigorous support.