Jay Hill

[Canada Pension Plan, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are now facing a 73 per cent tax hike because of the government's decision to double CPP premiums, all Canadians that is except federal public servants. Due to the government's delay in amending the public service pension plan they are exempt from this huge tax grab.

If private sector employers could get their act together to adjust their pension plans, why couldn't the government?

[Unified Family Court, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, despite a severe cold it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Motion No. 147 brought forward by my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam.

This motion calls on the government to work together with the provinces to actively promote and implement unified family courts and to emphasize mediation of family law matters.

It is a sad reality that in 1990 about 30 per cent of all marriages in Canada ended in divorce. In 1990 the average length of marriage was shorter than ever before.

Out of all divorced and separated Canadians, 350,000 are parents. We know about the emotional toll that divorce and separation takes on adults, but the impact of family law battles on children is even more traumatic. It should be of great concern to everyone in this House.

The system, as it stands now, does little to alleviate children's pain. The administration of family law is a mess. This country seems to have forgotten the value of parenting and the importance of preserving the child-parent relationship in the context of family break-up. Instead, we have an adversarial system that creates winners and losers. Inevitably those who have the most to lose are the children.

The administration of family law in Canada as it exists today can be summed up in three words, inconvenience, confusion and frustration. We know that family conflicts are seldom cut and dry. They involve many different issues. The break-up of a marriage that involves children can lead to issues of child support, spousal support, custody and property division.

In most provinces, people who are separating are forced to go to different courts for different issues that come up. Divorce, custody, access and support issues cross over federal and provincial jurisdictions and create a tangled web of red tape that inconveniences, confuses and frustrates.

For example, in most provinces if a couple decides to split up but not divorce and they want to deal with custody, access or support issues, they must go to one court. Then, if they later decide to divorce, they must go to another court. Then there is enforcement, which is generally a provincial matter. The list goes on and on.

When will the confusion end? Is the whole process not stressful enough without aggravating matters by this sort of nonsense? What kind of impact is this having on our children?

I can say what kind of impact it is having. There are studies out there telling us that the emotional toll that long, protracted family law litigation has on our children is simply devastating.

This psychological damage is the root of many of the social problems we are seeing today, youth crime, suicide and poverty. This raises serious concerns about the future social health of our country.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any kind of lawsuit will say that litigation should be the last resort. It is not as though this is news to anyone either.

In 1974 the Law Reform Commission of Canada reported that the main goals of government should be to encourage resolution of family matters without resorting to litigation and to lessen the confusion by vesting jurisdiction over all family law matters in single, unified family courts.

Here we are 23 years later. The Liberal government has spent a good part of its mandate reviewing family law issues. Yet it still does not have it right. This government has done nothing to address this sad state of affairs.

We are still left with an adversarial system that destroys any chance of ongoing healthy relationships after the smoke clears in the courtroom.

While there are presently unified family courts in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland, not all are province-wide and the matters they deal with vary from one province to another. Some provinces do not even have unified family courts. We heard earlier from the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair as she took us through the history of the present unified family court system, that it is working in some provinces and that we have made substantive progress.

However, the question that must be asked and which has failed to be answered is why is it so slow to get this process in place across the country. Why is it taking so long? It is because it is a very low priority for this government.

Equally troubling is the fact that nowhere in Canada is mediation mandated as the preferred method for resolving family law conflicts. When relationships end it is only natural for people to blame each other and feel a sense of hostility. But if these people can be assisted and encouraged to respect each other as loving caring parents, this can only be good for the children involved. This government owes the children at least that much.

The advantages of mediation are undeniable. The financial cost is much less than litigation. Most family law conflicts can be resolved in five to ten one-hour mediation sessions. Mediation costs an average of $100 to $150 per hour. Compare this with the

millions of dollars pumped out to family lawyers each year to battle it out in court.

Mediation can allow parents to work out amiable solutions to parenting and support issues without being forced to use their children as pawns. This is better for everyone involved. It has been shown that compromises that tie access and support issues together will not only be emotionally better for children but also financially better.

Several studies have linked non-payment of support with the non-custodial parents' frustration at being deprived of participation in their children's lives. For example, a study in 1995 showed that 79 per cent of non-custodial parents with access paid their support, while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.

It makes good sense that people are more willing to go along with decisions they have made themselves than with decisions that have been imposed on them. But the Divorce Act takes a weak approach to this issue. All it does is require lawyers to inform their clients that mediation is available, hardly an encouragement. The Bill C-41 disaster does nothing to address these procedural failures or to help families on an emotional level either. It is just a piecemeal approach which does more for lawyers and judges than it does for average Canadians.

The list of problems with Bill C-41 is endless but what concerns me most as a parent is the fact that this government has not even dealt with the suffering of children, children who are denied the right to enjoy relationships with both parents, not just the custodial parent. Divorce is meant to end the marriage bond, not the child-parent bond. It is disturbing to realize that in 1992 Canadian courts awarded sole custody to mothers approximately 72 per cent of the time, and yet joint custody was only awarded 16 per cent of the time.

I do not know if the government understands the impact of this, but in the words of the Canadian Council for Co-parenting, there's no hurt like it. Kids need both parents and both parents need their kids.

I offered a solution to this problem. In March 1996, I tabled Bill C-242 which would make joint custody automatic unless not in the child's best interests, as in cases of abuse. Psychologists have also offered a solution called joint custody mediation which has been used with success in some American states. I call on this government to look closely at these options because so far this government has missed the boat on this issue.

Bill C-41 misses the boat by only dealing with outcomes, not with actual process, a process that is leaving deep emotional scars on anyone who has the misfortune of being involved in it. If this government were more concerned with the process and especially with what it is doing to this country's children, the social cost of divorce would not be what it is today.

Canadians are looking for some real procedural reform here, reform that addresses the current jumble in the administration of family, reform that lets Canadians actively participate in the resolution of problems in a way that is best for all involved. That is why I urge all members to support this motion. It is time the House demanded some action from this government. It is time we called on this government to work together with the provinces to encourage and implement reforms to the administration of family law in Canada.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member's comments about Bill C-71, I was reminded of travelling and talking with a number of constitu-

ents when I was last back in my riding about the legislation and other issues.

One thing was brought home to me by small business people who, among other things, sell tobacco to consumers. They were wondering why it is not illegal for young people to possess and smoke tobacco. If the government is as concerned as it says about the health risks posed by cigarettes and tobacco to young Canadians, why would the government not make it illegal for minors to possess and smoke cigarettes?

If it is looked at in the context of alcohol, for example, the shops, bars or liquor vendors who sell product to minors are held accountable for that action and can be charged and fined, or perhaps lose their licence or permit. In the case of cigarettes vendors can be fined, and rightly so, if they sell this hazardous product to young people. But it is not illegal for young people to smoke.

I wonder why the hon. member has not added her voice to those who are calling for that type of action by the government.

[The Deficit, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Prince George-Peace River, especially their children and grandchildren, appreciate that the federal deficit has been reduced.

However I would be remiss if I did not also point out that these same constituents know the Liberal government does not deserve the credit. The taxpayers of Canada do. The government is taking $25 billion more in taxes from them. That brought down the deficit, not government spending cuts.

This sad fact is particularly evident to the people of the isolated northern community of Mackenzie. While their cost of living goes up, the government refuses to reinstate their northern residents deduction.

The Liberals waste billions of dollars on grants and loans to big business yet ignore the needs of northern communities: $144 million to Bombardier but nothing extra to complete paving of the Alaska highway.

Priorities. Why can the government not get it right?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all age groups want and need to know that they can count on a decent standard of living upon retirement. There is no question of that. However, Canadians have been deceived in the past by successive Liberal-Tory governments about the sustainability of the CPP.

First the rate was 3.6 per cent. Now it is 5.6 per cent. Soon it will be 9.9 per cent. The minister talks about rates. Where is it going to stop? No one seems to know.

The government has proven that it cannot be trusted on the GST promise. What would lead Canadians to believe that it can keep a promise on the CPP?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first the unsustainability of CPP was blamed on too many baby-boomers, then not enough people having children, then full indexing and disability benefits. Next it will be an act of God.

Now they want to simply continue the status quo, only with double the tax revenue.

The minister says that our numbers do not add up, but what does not add up is Canadians paying $3,200 a year for a $9,000 pension 30 years from now. That does not add up. Canadians deserve better than paying more to get less.

Why will the government not dispel the fears of Canadians that CPP will not be there for them and offer individualized tax sheltered accounts for their mandatory CPP tax deductions?

[Highway System, March 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today a petition from residents of Prince George.

They note that the federal excise tax on gasoline has increased by 566 per cent over the last 10 years and that the federal government reinvests in highways less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament not raise fuel taxes again and that the government dedicate revenue from fuel taxes to rebuild Canada's crumbling highways.

[Employment, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, while in opposition Liberals knew that payroll taxes kill jobs. However it seems power has clouded their memories.

Here is a reality check:

Every time we raise the contribution rate for the CPP or the QPP-we increase the tax burden on workers and employers-such increases are difficult to justify.

The current Minister of Labour said that.

How about this one?

When you look at the burden of payroll taxes on small firms, you have to include, of course, the Canada pension plan employer contributions-the combination of all these taxes impose an onerous burden, especially on small and medium sized businesses.

Our industry minister said that.

Since the two ministers most associated with employment know that the finance minister's 73 per cent CPP increase will kill jobs, why do they not speak up? So much for the jobs, jobs, jobs promise. It looks like the only jobs and pensions this government cares about are its own.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

No leadership.

[Divorce Act, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the reason common sense provisions do not prevail with the government across the way is that there is no common sense over there.

If common sense was the guiding motive for legislation in the House we would have a lot less legislation. A lot of the bills that have been brought before the House over the past three years have done very little in the eyes of the citizens out there in the real world who might be watching the debate today.

At one point I commented that a party running for election to the House of Commons could very well win a substantive majority if it ran on a platform of repealing useless laws and legislation rather than bringing in inconsequential, ineffective legislation like the government has done over the last three years.