Jay Hill

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we will give unanimous consent to allow the government this procedure as well. However, like my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, I do not see the need for this type of shenanigans from the government. If this is how seriously it takes its own legislation, it only points to the reason why Canada is in the shape that it is today.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-41, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 21 with the following:

"deemed to have been received by a debtor twenty"

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the last amendment we put forward to endeavour to improve Bill C-41.

This amendment, like Motion No. 14, or Group No. 4, serves to extend the period of time. The existing clause found on page 21 of the bill states:

(5) A notice referred to in subsection (3) is deemed to have been received by a debtor ten days after it is sent to the debtor.

What we would like to see done with Motion No. 15 is to extend that period from 10 days to 20. It is a relatively simple amendment that would allow for sufficient time to be reasonably assured that the individual in question has time to respond. That is the point of trying to extend that period of time.

Earlier the hon. parliamentary secretary said that a number of our amendments were put forward in the interest of delaying the passage of the bill or to delay the implementation of the guidelines or to delay certain sections of the bill.

I can assure members that is not the case, as I have stated on numerous occasions today. The thrust of why we are bringing forward this number of amendments to this piece of legislation is in the honest hope of improving it and making it work better. I do not see how any of these amendments that the Reform has proposed today will delay the bill or delay certain sections of it or indeed delay the guidelines.

With regard to the Reform amendment that would have the guidelines come back to the House, perhaps it would delay that portion for a certain period of time. I think it is in the best interests of Canadians to ensure that the House or the standing committee have the chance to view the guidelines rather than simply have it shuffled through cabinet and foisted on the Canadian people as a done deal. It is always a concern of opposition parties.

When the Liberals were in opposition in the previous Parliament they spoke out against this type of manoeuvring by a majority government. It did not allow the opposition parties the option or the chance to truly represent their constituents both in the House of Commons and in committee where they would be allowed to put forward some suggestions or at least voice the concerns of certain groups, individuals and constituents who would approach the opposition parties with concerns about the guidelines in question.

If these amendments pass when we vote there may be a minor delay with that process being put in place. It is in the best interests of Canadians to ensure their views can be heard and are represented by their duly elected members of Parliament. After all, that is the whole point of why we are here, to represent their views.

If we are not given an opportunity to view the guidelines and raise concerns, then why do we have Parliament existing as it does today? Is the whole thrust the government seems intent to operate with orders in council and just have the cabinet make those types of decisions as it has on a number of bills? Over the past three years Reform has consistently spoken out against that because we do not believe that is the way a truly democratic government should be operating.

When those people over there were on this side of the House in the 34th Parliament we saw some terrific indignation that the Tories were ramming through legislation, guidelines and regulations with orders in council. Now that the Liberals are ensconced-temporarily I might add-on the other side of the House, they are doing exactly the same thing that they criticised the Conservatives for.

It is no wonder as we travel across the country and throughout our ridings we hear "Liberal-Tory, same old story". That chant has been picked up from coast to coast because people are seeing the reality that there is no difference between not only the policies of those two old parties but the way in which they operate as governments as well.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, very simply this amendment extends the period for a non-custodial

spouse to react to the receipt of the notice that their passport may be suspended or a federal licence withdrawn.

This particular clause found on page 21 of Bill C-41 states:

(4) An application may be made only after thirty days have expired after the notice referred to in subsection (3) was received by the debtor.

Basically what this amendment does is extend that notice from 30 days to 50 days. We feel that in some cases where the individual may be out of the country or, goodness knows, we have even seen to get a letter across Canada can take a considerable period of time, it is in the best interests of all concerned to ensure that the individual has sufficient notice in order to respond. We just want to be reasonably sure that will happen.

Basically that clarifies our position for putting this amendment forward. However, I would like to use the remaining time I have to clarify our positions on a number of other issues raised by the hon. Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, during his intervention.

The points put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary are absolutely ridiculous. Let us just have a quick look at what exactly he said during his intervention. He said that maintenance payments are not linked to access, custody or mediation issues. I think the statistics prove, as I said during my remarks, that the exact opposite is the case. I do not know what statistics or evidence he has to support that nonsensical response, but I am quite appalled that he says they are not linked. I would suggest that he talk to anyone who has gone through a divorce and who has children involved to see that the two subjects are very clearly linked.

As I pointed out during my remarks, what we have seen is that where access and custody of the children in question by the non-custodial parent was more usual in the arrangement and was quite freely given, what invariably happened was compliance with support payments for those same children also increased in direct proportion to access.

There are clearly enough statistics around to show that. Therefore I would certainly dispute the hon. parliamentary secretary's position that the two things are to be dealt with quite separately and are not linked.

He also asked who suffers. He said, as Hansard would clearly show, that it is the women and children. Very clearly the women and children do suffer. We are all well aware of that. However, the fact is that when a marriage breaks down and when some parents are de-parented because of the process there are many people who suffer. Grandparents suffer and fathers suffer as well.

As I said during my remarks and during my speech on Bill C-41 about a month ago, I believe October 3, I very clearly stated that I am not an advocate for non-custodial parents. I am not an advocate for the fathers, nor am I for the mothers in this situation. I am an advocate for the children. I believe it is in the children's best interest to have access to both parents. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not understand how it is that when a marriage and a relationship is intact both parents are considered good parents, acting in a manner consistent with the best interests of their children, and yet somehow immediately upon the disillusion of their relationship this is no longer the case.

We see time and time again where the non-custodial parent is denied access to their children. If they are considered a good parent when their relationship was intact, why in heaven's name are they not when they are separated? When a relationship ends the fathers, in most cases, still want to be involved and active in performing the role of a parent. In many cases, unfortunately, that is denied.

The other point the parliamentary secretary made was that our amendments would return the system to complete uncertainty. We talk about fear mongering. We talk about the usual Liberal diatribe where they attack Reform every time we try to improve their legislation. He went on to say that our amendments would render guidelines ineffective. That is more fear mongering. It is clearly not the case.

What we have said is that this is a complex issue. We cannot impose arbitrary guidelines and then say to the courts that this is how it is going to be. Even in his intervention what he went on to say was that we need to do it on a case by case basis. That is a clear contradiction. On the one hand he attacks Reform because we say that before the court imposes these arbitrary guidelines, we have agreed there is a need for national consensus, national standards to apply, but before the court looks at that, Reform we would like it to take into consideration mediation. We would like it to take into consideration the best interests of the child, what is in the best interest of the child or the children, and also to take into consideration the non-custodial parent's ability to pay.

As I said earlier during this debate, prior to question period, the reality is it makes absolutely no sense to impose some arbitrary guideline, some arbitrary standard, only to find out later that the non-custodial parent simply cannot afford that and no matter how much he would like to, he cannot pay that amount.

As the parliamentary secretary said very clearly, we have to look at this on a case by case basis. That is the one thing that he said that I heartily agree with. His other points are, as I said, very clearly fear mongering and trying to suggest that Reform is somehow against the women and children who very clearly need more certainty.

We are not denying that something has to be done with the Divorce Act and something has to be done with this subject. What we are saying is we believe we need a comprehensive look at this subject. The hon. justice minister has promised Canadians a comprehensive review of this whole subject matter. Comprehensive to us deals with much more than just the tax implications or getting tough on non-custodial parents' non-payment of support or maintenance.

Comprehensive means looking at the access and custody issues, looking at having mandatory mediation as a necessary step. What may happen with that is that some lawyers would not get as much work as they would like. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

I believe in balance if people will look at what Reform has been doing on this bill, look at the amendments that we have been bringing forward, they will understand that we are trying to address a lot of issues, not just putting blinders on and looking at the maintenance payment issue by itself.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-41, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 21 with the following:

"fifty days have expired after the notice"

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, were we to vote on Group No. 3 as well as the Bloc subamendment, in other words, my amendment, Motion No. 13?

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at one time in Canada someone convicted of rape was subject to very severe penalties. Now with conditional sentencing their life does not seem to change much.

A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He is on conditional release, scot free.

These lenient decisions in three different provinces have set dangerous precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is not an option when there is a danger to the community. Are women not part of the community?

Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more important, for judges? He talks about a tool for the courts. He talks about appropriate cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for rape?

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on September 3, the conditional sentencing provisions of the government's legislation went into effect. The very next day an Ontario judge gave a conditional sentence to a man who had uttered death threats against his estranged spouse. She lives in fear and he walks.

In October an Alberta man convicted of pointing a gun at his wife, and firing, it also got a conditional sentence. His sentence: no drugs or firearms and he is supposed to attend treatment programs.

Bearing in mind that someone gets a minimum of four years for holding up a corner store with a toy gun, can the Minister of Justice explain to the victims of domestic violence why men who threaten their wives with real guns walk away with conditional sentences?

[Crime Prevention Week, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Crime Prevention Week. How does this case help prevent crime?

In April 1995, 58-year-old James Baldwin was viciously kicked to death by six youths in Dawson Creek who were aged 15 to 17 at the time. All of these young offenders were known to local police. Only the 15-year-old was raised to adult court.

Their malicious murder of Baldwin as he lay sleeping in his tent was plea bargained down from second degree murder to manslaughter.

On Friday three of the youths were sentenced. Two have been in jail since the crime. They got another six months in jail, plus one year's probation. The third youth got one year in jail, plus two year's probation and 180 hours of community service.

This is justice? How does this deter crime? Why was this cold blooded murder plea bargained to manslaughter?

An 80-year-old constituent walked into my office just a matter of an hour ago and said it best: "This sentence is a disgrace".

[Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

On this particular group, yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-41, in Clause 11, be amended by adding the following after line 11 on page 14:

"26.2 (1) The Minister of Justice shall have each proposed guideline laid before the House of Commons.

(2) Each proposed guideline that is laid before the House of Commons shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and that committee shall report its findings to that House.

(3) A proposed guideline that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be established on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it was laid.

(4) For the purpose of this section, "sitting day" means a day on which the House of Commons sits."

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 3 consists of one motion proposed by the Reform Party. This amendment deals with clause 11 on page 14. It would add a whole new subsection, 26.2, to Bill C-41. It states in part:

26.2 (1) The Minister of Justice shall have each proposed guideline laid before the House of Commons.

(2) Each proposed guideline that is laid before the House of Commons shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and that committee shall report its findings to the House.

(3) A proposed guideline that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be established on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it was laid.

(4) For the purpose of this section, "sitting day" means a day on which the House of Commons sits.

What does that mean? Very simply put, Reform has been saying the same thing over and over again in this place for the past three years, ever since almost all Reformers have been in the House of Commons. We feel very strongly that the committees and the House should be allowed to look at these guidelines.

We are very uncomfortable with the fact that here is another instance-similar to the guidelines for Bill C-68, the gun control legislation-where the government wants to take care of things behind closed doors. It wants the cabinet to make the decision by order in council. The House and the committees of the House will not have the opportunity to debate or to look at the guidelines. The House and committees will not have the opportunity to find out what the guidelines are until they are actually cemented into place. To be quite frank, we find that type of behaviour inexcusable even though it goes on and on as more bills are brought into this place by this Liberal government.

This is just the latest example of the Liberals superseding the authority of the House and its committees. They will draft the guidelines which will be imposed on the citizens of the country without those citizens having their elected representatives be given the opportunity to properly debate them and propose potential amendments. We cannot bring up issues of concern that we feel would make sense and are concerns of a lot of our constituents.

That is why the Reform Party brought forward Motion No. 13. Perhaps at this point in time we will just leave it go at that.

[Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-41, in Clause 11, be amended a ) by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:

"26.1 (1) Subject to paragraph 15.1(3)(a), the Governor in Council may" b ) by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 13 with the following:

"for the purposes of making a support order in accordance with subsection 15.1(3);" c ) by replacing lines 44 and 45 on page 13 with the following:

"the purposes of making a support order in accordance with subsection 15.1(3); and"

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-41, in Clause 11, be amended a ) by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:

"26.1 (1) Subject to paragraph 17(6.1)(a), the Governor in Council may" b ) by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 13 with the following:

"for the purposes of making a variation order in accordance with subsection 17(6.1);" c ) by replacing lines 44 and 45 on page 13 with the following:

"the purposes of making a variation order in accordance with subsection 17(6.1); and"

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the amendments put forward by the opposition parties to Bill C-41.

My comments are confined to the amendments in group No. 2 put forward by the Reform Party. I note that of the eight amendments that have been grouped together in Group 2, six of the eight have been put forward by the Reform and two by the Bloc.

Motion No. 4 establishes an order of priority so that the court will look first at the needs of the child and the ability of the non-custodial parent to pay and then at the applicable guidelines for child support.

During remarks made at second reading on Bill C-41 by my hon. colleague for Mission-Coquitlam, she elaborated on why we view this as so important. We feel there is a need to look at the best interests of the child or children involved rather than just make arbitrary decisions based on the guidelines.

In speaking to this bill, as a number of us have already, we have clearly endeavoured to be advocates for the children. We are not trying to pick sides, either on the side of the custodial parents, or non-custodial parents, or mothers versus fathers. Heaven knows enough of that already exists in the present system of dealing with divorce.

The real purpose of putting forward these amendments to try to better the bill is to see that the interests of the child or children are paramount.

While we recognize the need to have guidelines to direct and to guide the judgments levied in these types of cases, it does not make a whole lot of sense if we do not look at the ability of the non-custodial parent to pay. It really does not matter what the support level is set at if the father, who it is in a predominant amount of time, is unable to meet that commitment.

Motion No. 5 is consequential to Motion No. 4. It is a means for us to amend the bill to allow for Motion No. 4 if it was to be passed.

I will move on to Motions Nos. 7 and 8. The bill was written when looking at awarding child support. The court is supposed to take into consideration and apply the guideline when awarding spousal support. The Reform Party believes that the court should look first at the abilities of the parties to pay for the welfare of the child and if it needs to look elsewhere, then go to the guidelines. Basically Motion No. 7 follows along the same lines as Motions Nos. 4 and 5. Again, dealing with child support, we want the court to look first at the party's ability to pay and the needs of the child.

The government should be legislating in the best interests of people. If the court needs further evidence after looking at ability to pay and the welfare of the child, then the court could look to the guidelines and apply them if necessary.

That basically deals with Motions Nos. 7 and 8. Motion No. 8 is consequential to Motion No. 7, similar to the way in which Motion No. 5 is to Motion No. 4.

I will move on to the other two amendments put forward by Reform in this grouping, that is, Motion No. 10 and Motion No. 11. I know this gets quite complicated. Motion No. 10 is consequential to Motion No. 4. It refers back to that subsection.

The governor in council establishes the guidelines, which are the main focus of the bill. In establishing these guidelines, the governor in council is to take into consideration a number of matters. Most important in the list of matters that must be taken into consideration in the eyes of the Reform Party is the ability to pay and the needs of the child. This amendment, therefore, restricts the governor in council in that in making guidelines, the paramount interests should be the needs of the child and ability to pay.

I know I am repeating myself in referring to all these motions. It really comes down to the central focus to which we are trying to direct the government, rather than just bring down these arbitrary guidelines. We want the courts to look at other considerations, to have that as part and parcel of the bill rather than exclude them.

Motion No. 11 refers to the same section found on page 13 of the bill. It refers back to a different section, section 17(6.1) which deals with variation order. The governor in council under this bill does establish the guidelines for spousal support as well as child support. Therefore we want to ensure that were Motion No. 7 to pass the courts address all the concerns that would be presented at the time of the case rather than, as I said earlier, to arbitrarily bring forth the guidelines.

Motion No. 11 is consequential to Motion No. 7 in the same way in which Motion No. 10 is to our Motion No. 4.

Perhaps to summarize why there is this need to bring forward these numbers of amendments that we have brought forward that are grouped into Group No. 2, I would like to make a couple of points. If one were to compare the Notice Paper or the Order Paper from Friday with today's, one would note that there were two amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois obviously at the eleventh hour. One would have to question how that is when we already understood all the orders and the motion numbers, trying to understand exactly how they are all going to fit together, were they to pass, and change the bill. We have to wonder how serious the Bloc is about putting forward amendments to this piece of legislation.

In dealing with Bill C-41, the government has once again taken the easy route of dealing with the support payments. We have tried to make the point during debate on this bill already that we are concerned this simply is not a comprehensive look at the whole issue surrounding divorce.

The justice minister has promised for some time now that he would be bringing forward comprehensive legislation. We are not suggesting that it would have to be included in one omnibus bill. Heaven knows there have been times in the past when we have been quite critical of the government for trying to lump too much into one bill. But we have not seen any indication from the government other than vague promises by the justice minister that he will indeed be bringing forward legislation to address the other side of the equation which is dealing with perhaps mandatory mediation prior to the disputing couple's ending up in court and a bigger issue of access and custody.

I have brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-242, which would endeavour to bring into effect joint custody being the rule instead of the exception. Very clearly we can look at statistics and we can see that the whole business of the ability and the willingness of non-custodial parents to pay their child support payments is contingent on access to their children.

As access increases and shared custody increases for the non-custodial parent, then equally so statistics show that willingness to pay that support also increases.

The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, when she brought forward a private member's bill dealing with grandparents' rights and the need to have grandparents have access to the courts during divorce proceedings, once again she was looking at what is in the best interest of the children. That is what we are dealing with here.

At that time she was told by the justice minister that the reason that the government voted that down was the government would be bringing in more comprehensive legislation.

Despite our best efforts to amend the bill by bringing in a number of amendments which are in all five of the groups, what we perceive is a general unwillingness on the part of the government to look at the other side. It seems to be totally focused on something which is a quick fix, something which would be the easiest to address, to get tough with fathers who are unwilling to meet their obligations and who in many cases are unable to make their payments.

As we have pointed out in our speeches, the simple fact of the matter is in many cases when the non-custodial parent, usually the father, withholds support payments it is simply because it is the only to get back at the fact that they do not have access to their children. I believe that the government is really missing the boat by not addressing the whole issue by not bringing forward companion legislation so that the opposition parties and Canadians can view the entire package rather than just piecemeal, which is easier.