GOVERNMENT ORDERS

DIVORCE ACT

(1010 )

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in favour of the act to amend the Divorce Act and other acts. Before I get into the details of the amendments I would first like to provide a broader context for the changes.

There is a yearning in Canada today to focus on what we have in common and to return to basic values. Canadians do have values in common. We have not prevailed for 130 years and produced one of the world's most prosperous and successful nations without a foundation of shared principles and beliefs. When we set aside the quarrels about jurisdiction and the forms of the federation, and when we focus on the features that define us as a nation, we will find that what is common to every province and to every region of Canada is our shared values.

We are a society that is compassionate, tolerant and civil. We take pride in social programs that are intended to protect the most vulnerable. We care deeply about our commitment to sharing. These values are reflected in the way we treat our children.

Canadians understand the importance of early intervention of safe and secure childhoods if we are to enable all individuals to

reach their full potential. Canadians also place a strong emphasis on the importance of individual responsibility while governments have a role in helping the most vulnerable. We also believe in people taking responsibility for themselves.

How do these values relate to our strategy for child support? They require laws and policies that produce adequate and consistent child support levels, that respect fathers and mothers who make their payments and ensure that those who are obligated to pay actually do so. Viewed from that perspective, I suggest that the measures we have proposed in our child support strategy very much reflect the fundamental values that unite us.

The starting point is that the nature of the Canadian family is changing. There are more single parent families today than ever. When families divide, there are two households to support and fewer resources to go around and too often the children suffer. Over the past 20 years families headed by an individual parent have doubled in number. There are almost one million such families in Canada. In 1990, 61 per cent of single parent families headed by women lived below the poverty line. This compares to just 10 per cent of two parent families with children.

The steps we are taking to strengthen and improve Canada's child support system will not end child poverty, but we believe these steps will help. These measures derive their value from the shared principles on which they are based.

The principle that children should be first in line. These reforms will put them there and keep them there. Child support is the first and most important obligation for parents.

The principle that a child's standard of living, both before and after divorce, should reflect the means of both parents. These reforms make sure that it does. Children are a shared responsibility and a divorce does not change that.

The principle that people in like circumstances should be treated in a like fashion. These reforms will ensure that they are. Both parents have an obligation to support their children based on their ability to pay.

The strategy we have adopted has four interdependent elements. One, we are introducing child support guidelines to establish appropriate and consistent support levels, and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents. Two, we are changing the way child support payments are taxed to make things fairer and simpler. Three, we are enhancing federal and provincial enforcement measures targeting the wilful defaulters to ensure that payments are made in time and in full. Four, we are helping working poor families by doubling the level of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit over the next two years. I would like to describe each of these initiatives in more detail.

(1015)

At the heart of this approach are the guidelines that will be used across Canada by the courts, by lawyers and by parents to establish appropriate levels of support payments for children. At present, courts determine child support levels on a case by case basis. The issue prolongs litigation and adds to the anguish of the parents. Some suggest that the system is based on the principle that every person deserves his or her decade in court. Not all judges take the same approach or have the same philosophy. As a result, levels vary greatly not just across Canada but even within provincial jurisdictions and even from family to family.

The amount that is available to pay for a child's needs should not depend on which province one lives in, to which courtroom the case is assigned or which party has the more persuasive lawyer. The guidelines will establish without the need for trial the levels of child support to be paid according to the income of the person paying. The amounts are calculated by a formula that takes into account average expenditures on children at various income levels. As income levels increase or decrease so will the parents' contributions to the needs of the children, just as they would if the family had remained together.

The guidelines are standard but they are also flexible. No two families are exactly alike. Exceptional expenses for children can be added, such as uninsured medical expenses and child care costs for preschoolers. A court can also change the amounts if undue hardship can be established.

This approach has tremendous strengths. It is simple and it is standard. It ensures that support paying parents with the same level of income pay the same level of child support as other parents. It is also easy to use and in the end it is easy to understand. There will be less reasons for parents to argue about what is and what is not an appropriate level of support. This means less conflict, lower legal bills, reduced legal aid and diminished court costs. The result is that a lot of money which would be spent on lawyers in courts can be kept in the hands of the parents for the benefit of the children.

The second pillar of our child support strategy is a change in the way child support payments are taxed. Currently child support payments are tax deductible for the payer and taxable to the recipient. That rule was put in place 54 years ago. After carefully considering all of the circumstances we have concluded that this approach is unfair and indeed outdated.

To begin with in the present age it is understood that parents do not need an incentive or a reward in the tax system to encourage them to pay support for their children or that a general subsidy by

all taxpayers toward families that are separated and divorced is not appropriate.

In any event the subsidy works best where there is a large income spread between the mother and father which is less and less common. Shifting income patterns have brought their earnings closer together. Where a mother earns the same as or more than the support paying father, the present system actually penalizes her. That is the case in over one-third of all separated couples and that proportion is growing. Even when the incomes are different the subsidy only works if the court takes care in each case to make complex calculations to gross up the amount awarded to take tax into account. This does not always happen in every case. The result is the tax liability eats into the support award and the losers are the children.

Furthermore custodial parents do not want to have to administer the tax system. They are the ones who now have to calculate the amount due and pay it on April 30 of each year whether the support payments arrive late during the year.

More fundamentally, child support is not income for the parent but it is money intended for the children. It therefore should not be taxed in the hands of the recipient.

(1020)

The reforms will change the system. We are adopting what is known as a no deduction, no inclusion system. That means support paying parents will not be able to deduct their payments from their total income and custodial parents will not be required to include it in theirs. This no deduction, no inclusion approach will not come into effect until May 1, 1997 and it will apply to all new awards made after that date. It will not apply after that date to existing awards unless the parties agree or unless the court directs that the change be made.

We are waiting 14 months before making this change effective for very practical reasons. We want the tax change and the guidelines to become effective at the same time. That way if parties to existing orders want to change their tax treatment the new child support levels can be taken directly from the tables without the need for individual assessment in each case.

We anticipate that the provinces will create complementary guidelines to cover child support levels in cases under provincial jurisdiction so that the systems are uniform. The 14 months will enable them to do that.

Finally, the time will be used in planning for the transition. Ottawa has budgeted $50 million to help the provinces develop simple and effective systems for dealing with the many requests that may be made to varied existing orders once the changes become effective.

In the coming months governments, courts, professionals and other stakeholders will work together so that these cases are dealt with quickly and effectively. The current tax system has been in place for 50 years. I do not think it is unreasonable that we take 14 months to achieve a complete reversal.

Let me address the concerns that have been expressed by some fathers about these changes. First, parents who now have child support orders or agreements will not be forced into a new tax system. Both parents may decide for a number of reasons that their support agreement is working reasonably well and should be left alone.

Second, let me encourage parents to examine the guidelines that we have now published and consider how they may apply to their situations. They are the result of many years of consultations across Canada and they take into account tax levels and average expenses for raising children. The guidelines have been tested not only with family lawyers but with fathers and mothers, both custodial and non-custodial parents.

Third, there may be situations of undue hardship in which the payment in accordance with the guidelines would simply be unrealistic or unworkable. We recognize that cases of hardship do exist and the new process can accommodate those situations.

Finally, we are committed to monitoring these guidelines and if necessary they will be adjusted. Let me restate that in evaluating amounts our eye will remain fixed on the welfare and needs of the children. I think we can all agree on this objective. Of course a fair child support system is more than just setting levels evenly and taxing them fairly. It is also a matter of ensuring that payments are made in full and on time. Enforcement is crucial.

Let me make it clear that a great many parents who make their payments on time and in full deserve our continued respect. They take their responsibilities seriously and they follow through. There are some who cannot pay because of misfortune: they have lost their job, they have fallen ill. They must ask the court to relieve them of their responsibility that they cannot meet. However, there are also too many who are in wilful default.

As of last September almost half of the cases registered with the Ontario family support plan involved child support orders where absolutely no money had been paid. On the remaining half, only one in four was fully paid.

Wilful and chronic default by people who can pay but refuse to pay child support is simply unacceptable in this country. These are not just people who turn their backs on their sons and daughters, they are also walking away from their responsibility as citizens and because they cheat their children all other Canadians are obligated to take up the slack.

(1025 )

The prime responsibility for enforcement of child support orders currently rests with the provinces. A lot has already been done by the provincial agencies but the Canadian government also has a role to play, a role of leadership in co-ordinating, encouraging and complementing the provincial efforts.

The measures we are proposing will support and enhance the strategies of provincial and territorial governments. We want to work with them in a common cause. There is a list of measures that we will now take. Let me mention just a few of them.

Federal legislation will authorize the suspension of federal licences and certificates such as passports in the cases of persistent default. It will allow access by the provinces to the database of Revenue Canada to help trace persistent defaulters. It will invest money and effort in upgrading computer systems to share information among provinces to co-ordinate their efforts.

The fourth pillar in the child support strategy involves a measure that is intended to help working poor families whether they are separated or still living together. The Canadian government contributes to basic income security for children through a child tax benefit.

One component of that benefit is the working income supplement which provides a non-taxable benefit to supplement the employment earnings of families with net incomes below $25,900. At present, the maximum amount that is payable under the working income supplement is $500 per family each year. Over the next two years the Canadian government will double that supplement to $1,000 per family each year.

The revenue derived from ending the deduction on child support payments will be used to fund the increase in the working income supplement. The result will be that over the next five years over $1 billion of additional revenue will be put into the hands of about 700,000 low income families in the labour force. About one-third of them will be lone parent families.

The advantages of this strategy are obvious. The increased working income supplement is tax free and will go right to the bottom line for families that need dollars for their children. This supplement is distributed fairly, benefiting children of separated families and families that remain intact. And the working income supplement is targeted to those most in need.

What will make these reforms work well is that they will work together. Guidelines will ensure consistent awards at appropriate levels with diminished conflict and expense.

A tax rule that reflects the social conditions and values of 1942 will be changed to conform to current needs and trends. Effective tools will enhance enforcement so that good people who make their payments will know that those in wilful default will be pursued. Every dollar of increased revenue that Ottawa derives from the tax change will be ploughed directly back into a system for the benefit of children in low income working families.

I invite the support of members of the House and their involvement in making this strategy succeed. Working together, Canadians can put children first. The government will put children first. It will put responsibility fairly on the shoulders of parents and and make our system of child support one of which we can all be proud.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-41, a bill which addresses various aspects of child support payments. Its objective is a praiseworthy one: to improve the situation of the children of divorced parents.

(1030)

On top of the emotional and psychological effects of divorce, the vast majority of these children have to deal with another kind of effect, which has an unfortunate impact on their daily lives. As you may have guessed, I am referring to the sometimes drastic drop in their standard of living.

A brief presented two years ago by the now defunct Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women described the situation of mothers with custody, and how despair, emotional exhaustion and other family problems, such as custody arrangements, spousal abuse and child abuse, impact on the negotiation of child support. Sometimes these women accept lower amounts just to see the end of it, just to avoid continual confrontations, and this of course results in lower financial resources for them and their children.

If there is one area in which governments can, and must, act directly, it is the area of children's and parents' living conditions. In introducing last March's budget, the government unveiled its action plan for child support.

This plan had four components: removing child support from the tax system, creating and approving federal guidelines, implementing measures to ensure that support is paid in full and on time, and increasing the Working Income Supplement under the Child Tax Benefit.

This announcement followed on the Minister of Justice's announcement in November 1994 that his guideline project would enable the government to save $1.5 billion yearly in social assistance payments, if 80 per cent of parents in arrears with child support were to start paying. It can be seen, then, that the federal government had two things in mind: improving the children's situation and saving itself considerable amounts of money.

This government intervention is one of a set of actions taken by all levels of government in order to try to solve one of the most endemic of the problems experienced in our society, whether in Canada or in Quebec: the impoverishment of women and children.

Last year, Quebec passed legislation to ensure that, as soon as child support is awarded, a mechanism is put in place by which court orders for child support are automatically recorded by the clerk of the superior court in which the case is heard. Under the system, those not earning a regular salary are required to deposit as security the equivalent of three months' support payments. In the case of wage earners, payments are deducted at source.

These measures are aimed at simplifying the payment of support for children and the custodial parent. Similar measures have been adopted in other Canadian provinces. For instance, a universal and compulsory system for the automatic deduction of support payments also exists in Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. In other words, the provincial governments have already taken certain steps within their own jurisdictions to improve the financial situation of women and children.

The bill tabled by the federal government today is intended to complement action taken by other governments in the fight against poverty. Divorce is obviously a fact of life in Quebec and Canadian society. In Quebec, however, the phenomenon has become more widespread than anywhere else, with nearly 50 per cent of marriages ending in divorce.

In 1990, there were 78,152 divorce judgments in Canada, leading to 48,525 judgments on child custody, while about 44 per cent of judgments on family matters involved an order for support payments. In 1989 alone, 83 per cent of all these judgments were the result of an agreement between the spouses. We all know what the situation is like when such agreements are made, so it is clear how the existence of a grid would have a considerable impact on the negotiating process.

It is also true that in Quebec, the vast majority of those who receive child support payments-98 per cent in 1988 and 77 per cent in 1990-are women. This is to explain why, in my speech, I refer to the custodial parent in the feminine. I hope my colleagues understand I certainly have no intention of downplaying the fact that the remaining 20 per cent of custodial parents are men.

(1035)

The statistics are very clear: two thirds of divorced women with three children live below the poverty line. When the mother is poor, her children are poor, since, as I just said, 80 per cent of the children live with the mother. This comes as no surprise. We are all familiar with this fact.

I would like to point out that the decision is made with the consent of both spouses. And I would also like to remind this House of the impact of single parenthood on women and children. A link has been established between poverty among women, especially those with children, and marital breakdown. As I mentioned earlier, single parent families headed by women are, as a group, most exposed to poverty in Canada.

According to research done by the staff of the Library of Parliament, authors of studies on child support payments in Canada have found that on average, such payments do not cover even half of the actual expenditures involved and usually the custodial parent has to absorb the difference. And people wonder why women are poor, especially when we know that, on average, their income is only two thirds of the man's income. The wage gap between the sexes is particularly significant here. My point is that women who have to raise their children alone are carrying an unfair share of the burden.

For further insight, here are more figures. As we know, after a separation, the standard of living of women and their children drops by 27 per cent to 37 per cent according to statistics, while the standard of living of men invariably increases between 4 per cent and 30 per cent. But the issue must also be analyzed in light of the fact that women see their standard of living drop by 27 per cent to 37 per cent.

This situation brought the former Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women to write, in March 1994, and to repeat until its untimely abolition, which I deplore, that: ``Taking into account the greater responsibilities assumed by the mother receiving child support, the difference in men's and women's ability to pay because of the difference in their earning power and the limits that raising children imposes on the earning power of the mother who assumes custody, the tax policy should first of all take into consideration the situation of the mother''.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was not the only one to come to that conclusion. If I may, I would like to quote from an article written in 1994 by the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Supreme Court justice, in the magazine Femmes et Droit. This article was about the myths society and the courts face when dealing with child support.

It showed that, according to a study done by the Department of Justice in 1990, the standard of living of 59 per cent of the women and children in the study dropped, after divorce, below the poverty line, while the percentage was 46 per cent if child support was included in the calculation of their income.

Therefore, when child support is paid, 50 per cent of women still live below the poverty line. It is absolutely terrible. Yet, this is

supposedly an improvement, since the data for 1988 showed that the income of two-thirds of divorced women was under the poverty level. If we exclude the support payments, this proportion came to 74 percent.

Further on, the judge wrote: ``The popular belief that men are generally overburdened by unreasonable support payments orders to women who use them to buy themselves luxuries and small incidentals is false, for two reasons. It stems from the false premise that women, in particular those who stayed at home when they lived with their husband, always, or at least easily, become economically independent after divorce. [-]This belief ignores a number of facts, both real and inescapable. Following a divorce, child custody is almost always given to the mother, and this by mutual agreement in 80 per cent of cases.''

(1040)

Furthermore, according to the judge, the belief that the ex-spouses find themselves in similar situations after the divorce does not take into account the every day realities to which the custodial parent is confronted. Yet, the economic difficulties are worsened by the responsibilities inherent to child custody.

I read on: ``For the great majority of custodial parents, this responsibility leads to a proportional reduction in economic choices after divorce. Thus, the ex-wife will have more difficulty in overcoming her limited ability to make a living when entering the job market after years of not working at all, or very little. Unlike her husband, she will be restricted in her economic choices because she will have to choose a home close to schools, she will not be able to work late at night because of her family responsibilities and she will have to stay home if a child is sick. She also must choose a safe neighbourhood for children, not too close to a busy street and having green spaces where children have at least a place to play safely. The other parent, on the other hand, does not have these restraints. He is free to live wherever he wishes and to work the hours he wants. He has more disposable income. For these reasons, the real cost of child care is rarely if ever accurately reflected in the amount of money allocated as support payments.''

Madam Justice Dubé also says, in her article on the myths society and the courts must face: ``Despite the facts surrounding the custody of a child, there is a popular and persistent myth that raising a child is not expensive. In consequence, some think that the amounts sought as support payments are extravagant, if not totally beyond reason. This is not true, of course, since the parent having the custody of the child is most of the time neglecting personal needs in favour of the child. These beliefs also influence those who make support payments. It will be easier for him to make excuses for not paying if he does not believe this money is really needed. Such assumptions and beliefs have really tragic consequences, considering that the number of Canadian children living under the poverty line is ever increasing''.

Therefore we will be analyzing Bill C-41, or at least its most important features, in terms of its impact on women and children.

The bill deals with two of the four elements in the federal government's planned child support initiative: the establishment of a framework to develop and apply child support guidelines, and the strengthening of ways to collect child support payments.

To start with, I will mention the aspects of the bill I find positive. First, the establishment of a framework for the use of child support guidelines: the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this concept. However such a framework raises a few questions I will deal with later.

Then, the bill differentiates between child support and spousal support. In my view, this is beneficial as it will help dispel the kind of myths Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé mentioned. Moreover, this differentiation will put the child-who should be the main focus of any protection or help measure-at the centre of court decisions.

With regard to proposed provisions to enhance enforcement measures, adding Revenue Canada to the list of federal departments whose data banks can be searched to locate defaulters is a step in the right direction, as is the creation of a scheme for the denial of certain documents, such as passports, driver licences, and the like. Access to federal civil servants' pension benefits and seafarers' wages will be made easier to ensure payment of child support arrears.

(1045)

Naturally, any measure giving back to children the money required for their support deserves our endorsement. I would also like to mention the broadening of the definition of the word ``child'' to include young persons 16 to 18 years old and students. I think this measure better depicts the reality of modern families and that it will help many children and young adults to start their life on the right foot.

Finally, again in the best interest of children, I agree that priority should be given to the needs of children when both child support and spousal support are requested. I think children's needs must have preeminence at all times and in all legislation. That is necessary for our collective future.

Those are the elements of the bill that we should support. However, other elements raise questions or prompt less positive reactions. I will mention only one that seems the most important to me. Afterwards, I will propose other amendments as the bill evolves and I am sure my colleagues will refer this morning to other aspects of the bill I will not have time to address.

As far as negative aspects are concerned, the discretionary power is the most unacceptable one in my opinion; it could even turn the

enforcement of guidelines into a nightmare. I will quote clause 4 of the bill, which deals with the discretionary power accorded cabinet. It states clearly, and I quote:

(5) The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition ``applicable guidelines''-

How can a government encourage provincial governments to develop and adopt their own guidelines and, at the same time, give itself the unfettered discretionary power to decide if the guidelines adopted by a province will replace its own federal guidelines in that province? It is like saying: ``I am telling you to pass your own legislation, but I warn you that it is I who will ultimately decide whether or not I will impose my own legislation because I do not like yours''. There is a rather ambiguous message there.

This behaviour leads us to wonder about the real intentions of this government. Will it really let the provinces decide for themselves what is good for their people or will it, once again, interfere insidiously and impose its standards and its policies? I wonder.

I invite the government to reflect on the words of its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who was speaking highly, only yesterday, of the virtues of decentralization and who was comparing centralization to something to be fought at all cost. For once I can tell you I agree with the minister.

To those who could think the issue is trivial, I would say it is nothing of the sort. This issue is crucial because, in practice, parents and children could find themselves very much with two systems of rules that would be applied in the same court of justice, by the same judges, to the same people, according to whether they choose to divorce or to separate. That is crazy.

Thus, if the government decided not to recognize the guidelines adopted by the provinces for cases of separation or for common law spouses no longer living together, federal guidelines would apply in the case of a divorce, because divorce comes under federal jurisdiction. Let us imagine the scenario. There is a whole distinction to make there.

Mr. Justice X, in a divorce cause, awards Mrs. A support payments of $1,000 a month for her children. The same judge, 30 minutes later, in the same hearing room, awards Mrs. B, in a separation cause, a $1,500 support payment for her children. The two women and their children could be neighbours, could be in the same financial situation and would find themselves with totally different judgments because the same grid was not used.

This is totally wrong, and I would invite the government to reflect on this and to take some concrete action. If it says to the provinces: ``We give you the choice'', it should not come along with its own standards.

(1050)

I should point out that this scenario is quite plausible precisely because of clause 4 in the bill.

It would give the federal government a fine opportunity to once and for all show off its highly touted flexibility, which exists only in the minds of some of our Liberal colleagues.

We ask that the discretionary power provided for in clause 4 be eliminated and that, as soon as a province meets the criteria set out in the new clause 26.1, its own divorce guidelines apply within its territory, as dictated by common sense and respect.

This issue was considered by a federal-provincial-territorial committee whose report proposed three alternatives to the very concrete problem raised by the distribution of powers, whereby one formula could be used for divorces and another one for private cases. The government opted for a single formula within a single territory, and we totally agree. Now we just have to make sure it does not undo with one hand what it is proposing to do with the other.

I would now like to move on to the guidelines section in the bill. For some years now, lawyers and legal experts have agreed on the lack of uniformity and the arbitrary way support payments are determined.

We know that the decisions relating to child support orders are left to the judges' discretion and vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations by one or both spouses in assessing their ability to pay. There is now a total lack of uniformity in the amounts granted.

According to one study, child support payments are already inadequate when they are set, and the situation gets worse with inflation and as the children grow up and their financial needs increase. In fact, many people working in the judicial system are calling for the standardization of child support payments.

This bill proposes the adoption of a grid, which is a step in the right direction. The federal-provincial-territorial family law committee on child support came to the same conclusion in its report, saying:

``The committee believes that adopting a child support setting formula will help parents, lawyers and judges negotiate and set fair and consistent support payments and bring parents to take responsibility more readily for their children. By eliminating a major source of conflict when families break up, this formula may also foster a positive relationship between family members, and particularly between the child and the non-custodial parent. It may also reduce not only the legal costs to the parents but also the legal aid costs, court costs and costs to execute orders, which are borne by the government''.

easily be reached; the sense of security this tool will give women in their negotiations with their former spouses; the use by the court of an objective tool, making the decision making process easier to foresee; and, finally, the educational value of such a tool for non-custodial parents regarding the adequacy of support payments and their use by the custodial parent.

It seems that the majority of stakeholders agree with the recommendations made by the committee and so do we.

Some lawyers have concerns however about how these rules will be used by the courts. In Prince Edward Island, where the guidelines adopted by the government are more generous than those proposed by the federal government, there are complaints about judges regarding the guidelines as a ceiling. In American states where similar guidelines were adopted, judicial discretion has all but disappeared.

(1055)

But this judicial discretion seems to cut both ways, and its pitfalls were revealed under the deduction-taxation system.

In its presentation to the task force on the tax treatment of child support, in July 1994, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women wrote about the impact of taxation of child support:

We have contradictory evidence concerning the increase in and the extent of child support payments, and there is very little information to indicate that what is not paid out in taxes is being used for child support. Some family law practitioners say they always allow for the taxes to be paid, but there is a basic difference between emphasizing tax consequences and ensuring that child support payments fully reflect the increase. Other family law practitioners point out that, even after considering all the tax consequences, the amount finally awarded does not reflect the increase because, suddenly, the sky is seen to be the limit. The judge acts instinctively and declares that ``in fact, things do not cost that much-or amounts awarded are not usually so high'', and he ends up reducing the child support payment.

Another issue raised by lawyers is the concern that, if the amount of child support increases, more and more fathers will ask for custody of their children, which will mean legal expenses for the mothers. Finally, some judges fear that the number of deadbeat fathers will rise.

In short, even if the principle of a single grid of payment levels appears to be a possible solution, we will have to be watchful and closely monitor its use by the courts.

This view is shared by the chair of the family law division of the Canadian Bar Association, who believes that, in order to be effective, the guidelines must be flexible enough to take into account variations in the cost of living from province to province and from city to city, as well as the specific needs of certain children.

A lawyer who has his own private practice summarized this view quite well in an article published in the Law Times. The lawyer concluded that the benefits were greater than the drawbacks. The main benefit, according to the lawyer, was consistency. Consistency means that the outcome is predictable and, when we have that, there is no need to go before the court. The lawyer noted that, in the United States, lawyers practising in states where there are guidelines find that fewer couples ask for temporary measures, which saves them thousands of dollars while also reducing the workload of the courts.

Therefore, we support the principle of guidelines that would apply to the majority of cases. However, we have some concerns about the draft version of the grid of payment levels released in June.

Based on the information available to us, the federal grid is based on the notion of equality. This means that someone with an income of X dollars will pay Y dollars, regardless of the income of the custodial parent. Therefore, the parent liable for financial support will know what contribution will be sought by simply looking at the line corresponding to his income on the grid, regardless of the income of the parent who will get the payment, since it does not come into play. Moreover, the federal and provincial taxes are taken into account in this grid, but all government transfers specific to a province are excluded.

Quebec is about to introduce this fall a bill that includes guidelines of its own. Last August, a parliamentary committee met for three days to hear witnesses' comments on the grid the provincial government is suggesting to determine the support payments. More studies are being made to make the proposal under consideration even better.

The Quebec grid was drawn up by taking into account the rights and responsibilities of parents under Quebec civil law. First of all, both parents' revenues are added up in order to set the contribution level, and then, the percentage to be paid by each parent is figured out according to the needs of the child. The Quebec grid is also based on the whole Quebec system, including taxation and government transfers.

(1100)

Obviously, the basis of payment determination is fundamentally different, and an in-depth study would improve it in order to maximise the positive impact on the financial situation of children.

Since the Quebec policy is based on a much more extensive set of data and takes into account all family and social policies in the province, this is all the more reason for the federal government to recognize the guidelines provinces have worked out for their population. Let us hope that, this time, the federal government will listen to and respect the will of the provinces.

Before I conclude these remarks, I would like to raise a problem that is fairly common in border areas. The problem involves former spouses living in different provinces who might be tempted, in order to save money, to move into the province whose rules are most advantageous to them.

The proposed regulations provide, in section 3(4)a), that the grid to be applied would be that of the paying parent's usual place of residence.

I call on the justice minister to review this provision and amend it so that the criterion is the child's place of residence, as requested by Quebec. We feel that direction would be more beneficial to a vast majority of children.

I see that my time is almost up; I will therefore conclude by stressing that the official opposition supports the principles set out in Bill C-41, but that it has strong reservations about the appropriateness of the discretionary power the government is reserving for itself and about certain enforcement provisions.

Meanwhile, we reiterate our invitation to the government to show some flexibility for once and to leave to provinces an important role in an area, the family, that, in the final analysis, is within their jurisdiction, except for divorce.

We also call on the justice minister to introduce immediately legislation to implement the two other parts of the reform, so that the citizens know exactly in what direction the government is leading them and, most of all, at what cost to them and to the state.

[English]

Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank you for recognizing me today in this debate. It is an honour for me to speak first. I have been asked by my party to lead off on this second reading debate.

We recognize with Bill C-41 that the government is addressing a much needed part of our society in that there are support payments which are in serious arrears. In British Columbia, my home province, there are serious arrears and persistent arrears in some cases. We must deal with the issue and this bill is welcome in that sense.

There are a lot of divorces in which the non-custodial parent is working very hard, is making the support payments and is trying to keep in touch with his previous family. I say ``his'' because nine times out of ten the non-custodial parent is usually male in our society.

I feel that the bill addresses a very important concern; however, I have several reservations regarding it.

In the 1996 budget the government addressed a strategy to change the Canadian child support system, including the introduction of guidelines to establish child support awards in divorce cases. Legislation implementing key components of the strategy was tabled in the House of Commons on May 30, 1996. Both the guidelines and the new tax rules for child support are scheduled to come into effect on May 1, 1997.

Bill C-41 is a bill which will amend the Divorce Act and other acts in order to establish a federal system of aid for the payment of child support or spousal maintenance.

The bill will alter four statutes in order to do these four things. First, it will establish federal guidelines for child support. As I stated before, that is needed.

Second, Revenue Canada data bases will be open for searches in the case of payment default. This may cause all sorts of problems arising from the questions of privacy and confidentiality. These are some considerations we have to look at.

(1105)

Third is the denial of passports and certain licences to individuals whose support payments are in arrears. In doing so, in denying those passports or licences, there will be a garnishee notice. The intent of this bill, as I understand it, is that the notice of intent to garnishee will no longer be there. That is a major concern. Why? We recognize that sometimes if a person receives a notice of intent, they then can be long gone if their intent is to never pay the support payments.

However, suppose the person is working out of the country, suppose they are off on the oil rigs somewhere in Iran and that notice of garnishee does not get to them within the 30 days. Suppose there is an affidavit that does not have correct information on it. We know that happens often in the legal system. Then they are at an extreme disadvantage. That is another problem.

The fourth is that it would provide for the garnishment and attachment of federal public service pensions and the wages of individuals working at sea.

The acts involved in Bill C-41 besides the Divorce Act are the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

Speakers for the government on this bill have already indicated that it does establish a grid of payment levels for child support as well as creating a number of enforcement mechanisms which can be brought into place should default occur. That is all it does.

It does not deal with the deductibility of support payments from income tax. It does not establish a system of required mediation. It does not improve access issues for non-custodial parents or dare I say for grandparents, and it does not address the issue of redress for the parent who pays child support but is denied access by the custodial parent without just cause.

These are only some of the matters that are important issues in family law today that this bill neglects to address. If Bill C-41 does not deal with the most controversial aspects of child support announced in the 1996 federal budget, namely income tax payment and deductions, and it does not deal with access to children or any of the other issues relevant to family law reform, why has this government called this Bill C-41 a comprehensive strategy to improve the child support system?

Comprehensive means all encompassing. This bill is a piecemeal approach at best for amending the Divorce Act. When I say comprehensive, I am referring to a working draft of federal child support guidelines issued in June 1996 by the Department of Justice where it states in the 1996 budget that the government announced a comprehensive strategy to improve the Canadian child support system, including the introduction of guidelines, et cetera. I have a problem with that because I do not see this as being comprehensive.

Canadians need a comprehensive approach. The focus of such comprehensive reform would be changes that benefit the children of divorce. We are talking here about children. As I have spoken about before in this House, when I talk about grandparent rights or any rights in the family, it is the children I am always concerned about.

A comprehensive approach would include compulsory mediation as a first step in the divorce process rather than going straight to court. A comprehensive approach would include access provisions that are enforceable. It would also include the elements of easier access for grandchildren to their grandparents. As well, the bill should include the tax payments and deductions announced in the budget.

I find the Liberal government's rationale odd when a reason given to me by the minister for his failure to support my grandparents bill in committee was that he would be doing a comprehensive family law review of the Divorce Act. Hence at some later date the grandchild-grandparent relationship would be dealt with, unfortunately though, far too late for many of our grandparents.

Yet this minister is in favour of a piecemeal approach to child support. Is Bill C-41 a comprehensive reform? No, of course it is not. It is a typical Liberal knee-jerk reaction to part of the problem. As always, when someone deals only with part of the problem they deal with the easy part first, the part that will not get them into any trouble. This is the Liberal philosophy. Play it safe, do not stick your neck out. There must be an election around the corner.

Playing it safe and delivering only half a loaf will not work in the case of family reform. There are pressing issues and they should be addressed together in one bill.

Dealing specifically with Bill C-41, we have some major concerns. We do not believe the bill takes an even handed approach to the issue of child support.

We are here to represent all Canadians, both men and women. This bill is decidedly biased against the male parent. There is very definitely a lack of equality for both parents. We all know that the much larger group paying child support are men. This bill does nothing to assure them of access rights.

(1110)

There is nothing to address the issues of mediation which are so necessary if couples are going to live apart but still maintain the best interests of their children uppermost in their minds. I understand there is provision on the books at the present time that asks divorce lawyers to attempt mediation prior to going into the divorce court. I am told it is a half hearted measure at best and few attempt it seriously.

That is why I was interested to read of the Edmonton pilot project which requires people to take a six hour course before they can start action over child access or custody. The free two night seminar gives general information on topics such as the impact of divorce on children, how to reduce a conflict and ways to negotiate settlements without going to court.

Alberta justice minister Brian Evans said the program is intended to help children and to save the courts time and money: ``If you have an agreement right off the bat and the parties are amicable and the children are well taken care of, there is no intention of forcing this upon people. There is some flexibility. The focus of the program is on minimizing the impact of divorce on children and avoiding future problems with the law. If they are damaged psychologically and emotionally there is a very good chance they are going to get into our criminal justice system''.

The article goes on to say Alberta is the second province after Saskatchewan to introduce such a program. Manitoba is considering a similar move.

There is no similar program in B.C. according to Diane Bell of the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association in B.C: ``It would be nice if it was available. If this free was around I think lawyers would use it''.

The Edmonton program is a year long pilot project that could be expanded to the rest of the province. The departments of justice and social services are implementing it. Mr. Gronow, a justice official, said that 1,200 couples in the Edmonton area will go through the course each year because they cannot settle disputes over child custody or access. The parent who wants to take this issue to court will have to prove he or she has taken the course.

I have to pat the people in Edmonton on the back because I think what they are addressing is the real issue. First, no child support payment system is going to work if people are not willing to go

along with it. It is realistic because it deals with the actual facts. If we look at the fact that realistically we are going to address the needs of the child and the ability of the father to pay and that both parents who are getting divorced are involved in that mediation, then the reality is they are going to come up with something that is workable. I think that is what Edmonton has addressed and rightly so.

What the article is telling us is that there is a need for such programs. Divorce is a major happening in our country and we had better deal with it in a positive manner. I believe we cannot over emphasize our commitment to children. To invest in a child is to invest in the country.

Bill C-41 gives authority to the governor in council, the cabinet, to set the payment grid for child support and for spousal support but does not clearly indicate that judges may vary the grid if warranted by the circumstances. I think it would be all too easy for a judge in this case to just go with the grid because it will probably result in fewer appeals.

Therefore everything meaningful and important in this bill will be implemented by the order in council, and so parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to review or to comment on the child support payment grid.

Reform has difficulties with this mechanism. We always have difficulty when this government tries to bypass Parliament in an attempt to legislation through the use of regulation. This grid should be referred to a committee of this House for study before it has legal affect.

Given my recent experiences with the House of Commons justice committee I doubt whether that would be the appropriate forum. However, some committee of this House, hopefully one on which members are sympathetic to the problem of family break-up, should review these guidelines.

Clause 2 of the bill which amends section 15 of the Divorce Act recognizes that a judge in both child and spousal award situations may look at agreements made between the parties, ability to pay and matters which would be of benefit to the children. First the judge is to take into consideration the guidelines, which is the grid established under this bill.

I think the drafters here have it backwards. The judge should look first at agreements reached between the parties and only when the parties cannot agree look at the grid. As well the judge should look at the ability to pay. If we are looking seriously at mediation before divorce, as Alberta is, then the parents have already worked out an agreement which will work for them.

There will be no need to put extra stress on a couple who are already in a stressful situation. We have plenty of evidence of large awards of support and maintenance which bear no relation to the spouses ability to pay. No matter the consequences, we run into problems of the payment.

(1115)

The Financial Post took a realistic look at this problem. In the article ``Getting tough with deadbeat dads won't solve the problem'', the writer states:

Deadbeat dads stand only slightly below tobacco companies in the modern compendium of villainy. Governments across North America compete to devise the toughest schemes to extract child support money from these men. Give the prize for harshness to Tory Ontario. Beginning this January 1, Ontario fathers who fail to pay court imposed child support obligation will lose their drivers' licenses, will see their credit ratings stripped away, and will soon hear the pounding of the debt collector's fist on their front door.

So, can Ontario's single mothers soon look forward to a big bump in their incomes? Hardly.

Even those men lucky enough to have full time employment are averaging only about $40,000 a year, according to Statistics Canada. But a father who moves away from his children must still pay taxes. He must still eat and put some sort of roof over his head. It's still against the law for him to appear in public naked and he must somehow get to work.

A single man earning $40,000 faces income taxes of more than $15,000 in Ontario, even after the first Harris tax cut. Grant him a frugal $1,500 per year for food, and another $6,000 a year for a cheap apartment. Budget $1,500 to finance, insure and operate a car, and $1,000 for shoes and clothes. Toss in $2,000 more for laundry, electricity, toothpaste, a telephone to call the kids he is supporting, the occasional haircut and a few other meagre incidentals.

In other words, provided that this man is willing to devote every discretionary dollar to their lives, and provided too that he never remarries and never fathers any more children, we might be able to squeeze as much as $10,000 a year of child support out of him. If we fail to make him live like a monk, if we permit him to form a new family, then the money available will rapidly tumble to a thousand or two a year. And that's not going to do very much good is it?

Here's the truth that the whole deadbeat dad discussion evades. The reason women and children usually suffer economically after the break of a family is not that some man is selfishly or punitively withholding money from them, although of course some men do. The reason women and children suffer is that the typical wage earner does not earn enough to support two households. Neither for that matter does the comparatively affluent wage earner, one of the ten per cent of Canadian workers who grosses above $50,000 a year-''.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to ask for the co-operation of the House that we might all be able to hear each other's interventions. When the time comes for questions or comments, I will certainly facilitate those to the extent I am able to.

Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker:

No matter how onerous the child support decrees against these men may be, no matter how diligently governments enforce these decrees, for reasons of basic economics and arithmetic, divorce and unwed motherhood will inevitably mean

economic catastrophe for the people involved. If anything, tougher child support rules are likely to exacerbate the catastrophe especially among the poor.

I do not want to see families falling apart even further than they do after divorce. A divorce does not mean a family has to fall apart. People who use common sense can encourage the father, which is usually the non-custodial parent, to continue visiting and to let his children know he still loves them and cares for them. But we cannot hammer them into the ground and then say come on, be a good family person. You have to use your head. For many years those paying the support and the parents who are receiving the support have had a lot of problems. I am personally well aware of it. But that does not mean that I stop thinking or stop facing reality.

(1120)

In these economic times the Liberal government should certainly look at the 10 per cent unemployment level. We cannot punish people. We have to offer encouragement. That is what we must do when we are making laws.

If we have moved to no fault divorce, which I believe we have, at least let us be consistent in awarding child support maintenance and not use this to punish the non-custodial spouse. There is no big bad guy out there and no one on a white charger either.

We also have concerns with clauses of the bill which allow the government to suspend licences and passports in order to achieve payment of support arrears. I recognize that in these instances of persistent arrears we should be careful. By suspending a licence or a passport we may be putting someone's ability to earn a livelihood in jeopardy. It does not help to make it so difficult that someone may end up out of a job. Then they cannot make any payments or help anybody, least of all their children.

If the ability to earn a living is jeopardized then there will be no money at all to pay child support. It is a lose-lose situation. We must also keep in mind the revocation of a passport may place such a person in jeopardy if he or she travels or works outside of Canada. This international law aspect of the revocation of a passport should be explored.

I hope these clauses will be examined closely in committee. We will be considering amendments which lengthen the period of notice under clause 22 of the bill which amends section 67(4) of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.

What also distresses me about this bill is the fact that it does not address the issue of access, especially the access of grandparents to grandchildren.

Finally the media is starting to pick up on that major issue in our society, giving Canadian children access to their families, which also includes grandparents.

We are told to wait for a comprehensive review of the Divorce Act. I put it to the Minister of Justice today that a number of grandparents do not have much time left.

Let us agree on one thing. There are no good guys, no bad guys in divorce. The term no fault divorce recognizes that. How do we establish fairness and equal responsibility and access rights that recognize that parents divorce and children do not? I am talking in general terms here because we are all aware that there are parents who should never have been parents. Some are irresponsible and not supportive. But the average parent, divorced or not, cares about his or her children, loves them, wants them with them and wants to help them. This is a major reason why mediation before divorce and before child custody and access is decided is necessary.

What am I really saying? It is the children who are the real victims of divorce. They need a loving, caring family. As a teacher for over 30 years, I can tell the House that all children are affected by divorce. However, divorce does happen and will continue to happen. So what can we do as a country? We all must remember that the family is our most basic unit in society.

Unfortunately in today's world over 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Unfortunately in the case of divorce, which is what this bill deals with, it is most often the case that children are the last to be considered. This in spite of the fact that the courts and our laws use the phrase ``in the best interests of the child''. In fact, in most cases it really comes down to the best interests of the custodial parent.

We know from heavy documentation in the United States, which keeps records of trends in divorce, that generally the practice was in the best interests of the custodial parent. The child and the rest of the immediate family are seldom considered.

The House knows that I have been concerned about our Canadian grandchildren and I have spoken of the crisis after divorce when many grandchildren no longer see or visit with their grandparents. Perhaps I see families in a different light than other members of the House. It seems to me that just because a divorce takes place does not mean that a child or children of that marriage no longer have a father or a mother. A divorce should not make those children any less deserving of maintaining family ties. It would be more difficult, perhaps, but also more necessary.

(1125 )

If we want a strong, healthy society then we must be concerned with all families, divorced or not. We must ensure that children are encouraged to maintain access to their whole family. Children need to know they are loved by both parents, regardless of the divorce and by both sets of grandparents. Child support or a lack of it is a major problem but I feel the government by treating it as a one sided issue is not going to help the issue but rather exasperate it.

I want to say at this time that I will be making some amendments because obviously there are some current concerns which I have already raised pertaining to this and I hope those amendments will be taken seriously by the government.

In closing I would like to point out an American book, Ladies' Home Journal. A business woman, Rebecca Morrick, was a parent who suffered from lack of support payments. They did not come to her on time and so she started her own collection agency. She said: ``I understand the anger and frustration of the women who come to me. I know what it is like when a support cheque doesn't come or a child's birthday is ignored. I know how it feels to hunt for pocket change just to buy a gallon of milk. Believe me, I've been there''.

Then she talks about her work and how successful she has been in finding, as she calls them, deadbeat fathers. That is not a very nice term but it does probably describe the situation. She said: ``It takes me about six months to start collecting money from deadbeat dads and I do most of my leg work by computer. In the end a client can make out quite well. Even if the support award is relatively small, the ex can be made to pay his or her spouse the compound interest that would be accrued over the years of non-payment. Not surprisingly, finding fathers on the run is my speciality. In a case I am closing now, my largest one ever, I tracked down a deadbeat dad who owed more than $200,000. He had been ordered to pay my client $300 a month to support their daughter back in 1979 but he skipped town without paying a cent.

``His wife Moranda hadn't tried very hard to find him, thinking that he would never earn enough to make the payments anyway. Years later, however, Moranda learned that her ex had become a successful songwriter for a country music star. We found him in Nashville, had him served by the court and we are in the process of seizing his royalty cheques, some of which amount to more than $30,000''.

She is talking about those that she has had that are successful. What she is saying is there are very serious issues of non-support. She sees them all the time and tries to rectify the situation with a certain amount of success. She mentions too that the bureaucracy often gets in the way and that happens in Canada too. It gets in the way too often and sometimes our workers in the social field are overworked and cannot address all the concerns.

What I want to point out is that here is a woman who has gone through the situation, who works with it every day, who sees the worst scenarios, but is she biased like the member opposite? Does she only push one side of the question, like the member opposite? Or does she deal, and this is what-

Ms. Clancy: 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would submit to the House that respectfully the member is engaging in debate and does not have a point of order. I will resume debate with the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.

Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do like to be heard.

This is very pertinent to the last part. I want to point out, after the interruption, that this again is a woman who deals with this every day of her life, the worst scenarios in lack of child support.

This is what she said: ``When I first went into the business I tried to be cool and objective, a real hard-boiled detective, but it just wasn't my style. As a result I often find myself getting emotionally involved in my cases and giving my clients personal advice. My favourite cases are those in which my work helps to reunite a family. Some fathers are actually relieved when I find them. They miss their children and are eager for a fresh start.

``Take the case of Joe and Sally. Joe, tired of being turned away every time he wanted to visit their children, stopped paying child support and Sally refused to let him visit until he started sending the cheques again. To end this bitter standoff I drew up a modification to the child support decree stipulating that the payments and visits were to resume immediately. Sally, still distrustful of Joe, was reluctant to sign the agreement but I warned her I would drop her case if she didn't. Finally she gave in. Both the cheques and the visits have been helping ever since.

(1130 )

``Helping women get the support they deserve is immensely satisfying. However, helping fathers like Joe make amends to their families makes me feel that my profession is really worthwhile. Fatherhood can and should be more than just a monthly cheque not just a wallet. My work has taught me that a child whose daddy disappears is never quite the same''. As a teacher for over 30 years, I can second that.

Now that I am coming to the end of my speech, I must again say that no one understands any more than I do, having personal

experience, the very serious issue with which we are dealing. If we do not start caring about everybody, if we do not start putting children first and trying to help families, then we are going to see more and more separation, divorce and lack of support payments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House is presently operating under Standing Order 74 which entitles the first three speakers to a maximum of 40 minutes and are not subject to questions or comments. The next five hours of debate will include 20-minute interventions subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): 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.

(1135 )

An hon. member: Source?

Ms. Clancy: 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.

(1140 )

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.

(1145)

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member opposite and I must say that she used some very noteworthy examples. The principle of the bill in itself is acceptable because its first priority is the welfare of the child.

However, I would like the hon. member to answer a question I have about the principle of the divorce guidelines set by the federal government, which contradict the guidelines on separations set by some provinces, including Quebec.

We know that, by order in council, the government could decide not to authorize-

Mrs. Clancy: In separation cases.

Mrs. Gagnon: Yes, in the guidelines.

I would like the hon. member to tell us why the government in such cases does not allow the provinces to set the appropriate guidelines. This is a another telling example of non-decentralization. A Liberal member said centralizing federalism is like an irresistible urge.

I would ask the hon. member to tell us how, through an order in council, the federal government can, in some cases, choose to ignore provincial guidelines. This goes to show, once again, how inefficient the government is. There is no willingness to decentralize and let the provinces deal with their own areas of jurisdiction. How is it that the hon. member does not see this negative side of the bill?

I acknowledge that the government has come up with some good provisions to improve the standard of living for children and women. I think we agree on that, but I disagree again on the guidelines issue, because the government will not let the provincial governments set their own guidelines. It is a bit like having a court make one decision about a divorce case in one room and, thirty minutes later, on a separation case this time, make a completely different decision, because the federal government does one thing and the provinces another.

The provinces should be able to set their own guidelines. I am worried that we might be granting something not within our giving, as members of this House.

[English]

Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Quebec for her intervention and for her comments. In this particular case I really do not want to sound patronizing. Let me begin by making an obvious statement. I am not familiar with the specific laws within the province of Quebec to which she refers. I am however very familiar with the juxtaposition, if you will, of federal and provincial law in this area.

The fact is it relates to some degree to what I said in my closing remarks about jurisdiction and this may have been the translation because I was listening to the translation. The translator used the word allow. The hon. member, although not a lawyer, knows it is not a question of the federal government allowing the provincial government. These are clearly defined areas of jurisdiction, one within the provincial area and one within the federal area.

The Divorce Act is within the federal jurisdiction and is really the only area per se whereby the federal government gets involved in the legal ramifications of marriage breakdown. There are other areas in which marriages are terminated not by divorce which are provincial.

I can only again say to the hon. member it is not at all a question of decentralization. Indeed I remember some years ago at a constitutional conference with federal and provincial members, including at the time the late Premier Lévesque, who was willing to agree to throw all family law to the provinces. This engendered a huge and negative reaction from bar societies and lawyers right across the country, including lawyers from the province of Quebec, some of whom may even be members of the Bloc or the PQ.

(1150 )

To be quite serious, the guidelines, and as I said, I am not familiar with the Quebec guidelines per se but I imagine they cannot be all that different from what may not be solid guidelines in other provinces, but the traditions, those habits or areas that define mediation and pretrial settlements in divorce and marriage breakdown. Most judges in Quebec and in the other provinces of Canada attempt to get as best a handle on the matter and they also attempt-and this is the phrase I brought up before-to consider the best interests of the child.

I do not think there is anything in the federal guidelines that will unduly hamper anything in the provincial guidelines. The federal guidelines are good guidelines. They reflect, in my estimation and in my knowledge of what is happening in other provinces, much the same ideas, much the same theories, much the same goals and aims.

If there is something under the civil code in Quebec that is utterly at war with the guidelines at the federal level, I would personally be very surprised and I would imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would be interested in knowing what those were and perhaps looking at them. But it is most unlikely that these would in actuality conflict.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in her presentation the hon. member referred to the best interests of the child and the fact that this legislation in her opinion would fulfil the best interests or look out for the concerns of the child.

The most important thing a child can have is two loving parents. Could she comment on the fact that this legislation does nothing to deal with the access of the non-custodial parent? Could this be a huge gap in the legislation?

The Divorce Act is rarely opened. It should be dealt with in a much more thorough way than this. Could the hon. member comment?

Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have been asked this question. I know my hon. friend asks it in the best of faith and I will answer very seriously.

Of course the optimum, the ideal for a child is to have two loving parents. I look at my own experience. The first seven years of my life were as idyllic as any child could have, and then my father died. It was a tragedy no one could have foreseen. My mother carried on in an admirable way. I was very lucky and grew up in a

very loving home. The wonderful creature you see before you is a product of that.

One of the things my mother used to say to me at times when the loss of my father became a great burden was: ``You know Mary, there are many worse things that could happen to you than having your father die''. That is very true. I think the hon. member knows that as well.

It would be wonderful if we could legislate two loving parents for every child. It would be possibly the greatest thing we could do, but we know we cannot do that. We know there are parents who neglect their children; there are parents who abuse their children; there are parents who behave in the most ghastly and horrible ways to their children, betraying the love and the trust in ways that make legislators like us, all Canadians and all people of goodwill on this earth cry out for justice.

(1155 )

I said earlier in my comments that there are things legislators can do and there are things we cannot do. We cannot legislate two loving parents for every child. We can only attempt to make the situation as good as possible.

To get to the technical question of access, it is in the Divorce Act. I am not sure what the hon. member wants to do with it. If he is referring to those who have standing to apply for access, that is another question, but access is dealt with in the Divorce Act. If he is referring to the private members' bill of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, I already said that I support her spirit and the intent. I do not happen to support the particular mode she took to implement it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41, which is before us, is a good illustration of the fact that policies do not necessarily respond to people's demands as quickly as one could wish.

Bill C-41 is intended to solve a problem known to many a single-parent family. Members know that, in most cases, women-in perhaps as much as 99 per cent of the cases-and ultimately children-in every single case-have to live with it. There has been a lot of unfairness.

Women's and community groups as well as many individual men and women have long been asking first the Conservative government, and then the Liberal government since 1993, to amend support legislation. There was clearly a consensus although some non-custodial fathers, naturally, viewed this unfavourably. But as the objective was to improve the children's lot, I think everybody recognized that there was a problem.

It took a legendary court case to bring the government to really do something. It took a courageous woman to confront the government on this important issue. I am referring to the Thibaudeau case, which is known to everybody.

Mrs. Thibaudeau had the support of a lot of people, including, although I do not want to brag, the support of the official opposition from the very beginning. A Liberal member said earlier that his party had supported from the beginning the amendments proposed in Bill C-41 but, from the moment we became the official opposition, we were the ones who, clearly, asked the government questions on this particular issue.

Members will recall how often, in the House, the Bloc member for Québec asked the justice minister to introduce legislation to split the cost of raising children between both parents. Or the hon. member for Temiscamingue who said this in May 1995: ``Thus, it is imperative that the government act right now to answer women's expectations''.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Québec, among others, for her persistence and perseverance in this difficult matter. In spite of all the different preconceptions and factors to be taken into account, she did an excellent job. This is why the opposition parties joined forces to have the rules changed.

I would also like to thank the member for Témiscamingue, who was our critic for National Revenue at the time. He explained very clearly the financial implications. Because of his explanations, all the members of the Bloc agreed on this issue.

However, almost a year late, the government and the minister have at last introduced the reform the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for for so long.

In the 1996 Budget, for the first time, the federal government finally unveiled the new child support payments system. As members will recall, there were four sections. The first established that child support payments will no longer be deductible for the custodial parent, but for the non-custodial parent. Second, the maximum working income supplement included in the federal tax benefits for children will be doubled. Third, guidelines will be drawn up for calculating support payments. Fourth, new measures enhancing the enforcement of child support will also be announced.

(1200)

If Bill C-41, which amends the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, some provisions of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act as well as other related acts, is adopted, it will implement two of the four elements I mentioned earlier. I will cover these elements in greater detail later.

According to the bill before us, the Divorce Act will be amended to create a framework for the use of the child support payment determination guidelines. Such guidelines would replace the discretionary power of the courts and would be adopted through regulations.

The other aspect changed by Bill C-41 concerns enforcement. Specifically, the bill would amend the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to add Revenue Canada to the list of federal departments whose data banks could be searched to find individuals who have been delinquent in paying child or spousal support.

The changes create a new mechanism to deny certain licences or benefits to individuals who regularly neglect to pay support. The rest of the new legislation will be put in place through a budget implementation act which will probably be introduced in the fall.

When we examine those two aspects of Bill C-41, we realize that the first one, that is to say the guidelines, is the most important. I have heard all kinds of things in this House, and it is worth taking a few minutes to talk about the guidelines and to explain to members who might not know what is going on in other provinces regarding these guidelines, because the province of Quebec does have such guidelines.

Bill C-41 will establish guidelines that will prevail even though some provinces have already adopted their own guidelines. To respond more specifically to the member for Halifax, who said she did not know what the guidelines were in Quebec, I think it is worth taking a few minutes to examine these provincial guidelines as well as the federal ones.

Here are some details about the criteria used to establish the guidelines. I invite the members opposite to listen very carefully, especially the member for Halifax. She must listen to understand what is going on.

The Quebec model is based on the actual cost of the child. An estimation is made of what the child needs. It could not be more accurate. However, the federal model is based on a partial equalization of living standards. According to that model, a five-year old child generally needs so much. But one child may need more than another child depending on his or her family's standard of living. Therefore, we can see right from the first criterion that it is not completely true to reality.

A second element concerning the Quebec model is that it is based on the ability to pay of both parents. Is that not perfectly normal? The financial responsibility for the children is shared between both parents on a pro rata basis depending on their resources. Again, it could not be more accurate. How has the federal government, which thinks it knows everything there is to know on the subject, gone about it? The federal model is based on the premise that both parents have the same income. Nothing could be further from reality.

In some cases, both parents do have the same income. It is possible. However, in some fields, women earn 30 per cent less than men. The premise used by the federal government may be based on the ideal situation, but, again, it is not true to reality. According to what my colleague said, even for work of equal value, women earn 30 per cent less than men. Therefore, if you take two engineers, there is a difference right off the bat, so the federal government is wrong on all counts.

(1205)

Third, the Quebec model does not include, either implicitly or explicitly, an amount for the custodial parent. The federal government takes the opposite approach. Its model implicitly includes an amount for the custodial parent.

A fourth element of the Quebec model is harmonization with Quebec income security and taxation programs. Is this the right approach? The federal government does not seem to think so, because its model is not harmonized with Quebec programs.

Another point is that, in Quebec, the proportion of child expenses decreases with income. In the federal approach, child expenses remain constant. Finally, in Quebec, the non-custodial parent receiving income security payments is not required to pay support. Under the federal model, the non-custodial parent receiving income security could be called on to pay support.

I have just provided the member for Halifax, who said she doubted that there were large differences between the Quebec and federal models, with all the proof necessary to show that there indeed are. She can take that to her caucus and try to convince the Minister of Justice that he is on the wrong track in wishing to impose certain federal standards, the same system for all the provinces.

This is yet another example of how in Quebec-because I am an MP from Quebec, not because I am a Quebecer-we do things differently. This is proof again that we are a distinct society. Even in a bill that, all in all, has nothing to do with the Constitution, we see that Quebecers do things differently.

I think this would perhaps have been a good opportunity for the federal government to have a clause specifically recognizing the distinct character of Quebec with regard to the family and giving it full jurisdiction in this area. It was time to do so. The Prime Minister of Canada boasts that he recognizes the distinct character of Quebec. It was time to prove it in a bill that, in my view, is extremely important for the family, which is, after all, at the very basis of Quebec society.

That being said, although the Bloc Quebecois initially applauded the minister's reform concerning guidelines to determine the amount of support payments, we voiced several reservations with respect to the implementation of these federal guidelines in the province.

Upon reading Bill C-41 and after comparing the Quebec model and the federal model concerning these guidelines, it is clear our fears have been confirmed, since thanks to Bill C-41, we will have two entirely different systems.

I think the points I just made for the benefit of the hon. member for Halifax could be used by other Liberal members to contend with the demon of centralization, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said so eloquently. I think they have enough facts to prevent the minister's demon of centralization from becoming active and to backtrack, face the facts and decentralize as we hope they will.

The first part of Bill C-41 deals with quite a few items, and I will run through them very quickly. What I am going to say is very legalistic but I think we should spend some time on these items, considering that legislators must mean what they say. This is a rule of law that has been cited quite often. I think that when Parliament adopts a bill of this kind, the meaning of every word is extremely important.

(1210)

If a provincial government decides to set certain guidelines for its province, such guidelines will take precedence over the federal guidelines, provided the governor in council designates, by order, the provincial guidelines as the applicable guidelines. Here I am referring to subclause 1(4) which reads as follows:

The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition ``applicable guidelines'' in subsection (1)-

If the province takes the initiative, if a province bothers to establish guidelines in an area as important as this one, I think the governor in council has no choice and shall, by order, designate that province as the province whose guidelines will apply.

According to the bill, provinces must therefore meet the criteria set out by the federal government in clause 26.1 if their guidelines are to be accepted as applicable. Thus, the federal government reserves absolute discretionary power to accept, or not to accept, the order according to sub-section (4).

Once again, we can see the usual federal paternalism at work here, always wanting to have power over provincial governments' social policies. Every time, the federal Big Brother places the provinces in a situation of guardianship, insisting on imposing its views on the provinces, without any concern for adapting to specific situations in various regions of Canada.

As well, rejection of a province's guidelines would lead to the absurd situation of having the provincial payment grid apply when the parents separate, while the federal one would kick in when they divorce, since the federal level has precedence in matters of divorce.

We would see people legislation shopping with the blessings of the Minister of Justice in Ottawa. If we adopt the bill as it stands, it will enable lawyers and those involved in a family case to ask: which is better for me, separation or divorce? The only consideration I have is the following-even though I am a man myself, I think I can say that men often see certain things from the financial point of view, which may not be the case of women caught in a very emotional situation and the lawyers will be involved in this. If the lawyer is on the ball at all, and can influence or try to influence his client, and he or she succeeds in influencing the opposing lawyer-who may well be a woman, as women often choose other women to represent them, which is their choice and there is nothing wrong with that-well then, after negotiation, after the lawyers sort out the various points that may influence their choice, the client may opt for divorce rather than separation, because the federal guidelines are perhaps less generous than the provincial.

We will really start to see legislation shopping, and I believe that, if there is one area in which that must be prevented, it is in family law, for the objective is, as I have stated at the start of my speech, the protection and welfare of the children involved.

Finally, the federal government uses the place of residence of the debtor, the person paying the support, to determine which guidelines are applicable. I have another difference for the hon. member for Halifax: the Quebec government considers the child's residence, a criterion that is much more consistent with the principles outlined in several court orders that the child's interest must prevail over everything else.

The rules applied by one province may be much more in line with the child's situation than those of the debtor province. This goes without saying. Does the Minister of Justice not think that all children have the same value, whatever their parents' status may be, whether it is a separation or a divorce case?

(1215)

I do not know what the minister's answer is, but I can tell you right now that, in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, whatever their parents' status is, all children have the same value, and we should ensure that child support payments are as generous as possible so that the children are as comfortable as possible in this rather difficult situation.

Let me give you another example. According to the current federal and provincial regulations, if the amounts set by federal regulations are lower, after everything is taken into account, Quebecers would pay less in child support if they lived in Ontario. What is preventing Quebecers paying child support who are starting to feel the heat from moving to Ontario, thus reducing their

payments under section 1(3)(a)? What is preventing someone like that from moving to avoid his financial obligations or to pay as little as possible? Nothing. Even if we look at the minister's notes, the draft guidelines clearly allow this way of getting around one's financial obligations.

This lack of uniformity between provinces, combined with the number of courts issuing child support orders, the many overlapping federal and provincial laws, and the regional disparities in the cost of living, results in financial instability for separated and divorced families. We will not reach our goal unless we make the necessary amendments to this bill.

Obviously, it would make much more sense to let each province choose the model for determining support payments that suits its needs and let each decide terms of implementing the rules governing their determination in keeping with provincial social security, tax and family policy.

The area of the family is not something that can be pulled out of a hat and dealt with like that. It is more intricate. The area of the family is an extremely important area, and with the examples I gave, with the Quebec model, the federal model, I am sure that the House of Commons has understood that the province-Quebec in the example I gave, but I am sure that other provinces also have terms already established-is closer to the people, knows about such family-related problems as income and allowances of all sorts. The provincial government is in a better position to recognize family needs. The federal government should therefore withdraw from this area and give full jurisdiction to the provinces.

Since you are signalling to me that my time is running out, I will say briefly that the opposition supports the second part of Bill C-41.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question for the member. The issue of the family has come up often in the debate. It is an issue that interests me a great deal in the work I do in this place.

Members know very well that when the family is strong, good things happen. We are talking about legislation that deals with the situation when the family breaks down.

The Thibaudeau case has been raised. The member knows that the change vis-à-vis the Thibaudeau case actually put parents who separate on the same footing as families have always been. The change represents fairness and equity. I am glad the member and all speakers always begin their comments with the statement that the child's interests should come first. I heartily agree.

(1220)

My question has to do with scheduling. The member, in making the statement that the child's interests should come first, commented on the situation in Quebec where the schedules are not based on both parents being deemed equal. A formula is used to determine the amount to be paid. He describes the federal proposal for scheduling as somehow showing both parents are equal.

If the member would look at it carefully he would find that the chart treats the determination of benefits payable with regard to child support on the basis of what the needs of the child are and meets the criteria which he himself lined up.

Could the member please explain how the Quebec schedule provides a different or a better approach to support benefits?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but when I read Bill C-41 and the draft guidelines on child support, prepared in June 1996 by the Department of Justice, I am forced to conclude that, unfortunately, I am right. Having to say this in the House is no fun, but I am right.

The federal model is based on the assumption that both parents have the same income. It is of course not always the case. Why presume that both parents have the same income? The judges dealing with divorce proceedings will base their decision on this assumption. If these guidelines are passed as they stand, judges will have no discretion to decide whether the children are entitled to support and, if so, to determine the amount of such support.

I mentioned that, in Quebec, the National Assembly is about to pass guidelines that will be based on the ability to pay of both parents. If one parent earns $200,000 while the other one has never worked, or earns only $25,000 or $30,000 a year, a judge should not rule that the children will receive X dollars in support and that each parent will contribute half of the amount. It goes without saying that the father who earns $200,000 will have to pay more than the mother who earns $20,000 or $25,000 per year.

I wish I were wrong. Perhaps the hon. member is aware of some discussions within the Liberal caucus that lead him to believe that the minister will make some changes to the guidelines, and that he will lean toward the Quebec approach rather than the one he is currently advocating. In the meantime, when I read Bill C-41 and the draft guidelines of the justice minister, I come to the conclusion that the federal model is unfortunately disconnected from reality.

[English]

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the House on the second reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act. My comments will outline the key elements of the federal government's child support strategy encompassed by the amendments to these acts.

(1225)

At the heart of these reforms is the principle that children should be a prime consideration in the unhappy circumstances of marriage breakdown. Child support is the first obligation of parents and it also of prime importance to us as legislators in the House, at least on this side of the House. The approach and changes announced in May are designed so that Canadian children will definitely benefit.

The government is changing the way child support payments are taxed. I am pleased to see the government fulfil its commitment to do this.

It was in 1994 in the House that I put forward a motion which read:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income Tax Act so that the child support payments are no longer considered taxable income for their recipients.

Canada will be moving to a system known as no deduction, no inclusion. The new rules will apply to orders or agreements made on or after May 1, 1997. Child support paid under a court order made before May 1997 will continue to be deductible to the payer and included as taxable income to the recipient until the support payment is varied by the court or the parties agree in writing, or the payer and recipient jointly sign and produce a form with Revenue Canada indicating that the new tax treatment should apply to the face value of their existing support order.

The government is introducing child support guidelines to make child support awards fairer and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents. The guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts and by lawyers, judges and parents to establish appropriate support payments.

The guidelines have three main parts. First, payment schedules are presented in tables like tax tables that show the basic amount of support from a non-custodial parent according to the number of children or the income of the support paying parent.

Custodial parents also contribute a similar share of his or her income to the needs of the children by virtue of the fact that the children will share in the resources of the parent with whom they live because their standards of living are inseparable. As the income of both parents increase or decrease so will their individual contributions to the needs of their children.

Second, the scheduled amounts can be adjusted to recognize individual family circumstances. There are four categories of special expenses that can be added to the scheduled amount, if they are reasonable and necessary, in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents, including child care costs for preschool children and uninsured medical costs.

The guidelines also allow a court to alter the award in the rare circumstance that it would cause undue hardship to either parent or to the child.

Third, the government is enhancing federal and provincial enforcement measures. The enforcement of child support is mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility. The measures the government is proposing complement provincial and territorial enforcement efforts already in place. The government is targeting, in particular, persistent defaulters. Some of the enforcement measures include a national public awareness campaign, a federal licence suspension initiative, more aggressive collection of out of province orders, improved federal tracing services, improved federal pension diversions, improvements to computer systems connecting federal, provincial and territorial enforcement services, and a new federal support enforcement director.

Research will continue into developing new strategies for enforcement of child support debts and into identifying why so many non-custodial parents default.

(1230 )

Fourth, as the purpose of these reforms is to help children, the federal government will reinvest its anticipated revenue gains from the new tax rules in measures to benefit children. The government will fund a doubling of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit from a maximum of $500 per year to $1,000 per year. The working income supplement provides a non-taxable benefit to supplement the employment earnings of families with earnings of at least $3,750 and net incomes below $25,921.

In conclusion, I believe the reforms that I have presented meet the long overdue need for reform in the way Canada ensures support for children following family breakdown. The reforms will put children first. They will put responsibility fairly on the shoulders of the parents and will move Canada's child support system into the nineties.

Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): 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.

(1235 )

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.

(1240 )

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.

(1245)

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.

(1250)

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.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and question to the member. The question is about the access issue.

The member mentioned a couple of themes. She has been very consistent in the House. There is the issue of domestic violence. As the member will know, the latest report of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in 1995 attributed 50 per cent of domestic violence to misuse of alcohol.

Second, the Canada-U.S. forum on women's health that was held in Ottawa in June 1996 also identified a cost associated with domestic violence at $4.2 billion a year. The member is quite right. There are some initiatives that probably are beyond the scope and purview of this legislation in terms of dealing in a preventive way rather than a reactive way to the problem after it is there.

At the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association annual meeting I met a delegation of people. There were men who came who had access orders. They did not have custody. They had a big problem.

I would ask the member whether her experience is that the problem is not with this legislation. The access orders are in place and are fairly granted. It is the enforcement of the access orders that is the real problem, which is under provincial jurisdiction.

Mrs. Hayes: 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.

(1255 )

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.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from here on, official opposition members will be sharing their time.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 now before us. It has two faces: the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River sees it as a panacea, the answer to all ills, while our colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who just spoke, views it as a step backward, not forward.

The reality probably lies somewhere in between. There are some improvements, undoubtedly, but there are also serious shortcomings. It all depends on how you look at the bill.

Members will recall that the first federal Divorce Act only goes back to 1968. For our younger colleagues, 1968 is a generation ago, it is almost another century. For me, it was the year I was still at the court house and I remember the first times this act was applied.

Before 1968, the provinces had jurisdiction in matters of divorce and only two provinces had no divorce legislation: Newfoundland and Quebec. The legislation was made uniform in 1968. The act was amended in 1985 and we are now living with the 1985 Divorce Act, which, as these things go in Canada, took effect from June 1, 1986. There is always a time lag between the passage of legislation and the date it takes effect.

The wish to now set parameters for determining the amount of support payments, is, in my view, a positive feature in the idea of how things should work presented by the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. It would be much simpler to have a judge determine the amount to be awarded for a child's needs than to continue with the method that has been in use since 1968 of producing the well known lists of children's needs.

My hon. friend and colleague, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who is himself a lawyer, has probably on a number of occasions in his career submitted lists of children's needs in court. When the lists submitted by the respondents are compared, you find that they add up to almost 238 per cent of the child's real needs.

The language used in the proceedings is inflammatory, something we must try to get away from. We must reduce the involvement of the courts, and this is one of the positive ways we can achieve this, by setting parameters, developing grids, from which we can undoubtedly deviate in exceptional circumstances, but which will at least serve as basic guides. So much the better if we can keep all or some of these problems from reaching court. It is not the ideal place to resolve them.

(1300)

Those who spoke before me mentioned that the child must be at the center of all decisions made in a divorce. That is a principle on which everyone agrees, except perhaps for those who go before the courts, in many cases, and use the child not as a person to be protected but as a bargaining chip in the divorce if not an instrument of blackmail. One parent says: ``If my support payments were not so high, perhaps I could afford to take the child more often'' or ``I will see her less often in other circumstances'', whatever.

It is dramatic when a little boy or a little girl becomes a bargaining tool in court, when they should be protected. In that sense, it was a good thing to establish payment grids, parameters to determine how much should be paid in support.

It is also an improvement over previous legislation, the act of 1968 and the act of 1985, in that those who must pay support can now be located and forced to pay. Society should not have to pay for those who default on their support payments.

It is great that defaulters can be located and forced to pay, that there will be better access to information that can be searched to identify and locate these individuals or their employers and that, in other cases, instalments will have to be paid in guarantee. I do not think that we can disagree with such improvements over the 1968 and the 1985 legislation.

But these acts all have a basic deficiency. This basic deficiency about the Divorce Act, 1968 and the Divorce Act, 1985 was the fact that divorce become commonplace. As divorce became trivial, so did family policy. Under our Divorce Act, solicitors are only required to inform their clients that a mediation system exists. The parties are under no obligation to submit to any form of conciliation or mediation which, in many cases, would preclude the adversarial process and the adrenaline rush it causes on both sides of the barricade, and this is an appropriate word to describe the situation in this case.

If, like in some American states such as California and Michigan for instance, before divorce procedures can proceed further, appointments with social workers and psychologists were mandatory, I think this would be another step in the right direction.

It is clear that we miss the point every time we amend the Divorce Act without taking onto account the fact that there is, first and foremost, a family reality, a family unit to that needs to be protected, and parents find themselves without options.

Help comes their way after the fact, when it is too late to do any good. People seldom reconcile after battling against one another in court in an adversarial process. Experience shows that the doorstep of the court house is not the place where reconciliation takes place.

For all intents and purposes, the divorce decree does not put an end to the marriage. It merely testifies that the marriage is dead, stating that nothing is working between the spouses. Something should be done at a much earlier stage.

In this regard, we are poorly equipped because-it always come back to this-our famous 1867 Constitution, the British North America Act, divided powers between the federal government and the provinces. Thus, under subsection 91(26) of the British North America Act, marriage and divorce matters come under federal jurisdiction while, under subsection 92(12), the solemnization of

marriage and, under subsection 92(13), property and civil rights all come under provincial jurisdiction.

How can we have a standard policy when we have legislators setting their policies in different places? Quebec has long demanded a standard family policy to be set by a single jurisdiction. And it had done so.

(1305)

Bill 89 passed by the Quebec National Assembly in 1981 even contained divorce provisions, an integrated policy they have never been able to implement because they never got the powers back. The famous 1982 patriation of the Constitution has made it impossible to amend the Canadian Constitution.

Quebec's civil code being one of the criteria for recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, according to the minister, Bill C-110 passed by this House supposedly recognized Quebec as a distinct society and thus it should have recognized Quebec's primacy or its exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce matters whatever the solemnization and background may be. But all these considerations are not mentioned when this bill was introduced, just as they were not mentioned in Bill C-110, which is not worth much more than the paper it is printed on.

This is unfortunate if not regrettable because, under Bill C-41 as it now stands, some provinces will end up with provincial payment grids that will have to be approved by the governor in council, while other provinces will not set their own grids so that the federal grids will rightfully apply. There is no real standard policy. Why should the payment grids now being finalized by Quebec not be recognized?

I simply suggest that the bill should be amended in committee in light of the fact that some provinces already have their own payment grids. In the eyes of the federal legislator, these grids may not be sufficient, but it is not up to the federal legislator to judge what provincial legislators are doing. It is up to the voters in each province.

If the voters in New Brunswick are not happy with what their provincial politicians are doing with regard to family law, they only have to vote for a new government; the same goes for every other province and for us as federal legislators.

Since we are now sharing our time, let me close by saying that we will support Bill C-41 in principle for the reasons listed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Québec and the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. We will work on improving this bill in committee.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there was one comment that perked up my ears with regard to recovering those powers related to divorce. When did Quebec ever have those powers under Confederation?

Second, the hon. member should be telling Quebecers that the Reform Party, if it were the government, could deliver those kinds of things to Quebecers in a looser and more flexible Confederation, and that separation is not the answer for Quebecers to achieve their aspirations in social policy. There are other ways to negotiate, to opt in to a better arrangement.

I wanted to comment on those two points. The hon. member is talking about looking back to another day when Quebec had those powers. When did Quebec in Confederation have those powers of divorce? As an alternative for looking at future social policy the hon. member ought to be telling Quebecers that there is a way besides separation.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the comment made by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, who asked the right question. However the problem goes back to 1867, when it was decided to have a horse with two heads. It was decided then that some powers, such as the solemnization of marriage, would come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while others, such as divorce proceedings, would be federal matters.

Couples living in Canada are subject to specific rules. When things go bad between them, should they have to deal with two different sets of laws? Should they have to deal with different courts? The whole system would be a lot simpler if only one level heard all the issues relating to family law, instead of having judges from various courts intervening in the process.

(1310)

This would be one way of streamlining the process. Even if we take into account the assumptions made by the hon. member and assume that the current federal system will not change and that the issue of sovereignty will be set aside, letting the provinces look after the administration of local justice would still be an improvement.

Who is in a better position than the provinces to implement the policies relating to family law? I submit that this power should be given back to the provinces or, to be more accurate, that it should have been left to the provinces in 1867 and never have become a federal matter.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, often it is posed that if we get back to it, separation is really the answer. If the member is talking about one house dealing with matrimonial matters and family law, we have the opportunity now.

All the provinces have to do is simply establish a unified family court. I have had assurances from the justice minister's department that it is prepared to appoint judges who could fit into a unified situation so that the provinces would have all their appropriate support workers to emphasize mediation under one house. One might call this a one-stop shop where both the provincial powers and the federal jurisdiction of a provincially appointed judge and a judge appointed by the federal government who has inherent jurisdiction could also be in this one building.

That experiment has been going on now for some 20 years in various jurisdictions within Canada. There is real opportunity to make Confederation work and deliver exactly what he is talking about. We do have those situations in Canada. It is only up to the province to just simply assign the money and get on with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, we do not need the delegation of federal powers to the provinces, we do not need the federal government to have its programs administered by the provinces. What we need is a vesting of power. This means that a government gives up a field of jurisdiction to another one, and that such process is enshrined in the Constitution.

There is a major difference between the hon. member's vision, which I respect even though I do not share it, and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to the effect that these powers must be recovered by the provinces.

[English]

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate. My wife and I will be attending a couple of weddings in the next couple of weeks. We attended weddings over the summer, as I am sure many members present and many Canadians watching did. As we are talking about amendments to the Divorce Act, running through everyone's mind are weddings that they have recently attended or perhaps a wedding of their children or of a niece or a nephew. Many of us at our stage in life are going through this. It seems they come in batches.

I was struck by the fact that maybe we are closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped. Perhaps we should be discussing a new marriage act. Perhaps, as many of us have said to others or to ourselves in admonition, it should be a whole heck of a lot harder to get married. Perhaps we are putting our emphasis in the wrong place.

As we look at our society, as other speakers before me have very rightly pointed out, the foundation of our society is built around family. If we look at families or at particular societies such as religious or ethnic societies which place a very strong value on family, on commitment and on the responsibility to comes from that, we find that the divorce rate is substantially lower than it is among the general population.

(1315 )

I am not standing before the House and Canadians pontificating from a holier than thou perspective. I stand here as a person with considerable experience in these matters, having been twice divorced. My mother was divorced. Carrying on a long line of family history, my grandmother was divorced in 1932 in Alberta. That was not a small feat in those days.

I have said many times than it is better to be from a broken home than in one. However, I do not in any way diminish or denigrate the importance of family and how much better it is for children to be raised within a strong and supportive family. There is nothing more important in a child's life. Having said that, we know statistically a good percentage, perhaps even a majority, of marriages are going to end unhappily in divorce. The product of that unhappy circumstance will be children who will suffer in varying degrees from the effects of the divorce. Some children, depending on the maturity, wisdom and good faith of their parents, will suffer significantly less and, in fact, may benefit.

From time to time as members of Parliament we deal with constituents who come to us because there is nowhere else to go. Many of these people are single parents who are struggling to support a family. Some are non-custodial parents who feel grievously wronged because although they have lived up to every aspect of their agreement, they find themselves not able to be with their children. This legislation does not address that. In my opinion, that is a grievous error.

When we delve into the reasons for which families break up or why we have such acrimony over visitation, very often that is driven by retribution. Very often it is the chicken or the egg. If the non-custodial parent pays support regularly, he or she will get visitation rights regularly. In my experience, the amount of money that is awarded to the custodial parent is perhaps not as important as the consistency of receiving that money. It is important, but it is not nearly as important as the custodial parent being able to depend religiously on receiving that money every month.

That brings me to my perspective on this particular debate. I come to this perspective from the position of having paid maintenance payments virtually all of my adult life. There has not been a month that I have not made maintenance payments for as long as I can remember. Having made those payments, I was able to subtract from my income, which was generally speaking higher than my ex-spouse's income, the amount that I paid in support and my ex-wife paid the tax on it. This created a fairly big problem for her at the end of the year. She did not pay tax on it when she received it and the net result was that at the end of the year she had a tax bill she had to pay.

(1320)

I discussed the matter with her and asked what she thought was the best way to handle it. Should it be taxable for her, should it be taxable for me or should we split it in the middle? We decided the best way to do it was to arrive at whatever the payment was going to be and I would pay tax on half and she would pay tax on half.

That is not what is going to happen with this bill. The non-custodial parent will be paying the tax and the receiving parent will not be paying the tax. It will not affect maintenance agreements that are already in effect. I am sure that the courts will take into account who will be paying the tax when they make their judgments.

This legislation envisions a grid. The grid is a schedule of the amount of maintenance payments per child that will be paid to the custodial parent, usually the wife, based on the income of the non-custodial parent or generally speaking the husband. That is not necessarily a bad idea. However, it does not allow for judicial discretion. In my experience, very often family break-ups come as a direct result of financial pressures. When the family breaks up there is not a whole lot of money to go around anyway. Very often the father pays support to a family where the custodial parent, the wife, has remarried and has a standard of living far beyond anything that the ex-husband has.

These things are not black and white. We tend to make these laws based on our experience with the extremes. Very often the extremes are horrid. The fact is that if a husband is not going to make support payments, no amount of legislation in the world is going to force him to do it. He has to do it because he accepts the responsibility and it is the right thing to do.

I guess this is where our society has kind of become unglued. When a couple makes the decision to get a divorce, when did it become their right to absolve themselves of the responsibilities that were incurred in the marriage and they brought children into the world? When, because I decided to be divorced, did it become someone else's responsibility to be financially responsible for my children? If I am divorced, for whatever reason, and I cannot afford to look after the financial responsibilities that I incurred of my own free will in my first marriage, it does not give me the right to take on new responsibilities in a subsequent marriage and then claim poverty and say: ``I can't afford to look after my first responsibilities because I have taken on a second batch of responsibilities''.

When we make decisions we have to be big enough to accept the responsibilities that come with those decisions. We are not saying not to do it but are saying: ``Having made the decision, for goodness sake, be big enough to live up to the responsibilities that you have''.

I would suggest that because the receiving spouse is depending on the maintenance payments, it is entirely appropriate that the government, representing all of the people, take whatever steps are prudent to enforce maintenance payments. We understand that maintenance payments are legislated federally and are enforced provincially. It has to be done with a foundation of fairness. If someone is going to have his or her wages garnisheed, certainly notice should be given. I do not know about other folks, but as an employer when I saw a garnishee notice coming for anyone who worked for me, it raised an eyebrow.

(1325)

What happens if the person who is on the receiving end of the garnishee is living up to the obligations but is involved in some sort of a messy dispute?

Not all lawyers get up in the morning and ask, ``how can we do the right thing?'' It is possible that some of them do not have a clue because they did not do their homework. Some of them might decide they are going to make life miserable for someone and do not use due diligence before they issue a garnishee notice. The notion of being able to garnishee without notice is wrong.

Similarly, I have real difficulty with the ability to go back into tax records subsequent to a divorce. In my view the only reason for this could be in order to try to have the amount of maintenance payment increased.

When people decide to divorce, it seems to me that should be that. Each spouse should know the income of both spouses to determine what fair support should be. After that has been concluded, why should either party have the right to open the closed files five years down the road? It does not make sense to me.

Some of the criticisms of this bill, both constructive and positive and negative criticism, are that it takes the judicial discretion out of the awarding of payments. It does not necessarily consider the ability of the non-custodial parent to make the payments that have been determined, nor does it take into consideration the financial circumstances of the custodial parent.

Although the vast majority of divorces end with the female being the custodial parent, it is possible that the husband is the injured party in the case. It is possible that the female who ends up with custody is also the one who initiates the divorce. There are circumstances where in such situations the female goes from one marriage almost directly into another. I know of some that have resulted in the wives not having any negative financial consequences whatsoever. However, the ex-husband has been out of house, home and hearth in order to support the new marriage.

I am really nervous about setting arbitrary rules that do not allow for judicial discretion. That is why we have divorces that go before judges.

Another concern about the guidelines is this. Are they to be a ceiling or a floor? What about the situation where a parent is capable of paying a lot more?

(1330)

Third is the notion of reopening cases which have already been closed.

In 1977 Betty Jane Wylie, author of Beginnings: a book for widows, wrote that in the dim dark dark days before antiseptics women often died in childbirth and it was not uncommon for a man to outlive two or three wives. A man can still have two or three wives today but it is because of a thing called divorce. It is a lot more messy and a lot more expensive. There is absolutely no question it is far more expensive to get a divorce than it is to tough it out.

I will conclude my comments in the debate with the notion that it is perhaps much more important for us as a society to put our emphasis on the marriage and making it more difficult to get married rather than making it easier to get a divorce. Sometimes, and I speak from personal experience, the tougher thing to do is to work through the problems and tough it out. Therefore, the notion of a unified family court, the notion of arbitration and mediation and a proactive effort would be a very worthwhile exercise for Parliament to consider.

As the great Canadian Charlie Farquharson said, statistically two out of five marriages end in divorce; the rest of us stick it out until the bitter end. Therein might be a pearl of wisdom all of us might learn from. As we discuss the ramifications of divorce and family law on children, there is absolutely no question that those Canadians who are able to tough it out to the bitter end are probably going to find that what they have done for their family will pay great rewards in the long run.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member referred to a joke which with all due respect I do not share. Toughing out a marriage unfortunately is an attitude which has become far too prevalent in our society. The member well knows that when a couple splits up one thing is true, and that is that a second residence will be necessary. In the absence of any changes, the income levels of those two people, in terms of their accumulated revenues and the costs going out, are going to deteriorate. In fact, as a result of divorce many families live in poverty.

My question has to do with squaring the member's statement. I thought I detected some contradiction in his statements. He described his own unfortunate circumstance and I am sorry to hear that he has been divorced twice, but he said that we have to be big enough to accept our responsibilities and tough it out. I did not hear the member comment on the impact on the children and whether or not there were circumstances where even if the relationship had deteriorated that it was important enough, especially during the early years of a child's life, that the member should have been big enough to live up to his responsibilities which he undertook in his marriage vows.

(1335 )

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it is a very fair statement. When I made the comment about living up to responsibilities, I was talking about living up to the financial responsibilities. It is absolutely essential that once we have accepted our responsibility for making maintenance payments for our children, it is our responsibility.

The member opposite did not point out that I said often it is better for a child to be from a broken home than in one. That is exactly the case. I do not think there is any question there are families that are able to stick through it. Obviously, had I been able to for whatever reason, but because I did not do it does not make it right.

Statistically, the point I made was that when we look at the consequences of divorce, when we look at the consequences of family breakdown and single parenting as a direct consequence of divorce, it is fairly evident that families that do not suffer the consequences of that, for whatever reason whether it is alcohol or some other reason, are probably going to stand a better chance than families that do. It is self-evident.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the candidness with which the member for Edmonton Southwest expressed his comments. It is an issue most of us will deal with. I too would like to reflect a little on a personal note. A very personal friend of mine and his spouse are going through the trials and tribulations of a possible breakdown.

Given what the member has said in terms of suggesting that this bill might expedite the possibility of bringing about divorce or not providing an adequate remedy, I seem to get the impression at least from my constituents and many others who solicit all members of this House of Commons that the judicial system tends to lean more toward the interests of the female custodial parent as opposed to the male custodial parent.

Could the member clarify for me and for this House what his real objections are? There seems to be a contradiction in his statement in terms of suggesting that the legislation would not allow the judicial process.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, this legislation and the application of a grid for suggested payment guidelines was, as I said earlier in the budget debate, a fairly responsible and good step. The reason is that it sets out an amount whereby the custodial parent can expect to receive approximately that amount for each child.

Where I said that in my opinion it was perhaps weak was that we still must have judicial discretion. This has to be part of any payment that is made. It is very likely that while judicial discretion

is allowed in the bill, in other jurisdictions where a grid is in place, the grid has taken precedence over judicial discretion.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As a man, I felt it was my duty to do so, because anything to do with child support is wrongly seen as being a subject that is primarily of interest to women.

(1340)

This is based on the fact that, in reality, unfortunately, it is women who, as things now stand, more often find themselves responsible for families after a divorce.

I can understand the Reform Party member for Edmonton Southwest, who is one of the more moderate members of his party in many respects, including social issues. Nonetheless, I am not happy to hear him say that it would be better to tough it out than to get divorced. Toughing it out means, in certain cases, for many women and children, and perhaps for men too, putting up with intolerable suffering.

There is one statistic we cannot ignore. In 1990, in Canada, there were 78,152 divorces, and there are undoubtedly more now. Naturally, these divorces involve men and women, so if we multiply this number by two, we see that they affect 150,000 men and women. Furthermore, if we presume an average of two or more children per family, we are looking at 300,000 children affected by these divorces in Canada, and that is just for that particular year. It is not cumulative. Therefore, there were so many instances of divorce that affected 300,000 people in 1990, and probably 300,000 people and up were affected in 1991, and the numbers continue to rise.

We also know that an overwhelming majority, 98 per cent in 1988, of those receiving child support payments were women. The percentage is lower today, but it is still very high. That is why I say that I, as a man, and the men that I represent, should also be concerned about the situation. We can, however, have different points of view, depending on the party line and depending on the objectives of the various parties concerned.

I am a former member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and a current member of the Standing Committee on Health, together with the hon. member for Mississauga-South. We both know how important the first years of life are and how economic and social conditions may have a subsequent effect on health and also create problems, I was going to say with respect to delinquency, but also for a person's social and individual development.

Ideally, and I am sure we all agree, everyone would have a father and mother who stay with their children until they reach the age of majority or even beyond that and who pay for their education. That is the ideal situation we would all wish for.

However, there is one factor we cannot ignore and I am referring to those 78,152 divorces that occurred in 1990. This does not include people living common law, who separate without first having been married and who have children. That is why when last year I saw the Minister of Justice table his plan, and we even saw a glimmer of hope in the last federal budget, something that had changed following the Thibodeau judgment. Basically, the well-known debate on deduction of support payments was no longer about considering one parent or the other, but about what was best for the children.

Twenty per cent of the children in this country live below the poverty line, and the vast majority are in single parent families.

(1345)

We can say quite confidently that most of the time, in 80 per cent of the cases, these families are headed by women. That is a fact. I must say I am particularly sensitive to the situation of these mothers. In the final instance, children will suffer if we do not deal with the problem in the best possible way. And they will suffer for a long time.

If the economic situation gets worse, with all the psychological and other stress this entails, and this goes on for a number of years, the impact on the children can be catastrophic. Sometimes I hear members of this House, especially members of the Reform Party, say that the rate of juvenile delinquency is terrible, the crime rate is terrible and what is happening in our society is terrible. People often say they do not feel safe any more. I am willing to believe that, but we must try and understand how this happens.

Certain megastudies, which take into account the results of every possible analysis have discovered that these problems are often due to socio-economic problems that affect children when they are young and are not even aware of what is going on in the world. Stress is not always transmitted in an explicit and verbal way. It may be expressed through family tension, bickering, the tension that may exist between spouses, whether they are living together or not.

When spouses take legal action against each other, that affects the children. I am not saying this is so in all cases because some couples divorce amicably. Some men meet their responsibilities properly.

We are not accusing those who are acting properly. But there is one social fact the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest ought to understand: regrettably, a good proportion of people do not meet their responsibilities toward their children properly, and most of these are fathers. Sometimes they may feel that since they did not obtain custody, or joint custody, they are justified in making their ex-wives suffer without realizing that the ones suffering the most are their children. And that is intolerable.

I do not want to sound too critical. Let me take a different approach, since I feel that it is important for this debate to be held. It is important for we men to shoulder our responsibility, just as women responsible for single-parent families must. We must be aware that single parents need our help, be they women or men.

Recently, I attended a function of a single parent association in my riding. It was celebrating its 15th anniversary. There was a time when no men were seen in such associations, but I could see that now there are. Men are also heads of single parent households, and they find that incredibly difficult, as indeed it is.

I do not want to get into details of the private lives of the people here in this House, but I am sure that some here are single parents. Their duties here demand a lot of their time, and they may not have as much time as they would like to devote to their children, who may well have complaints about this.

I know that similar discussions go on in other professions, where there are also heavy responsibilities, where much is demanded of single parents, not just financially, but the financial aspect is a very important one, and ends up being intolerable. As I have already said, 20 per cent of the children in Canada, a country said to have one of the best standards of living in the world, 20 per cent of Canadian or Quebec children, are living below the poverty line.

(1350)

Among the leading causes of this poverty is the situation of single-parent families and people not fulfilling their responsibilities properly.

While agreeing with the objective pursued by the minister and finding relatively few faults with his bill, I cannot help but notice that the bill shifts away from the strategy announced last spring. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, were afraid there would be discrepancies in the bill or that some of the provisions might be harmful.

Speaking as a former member of the human resources committee, I also notice through all this, good intentions and all, the excessively paternalistic attitude of the federal government in this area. I am also speaking as a Quebecer. Since last year, we have had in Quebec a scheme providing for all the conditions regarding support payments, including provision for support payments to be automatically be collected from spouses who are in default. It is complicated. It is all new and already there are growing pains. The scheme is still in its infancy.

The strange thing is-I can hear you from here, saying: ``Here goes the Bloc, the official opposition, again with their line'', but spouses who do not fulfil their obligations are in fact not honouring their marriage contract or commitments. And in wanting to interfere in this area, the federal government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Let me elaborate.

Marriage comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while divorce is a federal matter. There are also those who are not married. When they separate, it is not a divorce. These people form a different group and they are not in any way subject to this bill, which only deals with the issue of divorce. However, the fact is that, in Canada and in Quebec, more and more people are involved in common-law relationships.

Again, the paradox with the current federal system is that people get married under the laws of the province but divorce under federal laws. This is somewhat odd, but such is the situation right now.

In this area, the federal government displays a committed, pervasive and embarrassing paternalistic attitude, as it does in the education and health sectors. In this area, as in the other two which I just mentioned, the federal government introduces guidelines in a bill, presents the whole package to the provinces and tells them: ``Sure, you can get involved in this, but provided you do this, that and the other thing. If you do not accept our guidelines, then we are sorry but the federal system will prevail as regards the issue of divorce, because it comes under federal jurisdiction''.

This creates a strange situation. For example, if a married couple with two children divorces, the federal legislation will prevail. However, the same situation involving common-law spouses whose children have the same financial needs will be dealt with under provincial law.

Given all the differences in treatment that can take place, I ask you: Is this a fair and balanced situation that will promote consistent social development? This is one of the flaws of the federal system. We have no choice but to say it again: the federal government, the federal ``big brother'' feels compelled to get involved, with its not so subtle approach, in issues that come under provincial jurisdiction.

(1355)

When one province does not agree, it is punished, it is not entitled to the benefits of the federal system, or, when there are no benefits, the federal government carries the day.

That, therefore, is the opposition's opinion of this bill. I hope that debate goes well. It is possible that the Liberal government, which has the majority, will decide not to make any concessions or compromises, but that would not be conducive to harmony. At the outset, I hope that government representatives agree to the compromises that will be proposed by official opposition members, who are trying to make a constructive contribution, because these are situations affecting human beings, individuals on whom the decisions made will have important social repercussions, particularly for children, and therefore for everyone's future.

I know that the member for Mississauga South is a sensitive man. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health. As I know the influence he has over his colleagues, I challenge him to try to convince them to think about the health of children, given that we want to see more harmonious relations between men and women who have responsibilities with respect to children, and, although there has been a softening of their position, to convince them to be receptive to the compromises we are proposing.

The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we may have time for a 30-second question and a one-minute answer.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment and a question. The comment has to do with common law relationships. The member commented about how prevalent this is in our society.

The member might be interested in studying some research about the incidence of family violence in families and those living common law. I think he will find that the incidence of family violence is more prevalent in common law relationships.

My question has to do with prevention versus dealing with the problems after they happen. The member says Quebec has a good system in that it garnishees or takes away the payments so that orders can be enforced. The member spent all this time talking about how to deal with the problem after the problem exists.

I want to ask the member whether he does not think that a system like the one they have in some of the states in the United States, where couples with problems are required to take a 12-week program as a reality check before contemplating divorce, should occur before divorces are granted in Quebec or Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am not very familiar with the American system the hon. member is referring to. Frankly, when I do not know a subject very well, I do not usually talk about it because I am not convincing. And when I am not convinced myself, I am even less convincing.

Having said that, I have not closed my mind to this idea. We will consider it together. The hon. member for Québec sitting in front of me is our critic on the status of women. If this is a good idea, she will surely give us some advice after thoroughly reviewing the issue. So we will have to wait for that.

One last thing. I do not know what it is like elsewhere, but in Quebec, for example, CLSCs, local community health centres, or private organizations provide services to attempt reconciliation before a couple separates; they try to help the spouses patch things up while looking after the children's best interest. There is a long tradition associated with this. Things do not always go smoothly because there are unfortunately cases of extreme violence in which people even manage to kill their former spouses, which is deplorable.

Finally, Reformers often talk about criminals on the streets, dangerous offenders who make people feel unsafe, but 85 per cent of crimes are committed by people who are oftentimes very close, like family members, and who are often former spouses. The hon. member talks about prevention. I pay close attention to this and I will support any measure he may propose when-

The Speaker: We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

_____________________________________________