GOVERNMENT ORDERS

THE DIVORCE ACT

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we considering the motion put forward by the Reform Party, Motion No. 13, from Group No. 3?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Yes, the hon. member is right.

Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the motion put forward by my Reform colleagues. We cannot support this motion from the Reform member. Why? Because it provides for the Minister of Justice to lay before the House of Commons each proposed guideline and to refer it to a standing committee of the House.

If the amendment were only to apply to the federal guidelines, it might be interesting, since hon. members would then have an opportunity to take part in this review. However, we find the amendment unacceptable because it says ``each proposed guideline'', and that would include all provincial guidelines.

If we are to be consistent with the amendments we brought forward this morning, then we cannot support this motion. Pursuant to clause 1(3) of the bill, once the federal government has recognized the guidelines set by a province, these provincial guidelines are what is referred to as the applicable guidelines in the bill. The provincial guidelines replace the federal ones. We cannot let the guidelines set by Quebec, for instance, be reviewed and/or amended by a standing committee of the House of Commons, it is absolutely out of the question. This is why we are against this amendment.

Earlier this morning, we explained some of our demands concerning the changes to be made to Bill C-41. Why? Because the province of Quebec is currently developing guidelines that will take into account Quebec's particular characteristics. These guidelines will take into consideration the interests of the child and all the transfers to both parents and children.

The provinces should have an opportunity to explain the guidelines they developed based on the model most appropriate to their particular case, the province's social realities and the expectations of their residents, just like the guidelines soon to be approved in the province of Quebec.

(1530)

We know how important it is that Quebec put its own guidelines forward and that they be adopted. With the discretionary power provided in Bill C-41, it is important that these guidelines be accepted by the federal government. We in the Bloc Quebec are not in favour of the discretionary power accorded the governor in council.

Moreover, a set of criteria is introduced in the bill to define the guidelines. Right before the criteria, we can see the little word ``including''.

We propose that this word ``including'' be deleted so that, when the guidelines are accepted by the federal government, we will not have to reopen the bill or to introduce another one. I think that Quebec wants more freedom to act. We know how complex the situation is in matters of divorce and separation.

Divorce falls within federal jurisdiction and separation within Quebec jurisdiction. As we all know, the guidelines have to be the same across the board. This is provided in the bill at the federal level but not at the provincial level. Thus, this motion by the Reform Party is not acceptable.

However, I want to tell you about some privileges Quebec wants to gain from the guidelines. When I say privileges, I mean respect. Not so much a privilege as a respect of Quebec's will.

It is clear in this bill that the federal government goes one way and Quebec another. This bill is very revealing. Quebec wants the guidelines to apply where children reside and not where the non-custodial parent resides. If the criteria for developing the

guidelines in one province favour the non-custodial parent, we know very well that the non-custodial parent will compare the benefits in various provinces.

That is why the child's well-being is paramount and the bill as introduced by the minister does not take into account first and foremost the needs of the child. We know that the guidelines put forward by the federal government take into account only the income tax to be paid. This is not the case for Quebec. Quebec takes a number of considerations into account, including family and social issues and the needs of the child.

I wish the government would rethink certain aspects of the bill. The government is asking the provinces to propose guidelines, but I think this bill does not show any respect for the work that the provinces will do when it says that the governor in council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition of ``applicable guidelines''. I do not see how the wishes of a province can be respected.

We know that there are many inconsistencies between the federal and the provincial guidelines. I wonder how it will be possible to satisfy both Quebec's and Ottawa's wishes.

I would also like to talk about another aspect of the bill.

(1535)

There is no question of an agreement between spouses to change the amount or some other aspect of the guidelines. The needs and the welfare of the child must come first.

Therefore, we are against this motion brought forward by the Reform Party and we hope the government will follow up on the various motions we proposed to improve this bill in order to respect the provinces' wishes, because the provinces are closer to the people and their concerns and our motions take into account various legislative provisions that are already in force in Quebec.

If the Minister of Justice wanted this bill to serve the child's interest first and foremost, the Liberals would have to accept a few modifications proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, with every respect for the provinces and the federal legislation. We might have liked to have seen a single orientation concerning divorces and separations, with the same guidelines, but we know that the federal level has full jurisdiction over divorces.

I will close my speech here, with the hope that my colleagues will also be able to make this government listen to making some changes for the better to this bill, and that these changes will be more respectful of the will of the provinces, as Quebec is working on this too at the moment. Why then duplicate the analyses done in Quebec? It is clear to me, however, that the analyses done in Quebec are not the same as those done by the federal level. This is why we were elected. We were elected to speak for the specific nature of Quebec, to ensure that it is respected far more than it is today. Unfortunately, we must bring this to your attention, and we trust that this government will make an effort to understand the Quebec reality, because it is not all that obvious that it is.

We speak up about numerous bills, inviting the government to respect the wishes of Quebec, but the message falls on deaf ears every time.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will respond very briefly to the motion put forward by the Reform Party.

It is interesting to note the consistent theme that runs through the amendments put forward by the Reform Party. First, the motions seek to render ineffective the guidelines that have been put forward for a very distinct and proper purpose, that is, to provide consistency to maintenance awards for children, to provide that the custodial spouse and the children will receive adequate support and the support awards will be consistent within provinces and across the country.

In addition to that theme, hearkening back to a process that is 50 years old, we also see what seems to be another consistent thread. The motions put forward would have the effect of delaying the implementation of the bill. Quite frankly if the suggestion put forward in Motion No. 13 was accepted by the federal government, the process of implementation would be delayed.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The government will do everything in its power to ensure that the guidelines and legislation will be able to go ahead on March 1, 1997.

(1540 )

Members of the Bloc are suggesting that somehow this deals with provincial authority in an inappropriate fashion. Once again I remind the House of my answer to similar statements made by the Bloc Quebecois.

First, this is an area of sole federal jurisdiction. Second, the guidelines which have been put in place are different from province to province, respecting and reflecting the various differences that exist within the provinces. Third, provisions within the bill state that where provincial guidelines are found to be acceptable, they would be allowed to function as the guidelines for the purposes of this bill.

The government is opposed to this motion because it would delay the implementation of the bill. It would like to see the system move ahead so that greater consistency, predictability and the enforceability of awards can all be improved as we work on a system that has been functioning for 50 years and is desperately in need of modernization and update.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this morning we have been discussing Bill C-41, and the Bloc Quebecois, as a party from Quebec, naturally reflects the demands of Quebec, but as the official opposition, it also reflects the concerns of certain provinces and groups in English Canada,

and the government seems to be turning a deaf ear or does not seem to understand the demands we are making.

It is all very clear, however. We made a series of proposals, a series of motions this morning to amend the government's position on the very important concept of residence, in other words, that this should mean the child's place of residence to prevent any ambiguity in interpreting the guidelines.

We tabled motions on the federal government's discretionary powers to adopt or not to adopt the guidelines of a province. Here again, the government turned a deaf ear.

We presented a motion on vested rights, to tell the government that if Quebec, for instance, establishes guidelines according to the present rules of the game, we would not want a subsequent Conservative, Reform Party or even Liberal government, under another prime minister, to be able to change these guidelines at will. We presented a motion for vested rights, and here again, the government seems to turn a deaf ear.

We also presented a motion to prevent the application of certain national standards. We definitely want the guidelines presented by Quebec to apply in cases of divorce and separation.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say in reply to the Bloc Quebecois that the Divorce Act was a federal statute. We do not challenge that fact. We know that the Divorce Act is a federal statute. We know that according to the Constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over the Divorce Act. What we are saying is that this is unacceptable.

In Quebec, people get married under the laws of Quebec. They have children under the laws of Quebec. The children are registered with the registrar for births, deaths and marriages under the laws of Quebec. In a family, people make purchases, buy a house and cars. The family property comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. If things do not work out, people separate under the laws of Quebec. But divorce is a federal matter.

That is what is wrong and why everything is so complicated. On the weekend we saw that Quebec wanted to adopt a family policy. There is a consensus on this in Quebec. That was clear, and I think that my friends opposite-not my friends, because they are not really my friends-I am sure that hon. members opposite saw there was a consensus in Quebec on family policy this past weekend.

(1545)

But they are turning a deaf ear to it. To translate this consensus into concrete action, they could give a helping hand and start changing some things. But no. We have seen, through justice parliamentary secretary for justice, that the government seems adamant in its refusal to consider any amendment, any proposal from the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, in keeping with the general consensus and the will at large to see things change; but the government in Ottawa has decided in its ivory tower, in a characteristically paternalistic fashion, as one of my colleagues said, not to budge.

I am happy, however, that the Reform Party is not in power because the motion it presented says a lot on the way English Canada sees things and on its intentions. Somehow, the Reform Party has a lot in common with the way the Liberals think and act.

With regard to Motion No. 13 presented by the Reform Party, which appears innocuous, ordinary enough, one might think that, after all, Reform has good intentions, it wants the federal government to support it, to look at it, it wants the elected representatives to have a look at the guidelines.

The Reform Party's motion asks that Bill C-41, in clause 11, be amended by adding the following:

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

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

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

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

Sometimes the Liberals and the Reform Party question the necessity of having Bloc Quebecois members in this House. I think we have another opportunity to show how important it is for Quebec to have Bloc Quebecois members in this House, to prevent the Reform Party from proposing very centralizing measures and the government from proposing centralizing bills.

This motion shows the true philosophy of English Canada, which wants to centralize everything in Ottawa.

What does that mean in practice? It means that, if the motion is carries without amendment, all guidelines adopted by Quebec will have to be submitted to the justice minister who will, in turn, submit them to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further study.

We all know that Quebec intends to implement such guidelines. We even have some information concerning those guidelines. The justice minister would simply submit those guidelines to the committee for its consideration. For example, if Quebec considers that it is important for the guidelines to be based on the real cost of

a child's needs, we, in Quebec, will find it crucial that the guidelines be determined accordingly. However, if we submit them to the committee, it could decide that, at the federal level, this is not important and that Quebec will have to change its guidelines so that they are based in part on a legal obligation to maintain the standard of living. Quebec would not have a say in this.

(1550)

This is what the Reform Party motion could mean for Quebec. There are a series of guidelines which Quebec examined and, if the motion is carried, these could be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. You will surely understand that it would be unacceptable for the federal government to dictate the rules and determine the procedures in an area like family policy which is so important for the future of Quebec.

I must say that, when I speak about family and family policy, unfortunately, this also includes separation and divorce. After a divorce, the children are still there and they must be supervised and protected, because they are the ones who are the most vulnerable in a separation. Our role, as members of Parliament here, is to pass legislation that would best protect these children.

Bill C-41 that the government proposes to us is, as a whole, a step forward, but there are several little points that are disturbing, that are not in line with Quebec's claims, among others, of course, the points that I mentioned at the very beginning of my speech concerning residence, at the government's discretion.

More specifically, Quebec's position, the position defended by the Bloc Quebecois, goes against Motion No. 13 proposed by the Reform Party. You will understand that we will vote against this motion.

In concluding, I would also like to say that, while we seem to challenge or argue several of the points in Bill C-41, as a whole, this bill seems favourable to us. That must be kept in mind. As a whole, Bill C-41 was asked for repeatedly by the official opposition. We wanted a legislative measure, but not one with these points that are not favourable to Quebec. I will have the opportunity to come back to Bill C-41, since there are other motions, because I have so many things to say about this bill.

Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment, since this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since then. I had the pleasure of sitting with you on the joint committee on regulation, where I appreciated your contribution to each of the debates we had in the other place.

Today, we are once again inundated, literally inundated with motions put forward by the Reform Party that do little if anything to improve the bill before us.

The latest proposal would require the Minister of Justice to table every proposed guideline before this House for referral to a standing committee of the House of Commons.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have a problem living with the proposed amendment, and particularly with the word ``each''. This would have the effect of including provincial guidelines. Basically, what this amendment tells us is that provincial guidelines recognized by the federal government will be those referred to by the term guideline in the legislation.

All this is is a switch between provincial and federal guidelines. And that is unacceptable to us in the Bloc Quebecois.

(1555)

In fact, there is consensus around this issue in Quebec. Our system, the one currently used in Quebec, works just fine. The measures approved and adopted last year for the collection of out of province support have pleased almost everyone.

These guidelines met the needs of Quebecers. They also met the needs of children. To the extent possible, these guidelines have done the most to ensure the well-being of children, although this is an area where there is always room for improvement. Not every case is the same. Almost all decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

The amendment put forward by the Reform Party does not improve the bill in any way. It still gives the federal government the right to replace the whole Quebec system with its own. In fact, clause 1(4) provides that the governor in council may, by order, designate a province for the purposes of the definition ``applicable guidelines''. That is interference.

The verb ``may'' is used. Let us consider its meaning. Any guidelines issued by a province must be approved by the federal government to become applicable. This is another example of centralization, of paternalism. They are not withdrawing but centralizing even further. The federal government imposes its vision on the provinces, although this vision is not always in line with reality.

Which government is better able to meet these needs? Federal rejection of the guidelines established by a province could give rise to some absurd situations. The most striking example is that of a separation handled according to provincial guidelines, while the divorce would have to follow federal guidelines. This could make a huge difference in the ruling, in the amount of support for each child.

The Quebec legislation on separation is more generous than the federal law on divorce. This clause must disappear. Such iniquities are unacceptable. The discretionary power given by the verb ``may'' must be taken away from the federal government.

This is what gives the amendment proposed by my colleague from Québec its whole meaning. This amendment is aimed at limiting the list of criteria the provinces must comply with to have their guidelines recognized by the federal government as superseding its own.

(1600)

I ask government members to reflect on the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, so that the provinces' guidelines are approved by this government. In fact, the amendment provides that, once a province has complied with federal criteria, its own guidelines will automatically replace those of the federal government. This would prevent strange situations where children, whom the act is supposed to protect, would suffer from a measure that would have become unfair.

I will conclude by pointing out that selecting the payer's address as the place of residence, instead of the child's domicile, for support purposes, creates an enormous problem. Those who avoid their responsibilities in this regard often do so simply by virtue of the fact that the payer's place of residence was chosen, instead of the child's domicile.

We have a lot before us. The Bloc Quebecois tabled its amendments. I ask members opposite to carefully review each of the proposed amendments, not in our interests, but in the interests of our children.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate you on your appointment, since this is the first time I have risen in this House while you are in the chair.

The public must have realized by now that the official opposition has been spending a lot of time adding subtlety and drawing attention to one important factor: the famous guidelines. Whether they are called guidelines, national standards or national goals, they are all the same to me. They reflect the federal government's intention, its one constant goal, which is to set criteria and to impose them on the provinces. The Reform Party's proposal goes in the same direction. The Reform Party goes even further than the Liberal Party. It wants the guidelines to be tabled in the House of Commons. Therefore, the federal government would reign supreme.

I am not a former history professor like my hon. colleague from Mercier, but I have read a lot of books on this topic, as I imagine many Canadians and Quebecers have done.

Recently, I was rereading Mr. Lacoursière. What is Canada made of? What is Canada? What is the Canadian Confederation? What is the Act of 1867? It was the unification of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to form Confederation. Then two former British colonies joined in, and that gave us the four founding provinces of the Canadian Confederation.

At the time, according to the spirit and the letter of the agreement, there was to have been not only a federal Parliament, but also provinces that would work together to try to forecast and structure the future of the country, its social climate and that of its member states.

(1605)

But then, we have to recognize that the current government continues a heavy practice. No need to list all the bills that have been passed here, but what do we see in most of them, in the major ones? There were national standards concerning post-secondary education. There were also national standards concerning student loans. Concerning health care, we all know the five famous guidelines which the federal government insists that we follow in spite of cuts in the provincial spending and in the transfers to the provinces.

What is the impact of all these measures? The provinces are obliged to cut health care. Free education and access to education are called into question. Apart from the cuts to unemployment insurance, certain vested rights of the provinces, including Quebec, are called into question.

And always these same guidelines. Sometimes, it is a question of principle, but we must be cautious with matters of principle. The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, has a responsibility to criticize, to see to it that words really say what they mean to say in the bill and to anticipate applications down the road.

Obviously, the concept of federalism of the members opposite and the third party is very different from the one Quebecers have always had. The federal government always prevail over the powers and responsibilities of the provinces, while, as I said, there was originally a spirit of equality, a balance of powers.

Unfortunately, this Prime Minister's Liberal government increasingly takes advantage of all opportunities to monitor, limit the powers and dictate the guidelines of the provinces. This touches upon the most distinct elements of the Quebec society, since families and children are its future, because we do not want to remain silent each time the current federal government tries to put the Quebec government in its place.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm rightly reminded us that we get married under the civil code and that Quebec is the only province to have a distinct civil code. And we divorce under the federal system? That is completely nonsensical. However, I can understand why members from other provinces do not see any problem in that. They are not in the same situation as Quebec because they have no civil code, they have the same system as the federal government.

To them, it does not make any difference if you get married under the provincial system and you get divorced under the federal system. I understand. That is one of the problems of federalism as

it exists now. I have travelled a lot outside Quebec, and we are always faced with the same misunderstanding. Even the most fair-minded people do not understand our situation. One day, you will have to recognize that our system in Quebec is different from that of the other provinces. That is what we have been telling you and that is why many of us are taking part in this debate today, to show you once again that we are different. You have to understand that.

We are different and we want to stay that way. We understand what is good and what is not. There are extraordinary principles in this bill, but the problem is in the way they are applied.

(1610)

That is the area where, suspicious as we are, we are concerned about inequities. And with good reason. Bill after bill, we keep proposing amendments that would help Quebec feel more comfortable in the federal system, but the government keeps rejecting them each and every time. We were showered with love a few days before the referendum, but we can see that, one year later, those sentiments have cooled off somewhat.

So we have to repeat over and over again, as we are doing today, that we are different. From now on, we want laws that reflect our differences, our culture, our special way of doing things. It is as simple as that. It is not an aggressive message. We are not saying that the other provinces are wrong not to attach that much importance to this issue. But, to us, it is very important.

And it is not only for us. Since we are talking about children here, we are talking about the future, and when we talk about the future, we must take all the necessary precautions to make sure that those who will come after us recognize the important work we are doing today. That is why, once again, we must explain to our colleagues from the two other parties in this House that we are indeed different.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is important that this amendment not be passed. This amendment was presented by a Reform Party member and says:

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

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

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

I would remind the viewers who are watching today's debates that, if the issue of child support and treatment of children in child support is discussed here in the House of Commons even though it seems clearly to be a matter of civil law, it is because there is a strange separation of powers between the provinces and the federal government in the Constitution.

On the one side, marriage is a provincial matter, and divorce, a federal matter. I remind you that in Quebec, the people who separate without divorcing-and there are many of them-or leave one another in some other way represent 40 per cent of those who are involved in the allocation of child support.

Quebec has a distinct civil code. Just as distinct as its society. The Civil Code has been in effect since Quebec was a French colony. It has been revised, but it is still completely different in spirit from British common law.

(1615)

In this context, Quebec has developed its own family policy and has shown again last week that it intends to apply its own principles in this area. It must be said that Quebec has to have complete control over the guidelines that will apply to the people who decide to separate or to get a divorce to ensure that all children who are affected are treated in the same way.

If it were adopted, this amendment proposed by the members of the third party would force the government to refer to the appropriate committee the guidelines proposed by Quebec to see if they are compatible with the federal guidelines. What we are saying is that this is absolutely not the way to go.

In Quebec, we do not want two kinds of children, that is those whose parents are separated under the provincial system and those whose parents are divorced under the federal system. It would make no sense. It would show that the situation has become unbearable.

We think the government should accept the amendment in which the Bloc proposes that the governor in council recognize the right of a province to formulate and enforce its own guidelines, provided they meet all the necessary requirements.

It is hard to imagine that a committee would study Quebec's or another province's guidelines to compare them to those of the federal government. If my colleague's amendment was to ensure that the federal government would table its own guidelines, which several other provinces would follow since they would not mind having guidelines established by the central government, then I would understand the purpose of this amendment. The committee would study these guidelines that would apply to all provinces except Quebec.

We are often in this situation. Obviously, and this bears repeating, many provinces in Canada do not feel the way Quebec feels about the central government, and that is normal. Canada is one people and one nation, and Quebec is one people and one nation. It

is fine by us if nobody in Canada minds if the central government determines the guidelines, but, if that is the case, we think it only right that the government be required to table its planned guidelines.

But what we simply cannot agree with, and this is important, is that if colleagues do not intend this amendment to include Quebec, then they should spell this out, because otherwise, we are very much against the amendment, which would mean comparing Quebec's guidelines to the federal guidelines, for we know not what purpose.

(1620)

The draft guidelines tabled on June 28, 1996 give an idea of the major differences between a so-called Quebec model that would be used to determine child support payments and a federal model.

In Quebec, we say that one of the criteria must be that support payments must be based on the real cost of raising a child. The federal government says they should be based on the partial equalization of standards of living. These are two different points of view that can be explained by the fact that in Quebec we are looking at income and standard of living in Quebec, while it is obvious that different standards of living are being considered for the rest of Canada.

This morning, I was recalling that, last week, the federal government decided that the minimum wage for institutions dependent on the federal government would be in line with the provincial minimum wage. The minimum wage is $4.75 in Newfoundland, and $7.00 in British Columbia, which shows the marked difference in the general standard of living. We can understand that the differences are explained by the population, the labour market and the differing social and economic conditions across Canada.

There is another principle as well. Quebec says ``based on both parents' ability to pay''. Financial responsibility is shared between the two parents, prorated according to their resources. We know that the husband often earns more. The federal model assumes that the incomes of both parents are equal, even if in reality this is not the case. Only the gross revenue of the non-custodial parent is considered.

I could continue to show you the significant differences.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment.

I move:

That the words ``each proposed guideline'' be deleted and replaced by ``every proposed guideline'' and that, at the end of the first sentence, the following be added:

``when subsection 1(3) has not been enforced.''

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The Chair will consider the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mercier and will render its decision to the House.

(1625)

The motion by the hon. member for Mercier is in order.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The vote is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Next before the House is report stage Motion No. 14, the next grouping in the debate.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 14

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

``fifty days have expired after the notice''

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member is quite correct. The question was put to the House on the subamendment. A recorded division was demanded and therefore it was deferred.

At the conclusion of the vote on the subamendment, the question will be put on the amendment that the hon. member has put before the House.

The debate is now on Motion No. 14, Group No. 4.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, very simply this amendment extends the period for a non-custodial

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

(1630)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1635)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this amendment, proposed by the hon. member for the Reform Party, deals with the denial of schedule licences to debtors when the latter are in persistent arrears. When we read the definition of this expression, we see that this is about extreme cases where debtors have failed to make in full the payments required in respect of any three payment periods, usually three months, or who owe the child at least $3,000.

(1640)

The bill is clear, and we agree with what the bill proposes to do. We agree because licence denials are explained in detail in interpretation section 62. So, licence means ``a licence, a permit, a certificate or an authorization of any kind, and includes a passport in the meaning of section 2''; ``schedule licence means a licence of a type or class set out in the schedule''; and ``provincial enforcement service has the meaning assigned by section 2''.

The resources available are clearly defined in this section of the bill. These are means of dealing with debtors who, despite every reasonable attempt to make them do so, will not make their payments to the custodial parent-the wife, in many cases-or to creditors who have a stake in the payment of support payments.

So when the province applies to the federal government, this is after it has made every attempt to force payments. In this case, the Reform proposal would extend the period to 50 days from the prescribed 30 days. So the bill is clear. It provides that a provincial government may ask the federal government to refuse the issue of, suspend or not renew a licence for these debtors, once the provincial government has made every attempt to enforce the support order, but to no avail. To no avail means that every possible measure has been taken by the province. And even if a debtor were to say he had not been contacted by the province, I believe there would be enough evidence to prove that such contacts were made and that the debtor failed to respond to a provincial request.

So I see no need for proposing such an amendment when we realize that the present period provided by the federal government is 30 days after notice was sent by the province to the debtor before an application for licence denial may be filed.

We all know that women are often penalized, when we consider that in 1990, 67 per cent of individuals who received support payments were women.

So we do not think we should support this kind of amendment to the bill. We know very well that huge amounts are often at stake when one is waiting for overdue support payments. For instance, a deadbeat parent is not someone who wakes up one morning thinking he is not going to pay support for a couple of months; we believe that these are people who do it repeatedly, not innocently, over a period of three payments, and that the amounts involved are evaluated at over $3,000. Therefore, the time frame is very realistic and we do not believe that this motion should go ahead.

I am in favour of payments being made as soon as possible, this is desirable. What the bill is proposing is very clear and promises that deadbeat parents be, once and for all, with their back to the wall, and that the government be able to act by way of a piece of legislation making it very clear how to quickly obtain payment of the amounts owed.

To think that Bill C-41 was introduced by the government to really improve the situation for children. This is exactly what we want. This was at our request, we want this bill to be enforceable and we want no more delays, no more wait for the parents owed support, who often must face such delays.

(1645)

Unfortunately, too often they are women; as we know they hold part time jobs, their job situation is precarious, and often they are the ones who have to provide for their children. We know that more often than not support payments are well below what it takes to raise a child nowadays.

In any case, I believe we have the responsibility to take care of our children, and therefore it is the responsibility of the non custodial parent to make support payments, often to the detriment of the parent who has custody of the child.

[English]

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the next batch of amendments. With the indulgence of the members present I will refresh their memories.

When I was speaking on the last batch of amendments I was quoting from an article in the September 28 issue of The Economist. It discussed the notion of crime, particularly violent crime, by youth. The article dealt with crime in western Europe and America.

It was interesting to note from the article that 50 per cent of violent crime was caused by males under the age of 24. About 24 per cent was caused by males under the age of 18. Males compared to females are far more involved in crime and in particular violent crime. The article went on to make the case that the one overriding consideration which affects those statistics is the two parent family.

I will read a sentence or two: ``Ask yourself: What restrains such behaviour?'' We are talking about the violent behaviour of adolescents. ``The short answer is a two parent home. Without belabouring the complexity of family policies, two parent families are demonstrably better at raising trouble-free children than one parent homes. Fatherless boys commit more crimes than those with a father at home. A study of repeat juvenile offenders by the Los Angeles probation department found that they were much more likely to come from one parent backgrounds than either the average child or juvenile criminals who offended once only''.

That is a particularly disheartening statistic. The heartening statistic in Canada is that, much to the surprise of many people, according to Statistics Canada only 13 per cent of children are being raised in single parent homes.

The point I am coming to is this: We know statistically that children who come from two parent homes, particularly young males and adolescent males, are at far less risk of misbehaviour and violent behaviour.

I want to make sure that those people who are watching this debate on television do not think I am coming at this from a holier than thou approach. I am not. I am making a statement of fact. The statement of fact is that even if parents divorce, they do not divorce their children.

As a society we must ensure when parents regrettably divorce, that custody does not go to one or the other. They do not stop being parents. There is no magical dissolution of parenthood; it is a dissolution of the marriage. The laws we promulgate have to promote joint custody. They should not promote disassociation. For the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to suggest that there is no link between access to children and maintenance and the continuity of maintenance is so patently absurd that it defies reality. How anyone proposing to represent the government of our country could make such an absurd statement so devoid of reality is mind boggling.

(1650)

On a more positive note we should be doing something that was suggested at a recent town hall meeting on the Divorce Act which was attended by around 200 people in my constituency of Edmonton Southwest. Perhaps we should be putting far more emphasis on reconciliation. This was the overriding positive theme which came out of that town hall meeting.

We should understand the importance of a two parent home. Even when divorce is the unfortunate final decision in a case of marital unhappiness, we must protect and nurture the child. We do that best by not severing the cord between the mother, father and child.

Through reconciliation and perhaps by carrying reconciliation a step further, we should deal with divorce in a unified family court situation. Rather than involving the adversarial nature of lawyers, one trying to outdo the other, I propose a better idea, although it is not a specific part of this amendment and I appreciate the indulgence of members for allowing me to continue with this thought.

Would we not be better off as a society if we used arbitration in a unified family court as the basis of family law? The purpose would be to deal with this kind of relationship. This involves so many different aspects of law, of contract law and of God knows what comes to the table. We are dealing with people who are at times mad, at times hurt, at times vengeful, at times just brokenhearted. We are dealing with people at a time of marital distress, at a most difficult point in their lives. When people are in this terrible situation, that is the time to bring in mediation. That is the time to bring in arbitration. It is the time potentially to bring reconciliation to the fore.

These suggestions have come from a wide range of people including those people who counsel others who are going through divorce. I recognize it is impossible to legislate common sense. We cannot legislate people to have a sense of responsibility for the children they bring into the world but we can develop the attitude. We can develop the culture that says if their marriage is going to break down and they are going to divorce, they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility they have as parents to nurture their children. No matter how bad the relationship is between the spouses, the children are the innocent victims. The children have to be accorded the decency of both parents being concerned first for their welfare and then for their own.

I am thankful for the opportunity to put these thoughts into Hansard as part of the record of this debate. I cannot think of any single debate that has taken place in this House in the time I have been here that is more important to the future of our nation. I cannot think of anything that is more important to us as a

community of human beings than nurturing the future generations of our country as embodied by our children and their children.

Too often much of what we do here is concerned with the past in that we have our eyes firmly fixed behind us with our feet in the cement of whatever is going on today. We need to look beyond today into tomorrow and we have to do that through the eyes of our children and our grandchildren.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we must understand what the impact of the Reform Party motion would be. I will not repeat the arguments offered by my colleague, the member for Québec, because she did a very good job of presenting the nuts and bolts of this amendment compared to Bill C-41 in its present form.

(1655)

However, I would like to give further explanations, so that everybody, including members from the other side, will understand quite well what this is all about. Personally, I would have gone much further than the minister. The person who does his best to avoid paying child support has not earned the right to a further 30 day extension.

I have children for whom I pay daily. I think one should assume one's responsibilities. The father or mother, because the payer can be either one, the person who has to pay child support and who does not should not get any sympathy from the government. Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those people.

Bill C-41 proposes a complete system under which the government can take action. The minister responsible must submit a request, there is a complete process. We must understand the context of what persistent arrears means, under Bill C-41. We find the definition in clause 62, which describes what it means to be in ``persistent arrears''.

What does it mean? According to the legislation, that expression refers to a debtor who has, in respect of a support order or support provision, arrears in any amount due to the failure to make payments for any three payment periods-depending on the order, a period can be a week, a month, two months or six months-or one who has accumulated arrears of $3,000 or more.

Let me give you a very precise example. Let us say the man is paying support. Following a ruling, he must give his child or children the sum of $500 a month. According to C-41, the judgment takes effect on January 1st, 1997. He pays child support in the amount of $500 on January 1st, 1997. In the month of February, he does not pay. In the month of March, he does not pay. In the month of April, he pays $500. Until now, the provisions of the law do not apply because this does not amount to three consecutive periods or a total of $3,000 in non-payments.

He continues. In the month of May, he does not pay. In the month of June, he does not pay. In the month of July, he decides to pay. In such a case, it takes exactly nine months to reach $3,000 in arrears. For nine months, the husband will apply pressure, how could I say, he will annoy his spouse. I think that is the best and the most explicit term. But who suffers? It is the children.

It takes nine months to arrive at the total of $3,000 in unpaid child support. What does Bill C-41 provide for after nine months? It provides that the minister will send the debtor a notice informing him that he is $3,000 in arrears. In law, there is a very clear principle saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is even truer that no one is supposed to ignore a court judgment or order.

The debtor does not pay on purpose and the government will send him a notice informing him that he has not paid child support for X number of months, for a total of $3,000, according to the example I gave. He is given an extra extension of 10 days before the minister files an application to withhold certain licences or freeze certain applications for licences the debtor has made to the federal government. And he is given another 30 day extension.

(1700)

So, after about 10 to 11 months, sanctions are applied to the debtor. Between you and me, I think this is very permissive. Personally, I would not have given 30 days to this repeat deadbeat father, who does it on purpose.

However, Bill C-41 gives him these 30 days after a 10 day advance notice. We, of the Bloc Quebecois, decided, after examining all this, that we would not put forward an amendment on that. We will accept this approach the government has taken.

You will understand that I do not agree with the motion put forward by the Reform Party to give him 50 days instead of 30. That is 50 days after the 10 days, so that, in the example I gave, it is not after 11 months that sanctions are applied to the debtor, but after 12 months, after one year. The person receiving child support, the $3,000, has been waiting 12 months for it.

You will understand that Motion No. 14 put forward by the Reform Parti is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and that is why we will vote against it.

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 15

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

``deemed to have been received by a debtor twenty''

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

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

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

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

(1705)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in short, we are against this amendment because the presumption is that if the debtor says he did not receive the provincial notice, the 30 days the province must wait before submitting the licence denial application to the federal government will start 10 days after the date the notice was actually sent. This just gives the debtor more time. There is really no reason to extend this period by another 10 days.

Mail is no longer delivered on horseback. That is why we oppose this motion.

(1710)

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief since this supports what I said earlier. I gave the example of Reform Motion No. 14, which adds 30 days to the period proposed by the government. This would give a defaulting debtor up to 11 months, plus Reform's 30 days, for a total of 12 months. I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that even this is not enough for the Reform Party.

I do not know what Reform's goal is in favouring defaulting debtors, but it gives 10 days more than the period specified in the notice. According to the legislator, the purpose of the 10-day period provided in Bill C-41 after the notice is sent to the debtor is to prove it has been received. The Reform motion provides for a 20-day period. It gives another 10 days.

Given the reasons I mentioned earlier, I personally would not give a defaulting debtor a single day. After nine months, he must know he owes at least $3,000 in unpaid child support. In any case, his wife and children probably called to remind him to send his cheque for $500, so there is no reason to give him more time. For all these reasons, all members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

[English]

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent-

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member and I discussed this matter and I think we agreed that we would wait until we have finished dealing with Group No. 5 and then he will make his point of order then.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to speak to Motion No. 15?

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Briefly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 15, again this amendment is brought forward for the purpose of extending a time period. As I have indicated on previous occasion with respect to a number of amendments that have been brought forward by the Reform Party, it seems that many of these amendments are designed to delay or put off the remedies which are contained in the bill.

It is our view that we must put in timeframes that are consistent with other provisions within other acts, that is to say, to have time periods which reflect the norm for service, for notice and the like rather than extending them and simply inordinately delaying the remedies that are available to the custodial spouse and children.

We should not support this motion because we need to ensure that delays are not inordinate.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent, after having consulted with the other parties, to introduce the following motion.

I move:

That Bill C-41, in clause 5(2), be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 8 with ``judgment or a written agreement respecting the financial obligations of''.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will give our consent to this motion, while deploring the fact that the hon. member introduced it at the very last minute, claiming this was an oversight, that it should have been presented in committee.

(1715)

While we would have liked to subject the proposal made by the hon. member to a comprehensive analysis, among other things, we will nonetheless give our consent.

[English]

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

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. The House has also given unanimous consent to this motion. I must point out to my hon. colleagues that this is a debatable motion.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak briefly on this amendment, and not on the approach per se, whereby we examine a motion introduced by the government at the very last minute, as the hon.

member for Québec indicated. On the whole, this is an amendment that does not affect the substance of the clause in any real way.

Where I am concerned however is when the parliamentary secretary brings in a motion under such circumstances, claiming this was an oversight on the part of the government. If that is so, how many more oversights have they made in this bill? As far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, the five or six motions we have put forward also addressed oversights. Why did they not act on these motions?

It is disturbing when the Liberal Party, the overly self-confident governing party that puts forward just about anything and refuses to see reason, because of its arrogance, on very important points made by the official opposition, through its parliamentary secretary, tables a motion in this House at the very last minute, claiming it was an oversight. I think this is an unforgivable oversight, one that we in the Bloc Quebecois cannot forgive, because we are convinced that there are more oversights in this bill and some more striking than those raised today in motions put forward by Bloc members, which the government chose to ignore.

We in the official opposition are quite worried about this government's administration. Bill C-41 is a very important bill in that it affects the future of our children, including children of Quebec, an emerging nation.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member from the Bloc was making his intervention just now, a couple of my colleagues were bantering back and forth across the House with the hon. parliamentary secretary. They asked him what exactly this 11th hour amendment does to this bill. He said that it does not do anything.

One has to wonder, if it does not do anything, why bother bringing it in and having to run around in the opposition lobby at the last possible moment and approach both the Bloc and Reform to try to get unanimous consent to put it. If the Liberals have an 11th hour amendment it should do something very compelling and comprehensive, instead of bringing forward something that clearly is so inconsequential that it makes one wonder why it was brought forward at all.

To sum up Bill C-41 today, the subject of divorce, support payments, maintenance payments, custody and access to children is of interest to all Canadians.

(1720 )

I have three children and as a parent I cannot foresee anything as horrendous as losing access to my children. For many non-custodial parents the reality is that the de-parenting process of divorce is the same as if the child or the children have died. Every member, regardless of which side of the House they are on, will appreciate that if they are a parent.

I believe this issue has not been adequately dealt with by the government. As I said earlier, it has chosen to deal with one small portion of it.

I would argue with the parliamentary secretary when he said that these issues are not linked. All of these issues are linked together. We cannot possibly tell parents, custodial and non-custodial alike, that we can deal with one section and ignore the rest. That is simply not the case. We must bring forward serious amendments and serious legislation to deal with the subjects of mediation, custody and access to children. That has to be done. Canadians from coast to coast are asking the government to do that.

We have a commitment from the justice minister and the Liberal government that they will bring in comprehensive legislation to deal with all of those issues, but we have yet to see that happen.

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank very sincerely members of the two parties opposite for agreeing to the motion and for the grace with which they done that. With respect to the Reform Party, all I can say is that it is not that the amendment does not do anything, it is that its members probably would not understand the amendment if I explained it to them.

In any event, the purpose of the bill is to enhance maintenance for children. We appreciate, once again, the co-operation of the opposition parties in bringing this amendment forward.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the parliamentary secretary.

The Deputy Speaker: No questions are permitted at this time unless members wish to give their unanimous consent.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment that I would like to make.

The parliamentary secretary said that he would not give an explanation why this is necessary because the Reform Party would not understand it. The arrogance displayed by that is unconscionable. The people of Canada deserve an explanation. There has to be something on the record to explain why at the 11th hour the government introduced an amendment without any explanation of why it is necessary. That has to be on the record. Otherwise, why should we approve it?

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I was insulted by the parliamentary secretary. He asked us for unanimous consent. We have been listening to him all day talking about his position on Reform amendments. He said

that we were trying to slow down the process, that it would be detrimental to the administration of justice and so on.

The amendments which we put before the House were serious, well thought out amendments, which we felt would help improve the bill. That is the spirit in which we enter debate in this House. Then, at the very last minute, as my colleague for Yorkton-Melville said, the Liberals asked for our permission to introduce an amendment. The Liberals knew the bill was being debated in the House. They followed it all the way through committee. It is now back here. We have done our homework and then we get this insult that I would even dare to say is unparliamentary in the terms in which it was presented.

(1725)

Therefore, I would request a retraction from the parliamentary secretary for insulting the Reform Party by saying that we would not understand his amendment. I felt it was totally unparliamentary and disgraceful.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been put in a very difficult position because a member cannot speak twice to an amendment. In light of what has been said, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to give the parliamentary secretary the right to explain the purposes of the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with giving the parliamentary secretary unanimous consent to explain his motion if at the same time he will withdraw the accusation that he levelled at the Reform Party.

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, if I said anything unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: I understand from comments in the House that there will not be unanimous consent to let the parliamentary secretary speak twice on the bill so he can explain his amendment.

Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): No. No.

The Deputy Speaker: Very well. The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Some hon. members: On division.

[Translation]

(Amendment agreed to.)

The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

[English]

[And the bells having rung:]

The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip has requested that the vote be deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

* * *

[Translation]

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE AND GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES ACT

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37, an act respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to human reproduction, is very important.

This bill has been the subject of research and studies which seemed, in a way, to go on forever because for many years women in Canada, in Quebec, have been asking for government action. Unfortunately, the only government that can act in this matter in this country we still are part of is the federal government, because the issue is under federal jurisdiction, matters of life and death, as we know, being under federal jurisdiction.

The very first reaction of the federal government was to create the Baird Commission in 1989. This commission generated some controversy, and so did the fate of some of its conclusions. Its mandate was to review current and anticipated scientific and medical progress regarding reproductive technologies, their repercussions on health and research, as well as their moral, social, economic and legal consequences. The commission also gave the general public an opportunity to recommend policies and safety measures.

Obviously, this was a mandate whose scope was very wide. After four years of review, after hearing 40,000 witnesses, and after spending $28 million, the Baird commission finally tabled its report in November 1993. It must be pointed out that the commission's main conclusions and recommendations were essentially the same as those of other similar bodies abroad.

Let me say from the outset that some of these recommendations went way beyond the initial mandate, which was already very wide in scope, and dealt with issues as varied as the effect of tobacco and drug use, health and safety in the workplace, and family law. In

short, the commission also made recommendations in areas that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, namely those relating to health.

The Liberal government, elected on October 25, 1993, was slow to react. By contrast, the minute the Bloc arrived in this House, it repeatedly asked, first through its critic on health and the status of women and then its critic responsible for this specific issue, the tabling of a bill to criminalize certain practices relating to new reproductive technologies, NRTs.

(1735)

It was not until July 1995 that the Liberals finally took concrete action. However, it was not the measure hoped for, far from it. Indeed, after all this time, the Liberals asked the professionals concerned to comply with a voluntary moratorium that more or less prohibited the use of certain reproductive technologies.

Here are some of these prohibitions: preconception contracts under which a woman is paid to act as a surrogate mother; the sale or purchase of human ova, sperm or embryos; choosing the sex of the child without medical justification; providing free in vitro insemination in exchange for ova from women who cannot afford this service, and so on.

Declaring a voluntary moratorium means that the people and the professionals who did not care about the moral, scientific or largely human aspects of these acts kept doing them. Needless to say, all the groups that had long been clamouring for action in the area have been greatly disappointed and have made it known to the government.

Last January, the government announced the creation of a temporary advisory committee with a mandate to monitor the enforcement of the voluntary moratorium. Can we imagine a policy as flexible or that corresponds so little to what we call a policy? In other words, the government wanted to look like it was doing something whereas in fact it was doing nothing.

A lot of information found in everyday life confirmed that nothing was happening. Whether it was advertisements published in all sorts of ways, and we refer here to the example of advertisements placed in university student newspapers offering to buy ova from young women on behalf of infertile couples, or the fact that institutions keep paying sperm donors, and I could go on. This voluntary moratorium certainly did not change conditions in this regard.

The federal government finally tabled a bill on June 14, 1996. This bill is the one I am addressing today. It bears the number C-47. Once again, the government is planning to act in two steps. First, it wants to pass this Bill C-47, which prohibits certain acts, with the intent of criminalizing them, and I will get back to that. The bill would also provide for a subsequent step: regulations that would be enforced by a national agency whose action we now already feel is not only disturbing but warrants criticism.

Let us talk about Bill C-47, which proposes to criminalize certain action. I will say right away that we are not really talking about criminalization.

(1740)

If this were an amendment to the Criminal Code, the implementation would be left to the provinces. But that is not what is happening right now. The government is setting up a policy that would criminalize certain arrangements through a separate act which will be enforced by a national agency responsible for the monitoring and enforcing the act. That would be part of a second phase.

This situation is totally unacceptable. We are now in the first phase. We-and I say we meaning women-in Quebec are calling for action in this area because it is not under Quebec's jurisdiction, even though, ultimately, it is Quebec that will be enforcing the act. In this situation, not only is criminalization counterproductive, but we are also quite sure that this new national agency that would control and monitor new reproductive technologies would only be one more jurisdictional encroachment, one more case of duplication with what has already been done by the Quebec government and its health department, which is the agency that should be enforcing this act.

This new federal agency would have to get the resources to be able to deliver licenses, inspect clinics, monitor the enforcement of regulations, and oversee the development of new reproductive technologies-not in itself a trivial scientific undertaking-and give advice to the federal department in this matter.

Do they have any notion of what setting up of such an agency implies? To what end? Take licensing for example. I am just going down the list. As I said before, we have to see what it entails for such an agency to deliver licences, inspect clinics and enforce regulations.

Again, the activities that will be prohibited and criminalized, but not through the regular means, that is not pursuant to the Criminal Code, would include in-vitro fertilization, insemination by a donor, the use of foetal tissue, the preservation, manipulation and donation of ova, sperm and human embryos, research on embryos, pre-implantation diagnostic, and postmenopausal pregnancy. The proposed agency would also set up a data bank on donors and children of donors in order to allow future meetings in certain special cases.

When you think about creating an agency responsible for issuing licences, inspecting clinics, enforcing regulations and also for monitoring scientific developments and advising the minister, you are thinking about something big, very big, that would revamp and reorganize the health assessment systems, instead of integrating

into the assessment and monitoring systems the dimensions we have been criticizing for some time now.

(1745)

We want some kind of instrument that would let us say: ``This procedure is prohibited''. We want to be able to prohibit these procedures wherever they are performed, in hospitals, in research centres. But for that we need the only instrument the federal government can give us, prohibitions.

However, the federal government had delayed prohibiting and criminalizing such procedures. What would it rather do? It wants to supersede and take the place of the whole health network, the women's network and the conference of health ministers.

This is totally unacceptable and at some level even outrageous. We know how many cuts were made in the Canada social transfer payments, particularly in health care. The federal government has taken means away from the provinces, in particular from Quebec, and now it wants to establish this big national agency to do what would be better done by others who are asking for an instrument that the federal government has been reluctant to give.

The Bloc has repeatedly asked the federal government to do something. And now, three years after a commission finally made recommendations in 1993, we are still studying a bill, which will not solve problems but create new ones.

In every other field, it is said that the players must speak to each other. It is said that one must be efficient and synergistic. But in this field of reproduction, which is most important for the human race, for Quebec and for Canada, which touches upon the very nature of the human being, we cannot act without creating this costly, inefficient, slow and inadequate national agency.

The federal government did not amend the Criminal Code as it should have, and the only action it takes is to try to dictate to the provinces after cutting their Canada social transfer payments. This is enough reason to be furious, because it is an important matter. There are scientists with dubious motives who clone human beings using semen that young people sell to be able to eat. This is a fact, not a bad movie.

It seems to me that in this case the inaction of the central government is tantamount to carelessness. This debate clearly concerns our future and values and it is disturbing to see that instead of deciding in its jurisdiction and providing instruments, the government wants to dictate to the provinces.

(1750)

It will not even let the provinces do their work as is usually the case with the Criminal Code. Bill C-47 and the inaction of the central government on this dramatic question of new reproductive technologies is a perfect example of the aberration of the Canadian federalism.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the hon. member's remarks. I would like to make some comments and then pose a question. The hon. member of the Bloc speaks passionately and asks the question: ``Has this been thoroughly thought out?''

The government's plan for managing new reproductive and genetic technologies is based not on some kind of whim. It has not drawn something out of the air and created legislation. Its plan is based on extensive research and consultations with the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies and the examination of management practices in other countries around the world. Most important, the government has also consulted with no less than 50 stakeholder groups following the release of the royal commission's report on what direction should be taken.

This is something very big, says the hon. member for the Bloc. Yes, it will be. She questions the federal government's role. She called it ``intervening''. Her concern for parties talking together, as she put it, is being addressed by the federal government.

Given the complexity of these issues, it is inevitable that there will be differences of opinion among the many stakeholder groups involved in these issues. The medical profession will have an opportunity to present its views when Bill C-47 goes before the Standing Committee on Health.

The hon. member for the Bloc says she and her party are angry with the federal government's role in this area. However, let us remind the Bloc that it was her party that demanded not amendments to the Criminal Code but initially demanded legislation. The member cannot deny this. On October 7, 1994 the member for Laval Centre called for the government to table a bill to regulate practices connected with new reproductive technologies. As late as June 5, 1996 the member for Drummond said: ``This area is in urgent need of legislation''. It is legislation Bloc members want, not amendments to the Criminal Code, so it is legislation we produce.

This legislation will have its detractors but they are welcome to come before the Standing Committee on Health. They are welcome to make their presentations and views.

The parliamentary secretary for health and myself are cognizant of the fact that we do not have all the answers. That is why we have a committee system and why we invite members of the Bloc, the Reform and the public at large to come before the committee. The government wants them to examine this bill thoroughly and give their input to ensure its objectives, which are to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to ensure the appropriate use of human reproductive materials outside the body and to protect the dignity

and security of all persons, especially, I say to the hon. member for the Bloc, women and children, are reached.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand. I would like the hon. member to tell me how he thinks we can change the Criminal Code other than through legislation.

(1755)

Members on this side of the House are not that stupid, as my colleague says. When we called for legislation, we were calling for the government to take action. Why did we ask him to take action here in Ottawa, instead of doing something in Quebec? Because the Criminal Code is a federal statute, and because a good federal government should take responsibility for what comes under its jurisdiction. Yes, legislation was required. I think my hon. colleague will agree that the only way to amend the Criminal Code is through legislation. Honestly!

Second, what he did not tell me was why, now that the central government is finally deigning to do its job, it does not occur to it that it must do what it is its job to do, that is make amendments. The provinces, which have jurisdiction over health, will then use this instrument. Subsidiarity is all very interesting, but it seems to me that in this case the government does its job under the Constitution and lets the provinces do their job.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Mercier, one can see that she has gotten a reaction from the other side, the government side. When there is that kind of reaction, it is because there is some uncertainty as to what is being advanced.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I am pleased to speak during this debate on the new reproductive technologies, and the commercial operations-I must call them for what they are-commercial operations relating to human reproduction.

Before going any further, I would like to call attention to the work of the two official opposition critics who have spoken out in turn against the Liberal government in this matter. I refer, of course, to the work of the present critic, the hon. member for Drummond, and that of the hon. member for Laval-Centre. Since our arrival here, this has been a part of the debate in the House of Commons.

Let us recall what the hon. member for Mercier has already mentioned: that this amendment to the Criminal Code has been wished for and called for since 1977. There was the Baird Commission, created in 1989. The commission members produced four years worth of studies, deliberations and reports. Perhaps we ought to point out that there were some little problems within this commission, some resignations by commission members. It was pretty costly, I will not say very costly, but pretty costly, at $28 million.

Mind you, the commission heard 40,000 witnesses; there are not a lot of precedents for this. No provincial government, at least none in Quebec, has ever heard so many witnesses. They heard many, many people. The commission eventually delivered close to 300 recommendations and finally, in the fall of 1993, a huge, 1,435-page report.

Two years passed between 1993 and July 1995. The fall of 1993 coincided with the election of the Liberal Party, which now forms the government. During those two years, nothing much happened. Some statements were made but nothing of any consequence happened. In the summer of 1995, there was this so-called voluntary moratorium. A voluntary moratorium.

(1800)

When a problem is as important as this one, the word ``voluntary'' raises a number of questions.

In fact, a number of questions were raised in the House, and two ministers provided a response. To illustrate what the hon. member for Mercier just mentioned, for a while, it was the Minister of Justice who answered the questions. We know that at the time, the Minister of Justice considered amending the Criminal Code. Opposition members like the hon. member for Drummond and the hon. member for Laval-Centre were in favour of this kind of intervention. They were in favour of a bill that would amend the Criminal Code.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. The government took a different approach, and it was the Minister of Health who introduced the present bill which is legislative in nature but, in addition, creates a federal agency, and I may recall the proceedings of the committee and the debate around these proceedings.

We in the opposition are aware of the importance of the problems affected by this bill. So much so that we wanted a bill that would amend the Criminal Code. We agree there were a lot of problems with this bill. It is a bill that could be very complex because the problems are complex. The bill touches on ethical, moral, medical and scientific considerations. Many other areas are affected by this bill, but there is also the whole question of the problems of infertile couples who want children.

This issue is not trivial; it is extremely important. In spite of a voluntary moratorium, we were still seeing ads in papers, mostly university papers, promoting trading in ova and sperm and dealing with every aspect of human reproduction, which shows that this voluntary moratorium did not work. This is why we, in the opposition, want to see the Criminal Code amended.

When reviewing a bill, each member has his or her way of assessing things. For my part, I always try to answer the following five questions: Does the bill clarify matters? I will answer this later. Second, is the bill all encompassing? Does it cover all the issues? When you first look at a bill with only 13 clauses and a few pages, you might wonder, on a primary level, if it is all encompassing. I will get back to this later.

Third, will this bill be effective? Because a bill which is not effective and is unenforceable is nothing more than wishful thinking. I must certainly ask myself this question.

Fourth, does this bill respect jurisdictions? I will say more on this later. I point out that, under the Constitution, health is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Fifth, does the bill respect individual rights? We have a charter of rights and freedoms. It is former Prime Minister Trudeau who developed it and enshrined it in the Constitution. This question must be asked from this perspective.

I will try to answer all five questions.

First, does it clarify matters?

(1805)

No. On some aspects, yes, on some others, no.

First, let us look at the definitions. Earlier, I did more research in addition to the research I had done previously by looking in the two dictionaries available to us. Some people we consulted, for example, the physicians tell us that some definitions correspond, that they are correct. Others tell us that the definitions used present a problem.

When, at the start of a bill, the definitions are problematic in terms of medical research, of medicine or of sciences, there is a slight problem. This means that it is not very clear.

Another striking problem is the inconsistency between the French and the English titles. In one language, it is called ``manipulation génétique'', in the other, genetic technologies. ``Manipulation'', technologies, in the case of such a crucial subject, I wonder if particular attention should not be paid to those terms. Of course, as members of the Standing Committee on Health, we shall be in a position to ask questions and suggest some clarifications at the proper time. This is not a trivial issue.

Also, there is no distinction made between assisted reproduction and fundamental research. Those are two different things. The first one refers to care and treatment, the second one to medical research in genetics. Those are two distinct areas and to treat them without distinction is dangerous.

Another question is: Is this bill complete? After so much study and so many pages of committee reports, we would think that it should be complete, but it is not because, first, it leaves a lot of room to rules and, second, it also leaves a lot of room for interpretation by the new federal agency that will be created of new rules.

Bill C-47 is an incomplete legislation that is far from meeting the expectations raised by the government. Even in the information paper, the government tried to set limits and protect health.

On page 48 of this document, we see that the government intends to start the third and most complex phase of its plan to manage new reproductive technologies, that is, the development of regulations. This clearly indicates that the biggest part remains to be done, because the 13 clauses of the present bill are not enough to give it its full dimensions.

I have here a letter from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, which wrote to all members of the Standing Committee on Health, to say:

If this bill is approved without any amendment, it will have very bad consequences for medical and scientific communities-

When a bill is said to be complete, one should feel that opinions have been heard from every angle. I will stop here.

Is the bill in question effective? We answer no. If the government had wanted this bill to be effective, as the hon. member for Mercier said earlier, as the hon. member for Drummond asked for many times, this bill would have had to change the Criminal Code.

This is not what it does. It purports to create an agency and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and for regulations that will elude this House and the legislators.

The bill also brings other legislation that is parallel to the Criminal Code, that is being added to the rest.

(1810)

Already, it is not simple for the federal government and the provinces to operate together in this country, especially in sometimes shared, sometimes exclusive jurisdictions. The federal government is adding a new dimension, another agency to further complicate things.

We realize the trend is always the same. We saw it in the motions put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga-South today and on many occasions. Essentially, what we feel is a willingness to centralize the federal authority. Speaking about jurisdictions, this perpetuates a federal interference in an area belonging to Quebec and the provinces.

The announced creation of a national agency is unacceptable. Yet another agency. Recently, an agency was created to inspect food. We are talking about all areas. Every time the government has legislated in the past three years, its first reaction was to intervene through national standards or guidelines or, more subtly,

through a federal agency responsible for implementing the rules set by a minister. It does not always do so, but it very often does.

This agency could take advantage of the rather vague provisions and definitions in the bill to extend its activities to areas other than new reproductive technologies. This supposedly independent agency would in fact have to comply with the standards set by the Minister of Health.

Fifth, there are individual rights. In an article published in Le Devoir, Josée Legault raised some questions:

In this context, would it not be preferable to better monitor current practices instead of taking the risk of making them impractical, if not criminal?

She went on to say:

In addition, the first time an infertile woman or couple is fined or sued, Ottawa may well find itself trapped in its own charter of rights.

In any case, it is about time the Liberal government legislated in this area, although we would have preferred that it do so by amending the Criminal Code. We do not understand why this is not the case and we are very disappointed. This bill, which the Standing Orders prevent me from showing you, is quite thin, only 13 clauses for such an important, multidimensional problem in terms of values.

I do not know if my female colleagues in the official opposition would allow me to use this phrase, but I will take the risk; I feel that, as far as the new reproductive technologies are concerned, the elephant has just given birth to a mouse.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the question stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

* * *

[English]

FISHERIES ACT

He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to lead off the debate on a completely contemporary and thoroughly new fisheries act, I cannot help but start by reflecting on how profoundly all Canadians have come to appreciate the importance of the issues facing our nation's fishing communities.

[Translation]

When I was first elected to the House of Commons eight years ago, those families who depended on the seas for their livelihood clearly understood the major challenges facing our stocks and fleets.

[English]

In just a few years, however, the challenges facing Canada's coastal communities have gripped the attention of citizens right across the country. Those of us who come from the communities that dot our coastlines are grateful for the empathy and the collective commitment shown by all Canadians in dealing firmly with foreign overfishing and to rebuilding an essential resource.

It is fair to say that as a nation we have come to realize the need for our fisheries to be economically viable, environmentally sustainable and efficiently managed. There is broad agreement on the outlines of what a viable, sustainable and efficiently managed fishery would look like.

It would include independent, professional owner-operators and employees, men and women who would make a good living year in and year out. It would include economically healthy communities along the country's coastlines. It would include a flexible, versatile and self-reliant industry, largely self-regulating and operating without subsidies.

These are the straightforward principles on which we must build a renewed fishery. These are the values that will allow our fishing communities to flourish in the next century.

This government has articulated its commitment to the pursuit of the economy, environmentalism and efficiency. This government has also pledged to carve out a role for constituents to have a greater say in the policies that affect them. These are in line with our red book objectives.

In proposing a modern fisheries act to Parliament, I would like to build upon these themes and this policy of participation by talking about the equality and the equally vital and related themes of freedom, flexibility, frugality and fairness.

Freedom for individuals and communities to have more say over decisions affecting their lives. Freedom for fishers to become the authors of their own destiny. Freedom from outdated regulations and from plain overregulation.

Flexibility through more self-regulation and local sanction guidelines. Flexibility to form new partnering agreements on research and on methods to achieve conservation objectives. Flexibility to use local knowledge and experience to address local problems. Flexibility through providing expert, local, administrative tribunals for the Atlantic and the Pacific fisheries.

Frugality by having the federal government focus on core responsibilities. Frugality through consolidation of statutes and through caution in setting fish harvesting levels. Frugality through the removal of overlap and duplication. Frugality by cutting cost and complexity.

Fairness in finding the balance between meeting the needs of our generation and the needs of future generations. Fairness in ensuring that everyone plays by the rules. Fairness through an open, decision making process. Fairness in ensuring that all stakeholders have a seat at the decision making table.

The new fisheries act will provide more freedom, offer more flexibility, emphasize more frugality and ensure more fairness. That is why the government is proposing this legislation.

The simple fact is that we have not had a comprehensive overhaul of the fisheries act since 1868 in the days of Queen Victoria. The world has changed dramatically since Canada was one year old.

In 1868 Canadians did not have to worry about the fisheries issues on the Grand Banks since my home province was not then a part of Confederation. Our ancestors did not have to consider the Pacific salmon fishery since British Columbia was not part of Canada in those days.

(1820 )

In 1996 we must adapt to the modern notions of citizens' rights and responsibilities. We must adapt to new wisdom about the importance of sustainable development and about the power of technology. We must adapt to the reality of linking the harvesting capacity to the resources available to be harvested. We must create ways to develop newly emerging species such as skate, monkfish and non-traditional crab species. We must meet the challenges of fiscal realities, federal, provincial and territorial realities and the reality that our natural resources are not inexhaustible as they once may have seemed.

We must create opportunities for tapping the knowledge and the skills and the hopes of all sectors of the Canadian fishing industry. We must guarantee that we will meet global challenges through the development of a professional fishery. We must guarantee that we will meet our stewardship responsibility through effective measures to protect fish habitat.

[Translation]

We must simplify, streamline and reinforce the Fisheries Act in order to sustain and strengthen coastal communities and build sustainable fisheries that will see us through this century and the ones to come.

[English]

The bill before the House of Commons proposes a new partnering approach to fisheries management, a new system of sanctions, a streamlining of regulations and rules, improved habitat protection and the creation of a single legislative framework for all fishing on coastal and adjacent waters.

I am particularly enthusiastic about this bill because it will allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whomever he or she may be, to enter into legally binding, long term partnering agreements with commercial licence holders, aboriginal organizations, the recreational fishing sector and other organizations representing the voices of the Canadian fishing industry. Time and time again we have been told to get out of the day to day management of fisheries. Industries large and small have told us they do not need to be led by the hand and that they are ready, indeed eager to row their own boat.

We have listened and we are ready to put in place fisheries management agreements that will provide tangible benefits for the industry's men and women by sharing responsibility with them. The very people who are affected by fisheries and by the management decisions will have a direct say in making those decisions. The fact that these partnering agreements can be valid over the long term will enable fishers and their fishing communities to plan for and to achieve longer term stability. By establishing formal partnering agreements we create this stability.

We also create a level playing field in which everyone is aware of the rules which govern the management of the resource. At present there is far too much of a gold rush mentality in the fishing industry. When all members of a group are involved in making decisions they can stop the beggar thy neighbour mentality which sees people rushing to beat their competitors before a season ends or a quota is reached.

Right now the federal government is micro managing decisions that are best made locally. Clearly the Government of Canada must retain ultimate responsibility for conservation and the proper management of the resource base in so far as those matters affect the national interest, fiduciary rights, international obligation and the preservation of a biologically sustainable resource. We have retained this capacity, make no mistake.

Partnering is not about privatization. Rather it is an opportunity for representative organizations and the industry to have a direct voice in fisheries management, developing ways to manage the fishery more efficiently and providing a more stable climate for long term business planning. It is a process that is open to all sectors of the industry, be they rich or poor, large or small. Fisheries associations too may participate in these agreements where individual fishers are satisfied that they represent their interests.

Partnering will allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to concentrate its core responsibilities related to setting policies for fisheries conservation and protection of the resource. I do not pretend that partnering will end all the ups and downs of the fishing industry, but it will be able to ease some of the cyclical pressures. It can permit greater consistency of approach and greater consistency of income. The proof of course is in the pudding.

I am seeking authority from Parliament to enter into long term partnering because of the very real success we have achieved through the limited number of current, short term co-management agreements. These agreements are precursors to partnering. They are not the sweetheart secret deals that some of our friends in the House and elsewhere would make them out to be. They are voluntary public agreements open to all fishers who opt to enter into them in a specific area in relation to a particular stock of fish. In fact this legislation would allow a much more open process with input from a wide range of participants. Let me provide a few concrete examples of how I have seen a better process in effect.

In the snow crab fishery area in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, fishers have collectively and in a calculated and businesslike manner based on their own experience, judgment, expertise and local knowledge entered into a multi-year co-management agreement. As part of this agreement they have collectively consented to share access to the valuable resource with additional fishers. In short they have decided to become co-managers in setting conservation and management objectives and in sharing the results of those decisions.

Likewise on the Pacific coast fishers in the prawn trap fishery in British Columbia have collectively agreed to limit the number of traps used in their fishery. This decision was taken as a result of a marked increase in the number of traps being used and the recognition that this resulted in a market glut and declining prices while failing to meet conservation objectives.

It is this type of collective work and accountability that I want to build on. It is accountability based on an acknowledgement that

given the opportunity, fishers such as those in Nova Scotia and British Columbia will make good and responsible decisions.

Quite frankly though, short term projects do not give the long term assurances that are required for the sound investment of money, commitment to stewardship of the resource and the dedication to self-monitoring. That is why I encourage Parliament to establish the legal basis for long term partnering in passing this bill in due course.

Let me be clear that while partnering makes eminent sense, there is opposition out there. Some think that I am going to give away my constitutionally protected conservation authority. I can assure the House and anybody who wants to talk that way that I am not delegating my statutory responsibility to any private sector group.

The same principles of flexibility, freedom, frugality and fairness are the foundations of this act. Whether we are talking about sanctions to deal with illegal fishing, whether we are talking about tribunals to deal more expeditiously with problems that occur, whether we are talking about fisheries management orders, they are based on those principles.

As the House of Commons commences study on this bill, our challenge is to keep focused on securing an economically strong fishing industry, an ecologically sustainable fishery and an efficient and effective federal law.

As this bill goes through second reading and proceeds to study by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I hope hon. members will help me to make this an even stronger law. Members of the standing committee have made a commitment to give this bill the thorough review complete with the public hearings it deserves. I support them in that task and look forward to hearing their views and through them the views of the stakeholders and all those involved in the industry.

In bringing this bill to Parliament, the government has attempted to meet those ends based upon the shared Canadian values of freedom, flexibility, frugality and fairness. I look forward with all members of the House I am sure to moving this legislation forward guided by those very same principles that have always anchored our real success in Parliament and in our country.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to call it 6.30 p.m.?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: The House is adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)