Maurice Vellacott

[Petitions, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners mark the fact that children ordinarily thrive the best when raised by both parents. Despite that, courts actually favour mostly sole-custody. Therefore, the petitioners are asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to require equal shared parenting to be treated as the rebuttable presumption in custody decisions, except, of course, in cases of proven neglect or abuse.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. In fact, that is the whole point of what this bill is intended to do. There are many good lawyers in the collaborative law practice across the country whom I have talked to, and the collaborative law practices across the country are driving this kind of a bill. As a result, we would probably have more of these situations settled outside of the courts by way of collaboration and mediation.

That is what has happened in socialist countries, left-leaning countries, and right-of-centre countries, where they have implemented equal shared parenting. Collaborative law and mediation, and that kind of thing, become increasingly important when we have a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting, aside from cases of abuse and neglect.

That is a great question, and a sign of the times by way of what we have on the floor here today.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a statement from the member about the kind of chaos that will be, as opposed to the chaos there presently is across the country.

With due respect to the member, we have shut out people along the way over the course of many years, and the tender years doctrine has sometimes done that in a very considerable way.

Parents never lose the desire to have contact with their children over the course of time. I can tell the member about too many conversations with parents who, after many years, once the money ran out after paying off the lawyers, finally came to an agreement.

I would think that there may be some opening of scenarios, and there will be some reasonable compromises come of that, based on a fair presumption in terms of access. Some of those children at this point will obviously be able to make the choice themselves and say that they want to be with mom or with dad on some kind of basis. They do that now. It is sometimes not honoured, but I think that will be something that will generally work out over time.

I think it is a bit of scare story to talk about chaos when there is actually chaos right now in the legal system in Canada.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question and I look forward to her speech. We will learn from that, I am sure.

In respect to the member's first question, as things stand in our country, people can work this issue out. I remember Kris Titus, who was the president of the Equal Parenting Council across Canada, an umbrella organization for 40-some groups, telling me about when she and her ex, who were living in close communities, went to the judge the first time around to try to work out this kind of arrangement of approximately equal shared parenting. They could do it because they were living in proximity, but the judge could not get his head around it and said that, no, it would probably be a sole custody kind of thing. This was thinking in the courts at that time, and there is probably still a lot of that today.

They had to go back, and they had a battle. It is a credit to her that they actually did that. They did get an agreement of approximately equal shared parenting, but it was not easy to do in a system biased against it.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

moved that Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill, a very non-partisan one, whose time has come in this country for the sake of families and for the benefit of children.

Throughout my time as a member of Parliament, next year my 19th year, I have fought for legislation and public policy that recognizes and protects the role of the family as the foundational unit of society. That is pretty important, and we pay a price when we do not support it, and try to deal with some of the fallout that happens occasionally and try to mitigate that as well in respect to family.

With Bill C-560 I am continuing my commitment to stand up for the Canadian family by seeking an amendment to our Divorce Act. These amendments would keep both parents in the lives of more children in those cases where marriage breaks down.

The amendments in Bill C-560 would direct the courts in regard to divorce to make equal shared parenting, and I will talk later of the range being 35% to 50% roughly, but making it the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.

I introduced a similar bill, Bill C-422, in June 2009, but it was never debated due to an election call.

Previous to that, in 2008, I introduced Motion No. 483, expressing support for the principle of equal shared parenting. At that time, the Government of the Northwest Territories expressed its solidarity with that position by way of a motion that it passed in its legislature.

Seventeen long years ago, in 1997, just prior to my having stepped onto the federal scene here, a joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. The non-partisan recommendation from that joint House-Senate report was based on some pretty compelling research. Members can read that extensive testimony. It was made available to all committee members of the different parties.

Bill C-560 is a modest attempt to address some of the concerns and recommendations made in that report and, in particular, the rebuttable presumption, which takes children out of the equation as pawns in the battle for gain by adversarial parents. Some marriage breakdowns are more adversarial than others, but removing children from that equation would be good. Parents could fight over the house, the boat, the land, and whatever other kinds of assets of that marriage, but not the children. We will set some guidelines. We will have some restrictions. It will not be about the children.

Bill C-560 would require parents to co-operate toward equal shared parenting unless they can make a credible compelling case that this would not be in the best interests of their children.

In this respect, Bill C-560 is catching up to the best social science research, which demonstrates the importance of a child's continued access to both parents, a father and a mother, for the best personal and social outcomes.

There are exceptions to this ordinary reality, which is why the presumption is rebuttable, and lawyers in the House would understand what that means, and why there are exceptions for proven neglect and abuse. This is not just allegations of abuse or allegations of this, that, or the other, but evidentiary proven neglect and abuse.

Bill C-560 would also replace the language of custody and access with the language of parents and it uses terms such as “parenting order” and “equal parenting”.

Recommendation 5 from the “For the Sake of the Children” report reads as follows:

This Committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”, which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms “custody and access”.

The international organization Leading Women for Shared Parenting reports that:

Research also proves that, although children want a relationship with both their parents regardless of marital status, healthy bonding with a non-residential parent is impossible without a substantial amount of time spent in that parent’s physical presence.

That means very close to equal.

This legislation would not establish a firm figure for what that equal time would be. In jurisdictions across the world, from more socialist countries, like Sweden, Belgium, and so on, to more-to-the-right countries, such as I suppose Australia and some U.S. states, the range has been determined to be 35% to 50% of residential time with each parent. That is considered to be consistent with the notion as it is in the courts thus far.

Lawyers for Shared Parenting notes that Bill C-560 conforms with the principles of children's rights as advanced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by Canada. We are a signatory to that convention.

Article 9 of that UN Convention on the Rights of the Child argues for a child's prior right of access to both parents, thereby establishing a presumption for equal shared parenting in cases of divorce and separation.

Some people have objected to establishing a presumption in law regarding child custody cases, but the reality is that a presumption already exists, de facto, in the system. Upwards of 80% of custody cases are decided for sole custody. In effect, we do have a presumption in favour of sole custody as things presently stand.

What Bill C-560 would do is bring Canadian law into the 21st century by bringing it up to date with the best social science research, which indicates that a child's continued access to both parents following divorce or separation is in the typical child's best interest.

I think it is important to define what this best interest is. So often across the country we use the term, the amorphous, vague term, “the best interests of the child”. Members might have even heard it said in speeches today around the House. Certainly people will say that they do not know if they want this bill to come into place, because they are for the best interests of the child, which is amorphous, vague, and moldable as putty in the hands of lawmakers, social workers, and so on, and it does not really get at what that really is in a factual way.

We now know from social science research that the best interests of children is to have continued access to both parents following divorce or separation. That is in their best interests. That is the understanding from a social science basis of what that term actually should mean.

Others have represented this bill by claiming that it eliminates judicial discretion. I am not a lawyer and of course I would not want to offend my legal colleagues, so we are not eliminating all judicial discretion on these custodial matters. This bill would not eliminate all judicial discretion. There could still be a consideration of the situation of each family that comes before the courts.

What the bill does is tighten up the language surrounding judicial discretion, so that it becomes more difficult to use an antiquated interpretation of the best interests of the child as an excuse to rationalize a disproportionate percentage of sole custody decisions in today's family courts.

Suggestions that a rebuttable presumption is too onerous a standard are also brought forward by some people. That particular accusation is really inconsistent with multiple constitutional rulings in many countries, including Canada, where those rulings have made judgments that parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children unless shown otherwise.

If one wants to say that rebuttable presumption is too onerous, then really one is almost arguing for the revocation of the basic legal doctrine that one is presumably innocent unless proven otherwise. That is a basic tenet of our judicial system, that one is innocent until proven otherwise, presumptively innocent. In respect to parents, it is same thing. Unless one can prove that a person is not a fit parent, we are not wise to make those kinds of assumptions.

Some have argued that a presumption of equal shared parenting would increase conflict in already acrimonious family situations. In fact it is the adversarial family court system that fuels such conflict and disenfranchisement of parents that is really the most harmful to children, pitting parents against each another in bitter court battles that frequently result in a winning and a losing parent. Do we really desire that kind of a system where we litigate over children? Do we desire a system where the courts remove fit parents from their own children's lives?

The negative impact of this current system on children, mostly and foremost, as well as on their parents and extended family is really quite unconscionable and immoral.

Bill C-560 should reduce conflict because it takes children out of the equation as objects of possession to be fought over by parents. With a presumption of equal shared parenting, access to the children cannot continue to be a part of divorce negotiations and treated like a portion of the winnings or losses of divorce agreements.

Parents would know that, barring cases of proven abuse or neglect, the courts would enforce an equitable access arrangement between both parents. Parents would be free to surrender some access, if that works better for their personal circumstances and their children, but the presumption would create a disincentive for hostile parents to try to keep access to the children from the other parent.

For example, if a father were a long-haul trucker, he might say he has the presumption of equal shared parenting but, for him, it only works to have the kids about 30% of the time and the mother to have them 70% of the time. The mother might say that she is a physician with a busy and pressured life, and she can only handle the children 35% of the time at her location. In those cases, that kind of arrangement would be made. It would not impose upon people to say that access has to be 50%. It could be arranged, and it could be anywhere from 35% to 50%.

The presumption of equal parenting would also be expected to reduce divorce rates. This is proven to be the case. As far back as 1998, researchers postulated that. When people go into a situation without the presumption that they are going to get it all, sometimes they back away a bit and they begin to work at those marriage difficulties.

People like Margaret F. Brinig, Frank Buckley, and Dr. Sanford Braver and various publications, such as International Review of Law and Economics and American Law and Economics Review, have found that there is a pre-emptive and preventive factor in this whole concept of equal shared parenting.

I think colleagues in the House are well aware of the social costs surrounding deviant behaviour among youth, whether it is in terms of the justice system or the welfare system. An important way to reduce those costs and the logistical challenges related to policing, the courts, social welfare program delivery, social worker caseloads, and more is to strengthen the families in our communities, including children's access to both their father and their mother, even in cases of separation and divorce.

Children in sole custody settings are reported as having a notably higher likelihood—three times higher, in fact—of suffering from low self-esteem, insecurity, and rejection, being underachievers, including school dropout, substance abuse, depression, suicide, teen pregnancy, and even crime. It is kind of jarring, but I am just stating the facts here. Approximately 80% of criminals are from single parent homes.

I need to quickly qualify that my hat is off to the single parents I have known, and who we all know, from the House, our ridings, and elsewhere, who do a 24-7 job and who do a remarkable job. However, it is not an easy job. The reality is, and the statistics are, that 80% of individuals in trouble with the law are from single parent home situations.

In most cases of sole custody, it is granted maybe more typically to the mother and the father is shut out. Fatherlessness in particular has been isolated as a serious indicator for poor outcomes among children. We have Big Brothers Big Sisters and other substitutes for that very reason.

I can list a host of problems. There is anxiety, learning disabilities, truancy, runaways, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, mental illness, and suicide. They are some of the things that can occur on a long list or litany, when fathers are removed from homes unnecessarily. Equal shared parenting is an important way to combat these risks among the growing segment of children who live in homes that have experienced divorce.

There is a lot of good research. I will just drop a few names at this point. There is Dr. Edward Kruk, a professor at the University of British Columbia. There is a new study by Richard A. Warshak at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura have an article on social structure and criminal victimization. We have a long list of many others who have done extensive research on the benefits of equal shared parenting. People can contact me later about them, and they are on my website for people to look at.

We have countries in Europe, including France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and Luxembourg, that have adopted shared parenting. A number of U.S. states have as well.

We find, as well, across our country, that about 80% of those who claim to be NDP supporters and 80% of Liberal supporters support this concept of equal shared parenting; also 80% of Conservative supporters. More women than men, above 80% again, support equal shared parenting. All across the country, the highest levels of support are in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, where it is again above 80%.

I would close by thanking my colleague from the Liberal Party, Raymonde Folco, who was the seconder on my bill, Bill C-422. She is an avowed, staunch feminist, who stood with me as we launched that first bill.

The bill is one that all colleagues in the House, irrespective of gender or part of the country, would support for the benefit of children.

[Petitions, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. These petitioners from British Columbia indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They want to see that changed and toughened up so that we have some new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter. They have some other good suggestions in this proposal as well.

It is my privilege to present this good petition from citizens of British Columbia, where I did spend some earlier years of my working life.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is no grandfathering. The very clear and careful criteria that have been agreed to and the interpretation of the criteria would apply to all of them. To maintain the integrity of the process, everyone would get the same due process and the same thorough scrutiny.

In terms of procedural fairness, most of us would agree to have the same criteria. Nobody should sneak in under the wire. The criteria should not be applied differently to some who were already on the list. As I said before, there would be no clawing back for people deemed to have been on that list inappropriately. None of the benefits they might have received in the meantime would be taken back from them. They are currently still on the band list.

All of these together would be considered under the same consistent criteria that would be applied to all of them. None would be excluded.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination, pursuant to the agreement. They would have recourse to the courts and other legal processes. They could challenge through the courts their exclusion from the schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation order. They would be deprived of none of that. They would have full access to any and all of that in terms of appeals they may feel they need to undertake as a result of being excluded from the order.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, clause 4 would support the overall integrity and credibility of the membership. I think it is crucial in the enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. It would ensure that the applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration would not obtain compensation for benefits intended only for registered Indians. They are on the list presently until found otherwise, according to some very clear criteria.

Those benefits would not be clawed back. I think we would all agree that individuals who are rightfully a part of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation will continue to be, but there may be some on that list who are not eligible, according to clear criteria.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would first indicate that I am splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, so the House will only have the privilege of hearing me speak for about 10 minutes. Then I will leave the floor for questions and comments.

The bill has been spoken to already. There have been many persuasive arguments to support this important piece of legislation. First and foremost, Bill C-25 would enable the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation to finalize its membership list. That process began with the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, signed by the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, but it has yet to be completed. For reasons other speakers have already explained, and as others will hereafter, the full implementation of that agreement has been delayed.

As the House may know or may have already heard during this debate, the very first stage of that enrolment process ended on November 30, 2009. The first stage resulted in the issuance of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order on September 22, 2011. As a result, 23,877 individuals were enrolled as the band's founding members. With that they gained Indian status under the Indian Act, giving them access to certain federal programs and services, as they should have.

However, issues with the enrolment process became apparent during the second stage of the enrolment process, which ended on November 30, 2012. Just to remind the House, an additional 36 months were provided under that original 2008 agreement to guarantee that everyone who might be eligible to become a member of Qalipu Mi'kmaq band had ample time to apply.

Much to the surprise of both parties, more than 75,000 additional people took the opportunity to apply for membership, bringing the total number of applications to over 101,000. To put that into perspective, that figure represents about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada, so it is a very significant number. It is also worth noting that over 46,000 applications were sent in during the last three months, the last quarter before that November 30, 2012 deadline.

Concerns were raised by both parties to the agreement that these numbers were possibly not credible and that the integrity of the enrolment process had been undermined. Consequently, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada agreed to the need for a supplemental agreement, which was announced in July 2013. The parties were able to use those provisions in the 2008 agreement to amend the original agreement.

The supplemental agreement provides greater clarity surrounding the criteria for band membership. It provides the necessary detail to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the integrity of the process is protected. This is of great concern to the leaders of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and to our government, as it should be to all members of the House.

To be clear, the enrolment criteria set out in the 2008 agreement remain the same. Nothing has changed with respect to that. The supplemental agreement clarifies how to assess that criteria and which documents may be considered. Anyone wishing to join the first nation needs to prove his or her eligibility for membership. That is the responsible and appropriate thing to do, from the point of view of the Newfoundland first nation and the Government of Canada and all citizens across this great country.

Applicants must provide documentary evidence that they self-identified as being members of a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq group prior to 2008. They also have to demonstrate that they were accepted by the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq group of Indians through their active involvement in Mi'kmaq culture before the first nation was officially formed.

The supplemental agreement also allows more time for the enrolment committee to process the tens of thousands of unexpected applications. That is essential to ensure that everyone who submitted an application is treated fairly and equitably and that there is due consideration given to each application in the process.

This process will ultimately resolve any lingering questions about who is or who is not a member of the band, and it will provide clarity for the entire enrolment process. However, to accomplish this, another step is required, and the fact is that legislation is necessary to enable the Governor in Council to amend the recognition order once the enrolment process under the supplemental agreement is complete.

An amendment to the schedule will be required to add the names of those who are found to be entitled to be members and also to remove the names of those on the list who are determined to be ineligible for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, according to the criteria.

It is possible that some of those initially deemed to be founding members will no longer be entitled to Indian status, should the current review reveal that they do not meet the enrolment criteria. However, I want to underline that there will be no changes to the schedule until the review process is over. All those currently registered as Indians under the Indian act will continue to have access to designated programs and services until that time.

Despite the steps our government is taking to come to a conclusion on this matter to ensure clarity and fairness for applicants, the members of the Liberal Party thus far have suggested that the agreement with the FNI establishing clear criteria for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation stands for nothing, that it is of no account and is not important at all. We believe that it is. It is crucial, and I think that any complacency or lack of regard for integrity is an example of what the Liberal members are doing on this. It is really a matter of putting their own personal interests before the interests of those they claim to represent.

I am sure that all other members of the House can understand that clarity is essential. I think fair-minded people would admit that. It is essential for everyone involved but especially for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland. They want this kind of clarity and integrity.

Yesterday, on the floor of the House of Commons, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the House leader for the NDP, mistakenly referred to this legislation as a treaty. Maybe it was misspoken on his part or a slip, but I want to make it very clear to the members in this House that this is not about a treaty.

When the member does his homework, he will know that this is about an agreement entered into between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. It is the only way to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the supplemental agreement can be implemented. It is vital for ensuring the integrity of the process.

Parliamentarians need to recognize that this can only be accomplished by enacting the piece of legislation before us. It would enable the Governor in Council to make the required amendments to the recognition order. Passage of Bill C-25 is necessary to finalize the membership list of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. It is the final step in fully implementing these agreements and going on from there.

It is incumbent on members on both sides of this House to ensure that this can take place and that we move on it. I urge all parties to join our government in ensuring the swift passage of Bill C-25 to complete the process for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and its eligible members.