Bill C-252 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition)

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to provide that, in the case of a former spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition, the court shall make a variation order in respect of access that is in the best interests of the child.

Divorce Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-252.

Hon. members have well covered the mechanics of what is involved here, but I have some points that I want to make. Whenever I hear of an issue on the floor of the House of Commons that has to do with families and children, I want to be part of it. One of the first bills that I had as a member was to provide income splitting between spouses so that one spouse could stay at home and care for preschool children.

I started to get involved in family and children issues and in fact, I have penned a number of small books on the subject. One of the books I wrote is called Divorce--The Bold Facts. It deals with a significant issue called parental alienation syndrome. This is one of the problems when there is a family breakdown and there is a custody issue and it is a nasty one or a confrontational split-up.

One of the things I learned in doing research for that book was that children who witness abuse of their parents are as affected as if the children themselves had been abused. I also found that children who were used as pawns, as it were, in this parental alienation syndrome were also very much affected by the fact that one parent was pitting the children against another parent.

Through all the research and work that I have done, the truism for me is that both mothers and fathers have an important role to play in the lives of their children, even if the parents hate each other. That is important and that is the principle that this bill has raised.

Having said that, the bill itself, as we know, has now been amended. It was a one clause bill. That clause has been deleted and replaced by another clause. It basically addressed the substantive concerns that people had with regard to the bill and that was that it appeared to be putting a greater reliance on a principle that the spouse had a right that may have impinged on the whole concept of the best interests of the child.

About 10 years ago a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate issued an excellent report called “For the Sake of the Children”. I participated in some of the dialogue. One of the things that came out is that in these custody and access dispute issues the child was the only one in the proceedings that did not have a representative. The mother had a lawyer, the father had a lawyer, but who was taking care of the child? In fact, the child was being used as a pawn. Parental alienation syndrome was part of it. In fact, domestic violence was part of it. It was a number of these issues.

That report contained some excellent recommendations. I am sorry to say that the Divorce Act still has not been amended to take into account some of the important recommendations that were made by the special joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate in its report, “For the Sake of the Children”.

The items in the report deal very frontally with the kinds of things that the hon. member for Lethbridge has raised in his bill.

The bill in its original form was in some difficulty and likely would have not been successful at second reading. I understand that was the reason it was necessary to respond to the points that were raised during the first hour of debate some 30 sitting days ago.

Even with the current wording, and I think the member for Burnaby—Douglas also has expressed some concern, there are a couple of things that do not quite work. We are at second reading debate on the bill where we debate the fundamental principles of the bill, the intent. We can deal at committee and at report stage with ensuring that the words are correct. I am not going to mince words that this bill does not technically work in the end result for me and so I am not going to support it; I will support it in principle and I will be recommending that my caucus support the bill in principle and that it be sent to the justice committee.

I should also say that I share the concern that others have. The member for Hochelaga indicated that the justice committee is totally bogged down. It is unfortunate, because it means that good legislation may have some difficulty getting through before there is another election after all the work that parliamentarians have done. It is a possibility. The Minister of Finance will concede it is a possibility, unless he comes up with a darned good budget.

The problem with minority governments is they have a quirkiness in that the legislative process by and large takes a substantial period of time. If a bill does not get introduced early enough in a minority Parliament, it will likely die on the order paper and that is a shame. Let me be specific for the members' purposes and for the committee that will look at it and I hope it will have a chance.

The issue that they will be granted access appears to require to be defined, because in saying they shall be granted access, there are no dimensions. Could it be a day? Could it be a week? Who controls the timing of that? The mechanics of how it works is not in the existing legislation. This bill does not define it. We may have to deal with that in committee and I will urge the committee to make a definition about what it means and how it ties in consistently with the whole family of issues related to custody and access orders.

The second item has to do with children. Children are persons 18 years of age and under. We have to ask ourselves whether or not the provisions of the Divorce Act amended by the bill would actually coerce a 12 to 17 year old to actually visit with a parent when a court may not order that and the child may not want to visit that parent. We have age of reason issues as well. There may be a conflict that has to be dealt with. What if a child of the age of reason does not want to visit that parent? This cannot be black and white. It is like most of our laws in that we have to deal with it on a case by case basis. There may have to be some proviso, for example, where possible, in accordance with orders or what are the rights of the child.

The importance of the bill is that it provides an opportunity to take the first step at making a critical appraisal of the condition of the current Divorce Act and the recommendation of the joint committee that did the report, “For the Sake of the Children”, to open up these issues to dialogue and discussion.

I am supportive of the intent. I am a big fan of private members' business. I have had some success, but I can tell the member and all hon. members, in my view the best outcome of a private member's bill is to have the government adopt it as its own so that it can get fast tracked through the appropriate minister. There is nothing better.

For instance, there was a private member's item which provided that if there was a situation of domestic abuse, the penalty related to that would be more than common assault because a trust relationship was being violated. In fact, in the Criminal Code today there are stiffer sentences for those who are convicted of spousal abuse. That happened not as a result of the ultimate discussion and debate and going through the whole private members' business process, but because the minister took it upon himself to do it.

The extension of maternity and paternal leave under EI from six months to a full year was the subject of a private member's bill. I do not even think it had second reading, but it appeared in the very next budget of the minister. The Minister of Finance is here. Maybe there are some opportunities here to do that.

The bill is at second reading in principle and I believe the member was motivated with all the best intentions. I think he has the support of the House and I recommend that the House pass the bill at second reading.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-252, an act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition).

The NDP supported the amendment that the member for Lethbridge brought to his private member's bill. NDP members had some concerns about the original private member's bill, but we are pleased to see that in his amendment he took into consideration many of the concerns that were raised in the first hour of debate and in discussions with other members of the House.

It is a much better proposal in its current form and I look forward to it going to the justice committee for further discussion and perhaps improvement there, although I share the concerns of the member for Hochelaga about the workload of the justice committee. It is extremely significant at the moment and I hope the bill gets the attention that it deserves when it goes to committee. I hope it has that opportunity.

NDP members had some serious concerns with the original bill. Our concerns stemmed mainly around the fact that it seemed to mandate a visit of a child and a terminally or critically ill parent. The language “to ensure that a spouse who was terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child” was of great concern to us. That language flies in the face of the experience of Canadian jurisprudence and families who have faced the situation of divorce and visitation rights over the last many years. Children were not forced in those circumstances to make those kinds of visits, even in that circumstance.

I had concerns with the original wording, but there is some improvement now in the amendment. It clearly recognizes the importance of the best interests of the child in consideration of arranging such a visit when there is a terminal illness or a critical condition.

I am not sure the bill, as amended, really changes the practice of our system now. I am sure that critical or terminal illness could be considered a change of circumstance and would amount to a court hearing arguments around a change in visitation rights. I do not think there is a significant change in the practice and would hope that any court confronted with that situation and the serious concerns about someone whose life is coming to an end might consider this an important reason to revisit the issue of visitation rights. I am sure in most instances that would be the case.

I am not sure this significantly changes the current practice, but if it clarifies it and draws attention to the importance of that circumstance, then perhaps there is no harm in doing this. The key in all of this is that whatever decision is made it be made in the child's best interest. This has been the long established practice and importance of these considerations in the system.

There are concerns about defining the age of a child with regard to this legislation. We have seen in the past that courts have absolutely refused to order a child 12 years or older to visit a parent when that child has refused to do so. That is a rough rule of thumb for the court, according to my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, but is something that we need to take into consideration.

I believe there has been an established precedent that children should have some say in the requirement to visit a parent and that probably applies in any circumstance, including one where there is terminal or critical illness. To move to a situation of requiring such a visit of a child would be a serious problem. Children over 12 certainly have the maturity to decide if they are willing to visit a parent or not. In further discussion of the bill, we have to ensure that this is one of the things that is a serious consideration.

It is very clear that visitation rights in Canada are rights of the child, not of the parent. The key factor is that the best interests of the child must guide the court in making a determination. When those visitation rights are enforced or ordered, this still needs to be the key consideration. The rights of the child and what is in the best interest of the child in the circumstances need to be taken into account. That has to have a prime place in the considerations here, even in these difficult circumstances.

I think it is fair to say that all of us would like to see terminally ill people have the ability to perhaps have a last visit with their child. We can all understand why that might be important to someone. However, I do not think there should be a compulsion on a child, especially an older child, to do that nor do I think the need of a terminally ill person to have that final visit should necessarily trump the best interests of the child in this case.

Unfortunately, we know, even at the time of terminal or critical illness, that often people can be as manipulative as they have been at other points in their lives. It is not always a completely altruistic moment in our lives. To make an exception in the case of that circumstance around visitation rights would be a serious problem. This is something that still merits the attention of the committee and members as the bill is discussed further at committee.

It is important that the discretion of the court is maintained in these circumstances. This is why I would argue against the use of words like “ensure” or other words that access is granted. This kind of hard and fast language may impede the ability of the court to take into consideration all the factors that may come into play in a circumstance like this. We want to ensure that every possible circumstance and issue is brought to the attention of the court and discussed in the circumstance of the child, the family and the parents.

It is very important that we maintain the discretion of the courts to deal with these circumstances. While we might offer guidance in the Divorce Act around this circumstance, this needs to be worded in a way that maintains the ability of the court to ultimately make the decision based on the best interest of the child, according to the information the court has at hand at the time.

I am happy to have had the chance to speak to the bill as amended. I think a better version of it is now being discussed. Hopefully it will go forward to the committee where it may have a chance to improve it further and send it back to the House. At that time, we can make a further judgment on private member's Bill C-252. We can see whether it goes forward and allows a more appropriate way to address the circumstances of visitation rights of a critically or terminally ill person.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this second hour of debate on the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge, namely Bill C-252.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We are not planning to make a habit of it, but when sensible and balanced bills come along, we are always happy to cooperate, especially where private members' bills are concerned. A member can really show the full extent of his or her talent with legislation like that. In my caucus, I have always maintained that debate on private members' bills should not be limited to one hour; instead, two hours a day should be allocated to debating these bills. I think that would be one way to enhance the role of MPs.

That having been said, Bill C-252 deals with the Divorce Act. Members might remember that, for a long time, divorce was pretty unusual. There was even a time, long ago, when an application had to be made to the Senate or a private bill had to be introduced for a divorce to be granted. In time, divorce has become much more mainstream. In terms of division of powers, one could of course find it somewhat illogical that Quebec has jurisdiction over separation from bed and board and matters relating to civil law, but not divorce. In fact, every Quebec premier from Daniel Johnson to Jean Lesage, and from René Lévesque to Jean Charest has traditionally called for divorce to fall under the responsibility of the Government of Quebec, through its National Assembly. This way, we would have full and complete, integrated and consistent jurisdiction over family matters, even though divorce is admittedly something that is always painful for someone to go through.

What the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge proposes is to amend section 16 of the Divorce Act, which provides for custody orders. Increasingly divorces take place by mutual agreement and the divorce process is not judicialized. There are nevertheless legal and administrative matters that require court intervention. The granting of custody is one of these matters.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act says that a court of competent jurisdiction—in Quebec, this is the Superior Court—may, on application by either or both spouses or any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody and access to, any or all children of the marriage. This is subsection 1 of section 16.

Subsection 2 also says that the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all of the children of the marriage, pending determination of the application.

What is also important is that, in our divorce legislation, the issue of the children’s interests has always been extremely central. The wish is for the courts, when deciding on shared custody, access and visitation, to do so in the light of the child’s best interests.

There is extremely important jurisprudence defining what are the child’s interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education. That is why, contrary to what our fellow citizens think, custody of a child is never automatic. There is always a set of factors that must be assessed by the court. What is central are the child’s best interests.

A few years ago, this Parliament created a committee to review the whole issue of children. For the Bloc Québécois, it was the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher who sat on the committee. The committee again specified, confirmed and reconfirmed that the child’s interests, the child’s best interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education, must be central to the Divorce Act. Among the factors that a court of justice has to evaluate, this one must be paramount.

Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act states, and I believe it is worth quoting:

In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

We must therefore not assume that the courts will favour one parent over the other. It is established in our laws and set out in the legislation: we recognize that the child should maintain contact as much as possible with both parents, and that it is the responsibility of the parent who has primary custody to facilitate visiting with the other parent.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our colleague from Lethbridge on his new responsibilities, since he was elected chair of the sugar caucus. In fact, he and I both have refineries in our ridings. The sugar industry is extremely important and we see a threat on the horizon. The previous Liberal government wanted to negotiate an agreement with Central American countries to bring in even more sugar duty free. Obviously, that creates a problem in terms of competition, particularly concerning production costs for the large refineries in our regions. We will see if the current government also wants to pursue those negotiations.

So, the member for Lethbridge has new responsibilities and I would like to assure him that I will be at his side when the time comes to defend the sugar industry.

The hon. member for Lethbridge has proposed adding a subsection to section 16. This new provision, probably the result of representations made to him by some of his fellow citizens, would constitute subsection 16(11), and would read as follows:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

The hon. member for Lethbridge must have received representations from parents living with an incurable or debilitating disease or a degenerative disorder that was an obstacle in the evaluation of their custody rights by a judge or the Superior Court in Quebec’s case.

We all know that a person should not be deprived of access to a child of his marriage because of a health problem. To the contrary, this should be a facilitating consideration. The provision suggested by the hon. member for Lethbridge leads us to support this amendment.

The best interests of the child must still be the core of all legal decisions. That is in section 16 of the act. This is how the law has evolved.

We know very well, though, that it would be sad. It is already difficult enough to have health problems and this should not be a reason. So long as other conditions are present in the family environment, the health setbacks of the child’s father or mother should not be a reason to stop encouraging contact with this parent, a fruitful relationship that might be an end-of-life relationship for one of the parents.

We know the comfort a child can provide.

We are going to support this bill in principle. If the House so desires, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This committee has quite a bit on its plate right now because the Conservative government has introduced seven bills with very different prospects. Most deserve to be voted down, but the Bloc Québécois will give this one a lot of consideration.

I wish the hon. member for Lethbridge the best of luck.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Over 30 years with the same man.

With the end of marriage, the difficult questions surrounding custody of dependants have to be attended to.

Again the tender of such proceedings can vary, and sometimes custody arrangements will limit the access of one parent to a child. This is not exceptional in itself for it occurs daily in courtrooms throughout the country. The exceptional occurrence, what Bill C-252 seeks to address, is the conditions or privileges granted to a terminally ill or a critical condition parent. The bill before us today seeks to grant such a parent access to their child in this difficult period.

Adding subsection (11) to section 16, custody orders, of the Divorce Act, the proposed subsection reads:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

I would like to draw attention to the House a key provision drafted in that amendment which has the effect of ensuring that such access is granted provided it is in the best interests of the child involved.

Proposed subsection (11) is subject to subsection (8), which reads, “In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”. A child would consequently be shielded from possibly being returned to the custody of a parent who may have, or may again, inflict any harm upon the child.

I believe this provision speaks to the fact that the bill seeks to strike a proper balance between parental rights and child protection. Providing a legally entrenched avenue for a dying parent to have access to their child to say a last goodbye with the provision I just mentioned is the decent thing to do.

I cannot, nor do I wish to, imagine facing the prospect of being prevented from looking into the eyes of one's child the last time before the hour of death. More important, robbing a child of such a moment, that final reassurance everything will be all right, is not something that should be facilitated by the state.

The English poet Matthew Arnold wrote, “Truth sits upon the lips of dying men”. Most would hold this to be an intrinsic truth. As difficult as it may be to the parent and child, the period before one's expected death represents a final opportunity to impart what a mother or father holds to be true to their child.

The language of the dying is usually stripped of generalities and devoid of excess of words, especially when spoken from a parent to their child. There is typically an economy of words used, not because of a lack of things to say, but to ensure the impact of those few spoken are magnified to the fullest extent, often simply limited to three.

The anguish of a child following the death of a parent is inevitable and it is natural. As legislators we have no power or desire to avert that. However, ensuring the welfare of children is not simply limited to sheltering them from harm, but also allowing them the experiences of life.

Bill C-252 can assist in a small way by permitting recourse for parental access at this sensitive time.

In psychology the term “closure” refers to a state of experiencing an emotional conclusion to a difficult life event like the death of a loved one. Bill C-252 will not bring closure, for as the Canadian journalist Robert Fulford once argued that closure cannot be achieved consciously. One cannot arbitrarily shorten the length of time it takes to soften the edges of grief, and this is especially true for a child. But there is solace and comfort inherent to acts of finality, such as the solemn moments of farewell with a dying loved one which, with the passage of time, contribute to the process of closure.

On that basis, I ask my colleagues to support unanimously Bill C-252 proposed by the member for Lethbridge.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act introduced by the member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Before I continue with my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the member for his continued advocacy for the protection of society's most vulnerable, our children. Since his initial election to the House of Commons in 1997, the member has been persistent and vigilant in ensuring issues surrounding the welfare of Canada's children remain on Parliament's agenda.

One highlight of his ongoing advocacy includes his private member's bill, Bill C-313, from the 38th Parliament. That bill would have amended the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Although that particular legislation was unsuccessful, chiefly due to the previous government's opposition, it helped draw national attention to the age of consent issue and it also crystallized in the minds of many Canadians the need for a new approach in Ottawa toward criminal justice, especially where our children are concerned.

I am proud to report that, unlike the previous government, this Conservative government and this Prime Minister are committed to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including raising the age of consent between children and adults from 14 to 16 years of age. As we move forward in implementing this necessary change, I would like to recognize the member for Lethbridge for his laudable contribution and, on behalf of Canada's children and their parents, thank him.

That brings us to the matter under debate here today, legislation which again deals with an issue important to the welfare of children. It involves difficult and emotional matters. It deals with those parts of life we do not necessarily bring up in casual conversations. When we talk about these matters we tend to do so in hushed tones, with long pauses and guarded expressions: Death and divorce.

These are not parts of life we anticipate in any great measure, only accept for we have no choice. While there is the rare exception, these events are saturated in the most wrenching of human emotions for all those involved. This is particularly true for young children. For it goes without saying that neither the break-up of a parent's marriage or the death of a parent are elements we associate with the carefree innocence of childhood. It is a cruel coincidence of fate that would visit both such events on a child, but the destiny of fate knows not of the sorrow it inflicts.

While death is inevitable, the end of a marriage is not, but it is today a distinct possibility. A divorce is not a flippant decision for most people. It represents the lamentable end of earlier promise. Some are mutual and amicable, others are bitter and acrimonious.

According to Statistics Canada, each year approximately 70,000 couples will get a divorce. Furthermore, today almost 40% of marriages will end in divorce by the 30th wedding anniversary. I would like to say that I beat that anniversary.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand today and speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-252. It is an act to the amend the Divorce Act. This bill seeks ensure that divorced parents who are terminally or in critical condition are granted access to their children to say goodbye before passing on.

The bill is about families, specifically families where parents have been divorced. Divorce is an unfortunate reality in Canadian society today, a reality that transcends socio-economic, racial and religious boundaries. The bill recognizes that although divorce severs spousal bonds between parents, the family bonds between parents and their children remain. Although divorce usually means that a family structure and dynamic is forever changed, it is very important that the bonds and relationship between parents and their children remain intact, unfettered and free to evolve.

The bonds that exist between parents and their children are both natural and essential, a physical and emotional attachment. From birth, children depend on their parents for all of their needs and continue to depend on their parents in one way or another throughout life. Children are dependent on parents for more than just physical or material basics for survival. Parents provide a primary example, a template for their children. Parents are their children's best teacher. Parents are their children's first friend. Parents bring their children into the world, and I believe that all parents should consider their children to be the centrepieces of their lives and achievements.

Few people in children's lives, if any, play as significant and as meaningful a role as their parents. Likewise, few, if any, people in the life of a parent mean as much to them as their children. These bonds are like no other. Few bonds run deeper than those between parent and child.

Divorce does not have the automatic effect of severing or suspending all parent-child bonds. Indeed, parents, divorced or not, usually continue as primary supporters and nurturers of their children. Whether this means taking them to a hockey practice or celebrating a graduation or a wedding, divorced parents, like all parents, need to share in their children's lives.

They need to share these times with their children just as their children need to share special times with their parents. The sharing of life between parent and child is essential as they walk the path of life together, through the good times and the bad, until it is time to say goodbye.

The circle of life is made up of segments of individual lives, lives with beginnings and ends. It is always a happy occasion when we say hello to a family member for the first time and a very sad event when we say goodbye for the last time. Nonetheless, the two occasions are both important and essential--not just saying the cheerful hellos but also the sad goodbyes.

This is a bill that I have undertaken because there are indeed regrettable situations that exist across the country where divorced parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition have difficulty achieving or are denied the opportunity to say goodbye to their children before passing away. This is truly regrettable and requires the attention of the House.

Parents and children need to be ensured, as much as is possible, access to each other to say goodbye in these sorts of circumstances. Although saying goodbye under such sad circumstances is always difficult, it is an important step for both parent and child.

There was such a case involving a former constituent of mine who died of leukemia. This young divorced mother was in her final days of a courageous fight for her life when her children were removed from her custody. This is why I have undertaken this bill.

Judges need to be empowered through the amendment proposed by this bill to grant access to divorced parents who are terminally or in critical condition. It is not enough for us to hear of such a sad story and to shake our heads and turn away. We need to take meaningful action to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

This private member's bill seeks to guarantee parental rights but also ensures that such rights are not granted at the expense of the rights of children. The bill declares that any access granted under the authority of the proposed amendment would be subject to subsection 16(8) of the Divorce Act , which clearly states that any custody order must be based upon the “best interests” of the children.

For instance, if a parent who had been abusive were critically ill, the history of abuse would influence the ability to gain access to the children. This ensures that the interests of the children involved are upheld and protected in situations where such protection is necessary.

Once again, the ability to say goodbye is important for both parent and child, but we must approach this issue in a balanced and prudent fashion. I believe that this bill and the condition it contains do just that.

I know that topics of family and emotional bonds are not common to the House. Indeed, it seems a bit ironic for such matters to be addressed by Parliament and discussed from a legal or policy perspective. However, the bill and this debate are indeed necessary.

The work of the House is of a normative nature in that we seek to establish norms, legal rules and ideal standards. The Divorce Act as it currently exists does not provide divorced parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition with access to their children to ensure that they can say goodbye. I believe this is a natural and essential right that the House needs not only to recognize but to pass into law.

The Divorce Act was created by Parliament as a legal framework from which divorces and the conditions of divorces are to be structured. The Divorce Act therefore provides our judges with a road map which they use to navigate through cases of divorce in the pursuit of fair and balanced settlements, settlements that hopefully make the best of a bad situation for both parents and children.

Having to say a final goodbye, especially at a premature juncture of life, is perhaps one of the most difficult yet essential events that a parent may face. I use the word “essential” here because it is important for both the parent and the child. The parents need to have the chance to say goodbye to the most important people in their lives, their children. The children likewise need that chance to say goodbye, for different reasons. If a child is faced with losing a parent, saying goodbye is an important step of preparing for the imminent loss they face. Without the chance to say that goodbye, closure is complicated and the grieving process is skewed. Guaranteed access for divorced parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition, so that parent and child are ensured the opportunity to say goodbye, is important for both child and parent.

I believe that as elected members of Parliament representing parents, including divorced parents, and their children, it is time for us to amend the Divorce Act to ensure that divorced parents who are in their last days or hours of this life are guaranteed access to their children to say their goodbyes. This is a bill that Parliament needs to pass. It is an instruction that our judges need to be empowered with. It is a right that every parent, divorced or not, deserves.

I look forward to hearing what the other parties have to say on this issue today. I know that the Divorce Act and some of the issues in it are in need of a tune-up, not just this aspect, but this is one that I have chosen to key in on. I think that most of us as members of Parliament hear from divorced parents many times on custody issues, maintenance issues and issues of access. To have the bill passed through the House and to get it to the justice and human rights committee for discussion and debate would give us an opportunity to have a look at this aspect of what needs to be changed.

As I indicated, there are other problems with the Divorce Act, and perhaps in the future there will be an opportunity for those problems to be addressed, but I want to reiterate that under section 16 of the Divorce Act, custody orders, subsection 16(8) is the key here. We want to make sure that we are doing this in the best interests of the children. Subsection 16(8) does that. It clearly states that in making an order under this section the court “shall only take into consideration the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by the reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”.

If there were a case where an order had been issued that the child should be kept away from a parent for some reason, whether it is abuse or whatever, that would be upheld by subsection 16(8). Our amendment would simply be added as subsection 16(11) after the other subsections, which would allow that to be upheld.

It is hard to imagine a situation where people could come to such a state in their lives or in their personal feelings that this type of problem would actually exist for a terminally ill parent. In the case I mentioned, it was leukemia that took this young lady over a period of time. In the last days it became very difficult for her to have her children with her because of the divorced partner.

If we address this it will be one small step toward bringing some justice to this issue and allowing a healing process.

I think many of us in this House, probably all, have had to go through that at one time or another in our lives with somebody who was very close and that ability to have that last chance to have contact to say that last good-bye is very important. It is almost hard to believe that this could happen in our society today here in Canada without the protection of the law.

I look forward to what the other parties have to say and I will wrap up later during my remaining five minutes.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table this bill to amend the Divorce Act. It would allow terminally ill or critically ill parents the right to see their children one last time. It adds a section to the Divorce Act.

I hope, when this comes back to the House for debate, that I can get all party support on this issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)