Debates of Nov. 25th, 1994

Yukon Surface Rights Board Act

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I simply want to say that as far as aboriginal land claims are concerned, whether we are talking about Canada or Quebec, I think it is important to put this debate in its proper historical and geopolitical perspective.

I also wish to emphasize that at the negotiations, a spirit of justice and tolerance should prevail, both among federal and provincial authorities and leaders of aboriginal communities. I think anyone with political responsibilities in Canada has a moral responsibility to ensure that in these discussions, we do everything in our power to avoid making accusations that are sometimes unfair and that merely create ill feeling, so that the people of Quebec, the people of Canada and the aboriginal

peoples concerned can live in harmony on Canadian and Quebec territory, and this vast issue of aboriginal land claims will finally be settled in Canada as far as possible.

I agree one can never obtain satisfaction on all aspects of these claims, but I think that if we develop a spirit of justice and tolerance, we can conclude agreements that are acceptable to the various communities concerned.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief comment.

I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Jonquière. I am proud to be the colleague of this member who spoke very openly and generously about the native communities. It would be so easy to make speeches that raise tensions and play on the public's emotions, in short, to engage in demagogy.

The member for Jonquière took a radically different approach. His speech well reflects the thinking of Quebecers on this issue and I call on all members of this House to reread my colleague's speech. It is an unfailing source of wisdom in dealing with the issue of respecting native rights.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make at third reading of Bill C-55, Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

It gives me a considerable amount of pleasure to see this bill, having come through all stages, and be able to say a few words at the conclusion of the debate.

At the same time I want to congratulate the parties that were involved in the negotiation of the agreement and in the execution of the legislation that has led us to this point. A couple of very specific congratulations, one to my own leader, the member for Yukon. The member for Yukon has been actively engaged in the discussion, debate and negotiations leading up to this point today.

I commend to the House the work that she has been able to do for her constituents, members of the Council for Yukon Indians, members of the communities of Yukon, all residents of Yukon. The member for Yukon has spent a considerable amount of time relaying information in one direction, discussing with ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairpersons throughout the course of the debates on all three parts of Yukon self-government and land claims process which concludes the proclamation of this act.

I was very pleased to have been in a number of meetings that the member for Yukon initiated and attended. I am very pleased to have been able to work with her throughout this process as the New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs and northern development critic.

I also want to congratulate the people of the Council for Yukon Indians and all of the people from Yukon who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that this day would come. A lot of changes have been made in people's positions and attitudes over the years, that this idea has been in front of not only the people of Yukon but now the people of all of Canada. I congratulate all of those who over the years have been involved so diligently in this process.

I would like to now spend just a couple of minutes indicating to those who are tuning in this afternoon for the first time some idea of what is in front of us on this bill that we are concluding today and to indicate to the House that I and my party are very pleased to support the legislation in front of us, just as we were pleased to support the previous two bills that are part of this three part package.

We know that Bill C-55 is a companion piece of legislation to what was Bill C-33, Yukon First Nations final land claims settlement act and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations self-government agreement. Both acts were passed in the spring session of this Parliament but they will not come into effect until this act, Bill C-55, is concluded.

Bill C-55 establishes a process in Yukon for obtaining access to private and public lands based on models used in the western provinces. I come from Saskatchewan, a province that successfully negotiated a land entitlement agreement with a large number of the aboriginal communities in our province. I am very pleased to be able to see that models which were discussed in Saskatchewan are being useful in the negotiations of agreements in other locations.

The bill in front of us also establishes Yukon surface rights board to resolve disputes between parties guaranteeing access to vast holdings of private land.

The bill is very technical. Anything that subjects parties to an agreement has technical aspects to it. In essence Bill C-55 provides guidelines whereby land disputes will be settled by the surface rights board. Under the legislation a person may apply to the board for the arbitration of a matter only after that person has first attempted to negotiate an agreement with the other party.

The board will have jurisdiction over other matters such as the disputes between persons holding surface rights and those holding subsurface rights, the amount of compensation for the expropriation of settlement land, and the amount of compensation for pockets of government lands retained within settlement lands.

If parties cannot reach agreement in a matter relating to access to lands the board has the power to establish the terms and conditions of a right of access, award compensation for the right of access and for damage resulting from that access, and periodically review orders previously made by the board with regard to land disputes. Orders by the board are final and binding. Final decisions are enforceable through the Supreme

Court of Yukon territory. The board will not retain any permanent staff and will meet only as needed.

As well, the bill confirms the legal rights of minors and is said to address concerns raised over the need for certainty pertaining to land title in Yukon. Greater certainty pertaining to land title will facilitate exploration and resource development in Yukon, matters that we know go to the heart of the economy of the territory.

I would also like to indicate that final passage of Bill C-55 clears the way for implementation of four Yukon First Nations land claim settlements already negotiated and will trigger financial compensation agreements already signed with these four individual First Nations.

Earlier in the debates on this bill when my leader, the member for Yukon, spoke she indicated a couple of things that I would like to repeat for the benefit of the House as we close the debate today.

I quote the member for Yukon representing her constituents' interests in this bill. She stated in the House of Commons on November 1, 1994: "Bill C-55 ensures that all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, have the tools to move forward with the certainty that is necessary for business with the respect and dignity accorded to First Nations in Yukon and that will lead toward self-sufficiency for Yukon territory.

"What we are showing can be done within Canada is that we can respect the languages, the cultures and the historic traditions of all peoples within a certain territory and we can do it under the flag of Canada".

These are very important words looking at a long history of negotiation of a very difficult matter that now seems to have been resolved quite peacefully and satisfactorily.

We in the New Democratic Party are proud of the work of all those who have been involved in this process and we are pleased today to commit ourselves to agreement on Bill C-55.

[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.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion among members in the House to proceed immediately to private members' hour. I see the proponent of the private member's ballot item in the House.

I think if you were to ask for that consent you would find that the House is now prepared to move to private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed to Private Members' Business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has given written notice that he is not able to proceed with his motion on Monday, November 28, 1994. Most regrettably there have been, I am told, 30 members who have been contacted to ask if they could fill in on Monday and none of the 30 to my knowledge has indicated that he or she is willing to do that.

Accordingly, since we cannot exchange the debate for Monday, I would direct the table officers to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the House will meet to consider Government Orders at 11 a.m.

There is unanimous consent for the House to proceed now to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Divorce Act

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

moved that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent), be read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to begin the debate on Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act. I am speaking today on behalf of all our grandchildren who are without their grandparents at this time and on behalf of all the grandparents in Canada who have worked long and hard to convince the legislators of Canada that this bill is necessary.

In the time I have to speak today I would like to go through exactly what this bill sets out to accomplish and then discuss the need for the bill. Finally, I will attempt to give enough reasons so that all members of this House can unite in support of this bill.

The main purpose of Bill C-232 is to fill a void in the Divorce Act in the area of access and custody. At present only parents of a child are allowed to discuss access and custody in a court in the case of divorce. The practical effect of this is that grandparents

who may have spent considerable time with their grandchildren have no automatic right of standing in court.

At the present time if grandparents are concerned that this access might be cut off as a result of the divorce, they must first seek leave of the court to raise the access or custody issue. Should leave be granted, then and only then have they a right to ask the court to put a right of access clause for them as grandparents in the divorce decree of the parents.

Dealing specifically with the provisions of the bill, the first clause would amend section 10 of the Divorce Act. This is the section of the Divorce Act which deals with access and custody. Under clause 1, grandparents would have standing in court to seek either access or, I suppose in some exceptional circumstances, custody of the grandchildren.

Clause 2 of the bill seeks to amend section 17 of the Divorce Act dealing with applications to vary access or custody orders. Therefore, if at a time after the order for access or custody was granted under section 16 and it was found that the original decision was not appropriate, then it would be open to the grandparents to go back to the court just as parents can do to seek amendment of the original order.

Again, with the adoption of this clause grandparents would have the automatic right to standing in the court should either the parents or they seek to wish alteration of the original access or custody order.

Finally, the bill would add a new clause to the Divorce Act which deals specifically with the amendments contained in Bill C-232. This new clause requires that the clauses contained in this bill be referred to an appropriate committee of this House four years after their coming into force so that a committee of this House can review the effectiveness of the provisions.

One part of the bill I did not refer to is clause 2 part (2). This clause seeks to amend subsection 16, part (5) of the Divorce Act. It would give grandparents who have a right of access a right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

I have had discussions on the legality and appropriateness of this clause with my friend on the other side of the House, the member for Nepean. My friend from Nepean has a private member's bill on the Order Paper quite similar to Bill C-232. We have approached this matter in a non-partisan fashion.

She has brought to my attention that this subclause could give grandparents more rights than the parents of the children presently enjoy. This subclause may also contravene privacy acts or rights of the child which may exist by statute or common law.

Therefore while procedurally it cannot be removed at this time, I trust when the bill gets to committee this clause can be deleted.

While I am dealing with technicalities, I thought it important to bring to the attention of the House the wording of the new Quebec Civil Code as it relates to grandparents and the issue of access arising out of divorce of the parents. It states in section 611:

In no case may the father or mother, without a grave reason, interfere with personal relations between the child and his grandparents.

Failing agreement between the parties, terms and conditions of these relations are decided by the courts.

Therefore in Quebec, thanks to the Civil Code, grandparents enjoy the right of standing in court and therefore this bill would compliment the Civil Code or simply not be operative in the province of Quebec, as the matter is already covered by legislation.

Having dealt with what Bill C-232 does, it is important now to turn to the need for such legislation.

This proposal has a long history. In the last Parliament it appeared as a private member's bill in the name of the former member for Delta from the Progressive Conservative Party. In this Parliament there is a private member's motion by the member for Winnipeg Transcona. The subject matter has also been the subject of the member for Ottawa West's householders. Of course my good friend from Nepean also has a private member's bill on the Order Paper dealing with the same subject matter.

Therefore, the subject matter of this bill receives wide support in the House. For that reason I want to make it clear this is not a partisan issue, not a Reform issue, not a political issue, but a grandchildren's and a grandparents' issue, a human issue which has to be addressed now.

When we discuss grandchildren we usually envision a happy family scene with the entire family present. Perhaps it is a holiday time like Thanksgiving or Christmas, when grandparents are always a part of the celebration, or Mother's Day or Father's Day, when a special part of the day recognizes grandparents as well as parents, with gifts made by children who are also grandchildren.

It is my sad duty today to remind Canadians everywhere that this happy scene is not always the case, that in fact many of our senior citizens no longer have happy Christmases or Thanksgivings, or any other holiday celebrations, because one of the major parts of the whole is missing. Many Canadian grandchildren no longer see their grandparents.

I suppose many of us, busy with our lives, never took the time to care or find out that some Canadian families are missing vital parts to keep them whole. We cannot do anything about the growing divorce rate which seems to know no check point. These are adults who must make their own decisions. We can address the needs of the family members for whom no one seems to be speaking, the rights of the grandchild, the rights of

all our grandchildren to see, to visit, to talk to their grandparents.

The movement for this type of legislation, which will only give grandparents standing before the courts, began a number of years ago in 1986 in British Columbia with the founding of the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association. Now we have other chapters across Canada.

In Ontario, one grandparents group goes by the name of Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity or GRAND. Another Ontario support group is Grandchildren/Grandparents' Rights of Wholeness through Heritage or GROWTH. It was formed by the group of grandparents concerned over the failure of provincial and federal legislation to adequately address the issue of grandchildren's rights to visit with their grandparents.

All these groups and others I have not yet mentioned are trying to address grandchildren's rights. Article 5 of the convention of the rights of the child, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989, requires state parties to respect the responsibility, rights and duties not only of parents but also of members of the extended family.

Article 16 of the said convention provides that no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family. Preventing a child from seeking his or her grandparents without just cause is unlawful interference with family. It is important that we look at why it is important that contact between grandchildren and grandparents be maintained after the divorce of the parents.

Would it simply not be cleaner and neater to cut off access so the children of the divorce, the memories of grandparents and the way it used to be when mommy and daddy lived together simply faded with the passage of time? Fortunately this is not the opinion of experts in the files of family psychology. Anton Klarich, chief psychologist of the French language separate schools in Essex county states: "A tremendous amount of love and security can go a long way to help children who are worried about what lies ahead of them in an increasingly uncertain world".

Klarich was referring to a report released in August 1993 by the Ontario government which showed that children as young as 10 are overwhelmed by the helplessness that grips family members worried about personal and financial problems. The children absorb feelings of insecurity, worry and fear. Klarich says: "With such a scenario it's good to know there is someone there within a child's family, the grandparents, who always provide love and stability".

This short poem reflects just such a feeling of love and security instilled in a young grandson by his grandpa entitled "Grandpa and Me":

He's never too busy to listen He's never too tired to play We go up on a hill and down together we ski My Grandpa and me.

We go camping and we go fishing A great fisherman is he And then we sleep out under the trees# My Grandpa and me.

I know that someday he will leave me And I'll be as sad as can be But I'll always remember the good times we had My Grandpa and me.

This poem was written by an 11-year old grandson and I think he says it all very well. Lynn Wells, chief psychologist for the Wellington Board of Education in Guelph, Ontario, believes that grandparents contribute to the upbringing of grandchildren in more positive ways than they realize.

Her quote:

Young children create their self-concepts from the comments that people give them. So the more positive and loving people that are around them, to give them different perspectives of themselves, the more widely developed their self-esteem is.

A study in 1986 at the University of Guelph found that grandmothers have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and emotional upheaval of a grandchild.

The study was conducted by Jim Gladstone, a professor of social work surveyed 80 grandmothers in southwestern Ontario whose children had divorced or separated. Gladstone has said: "Previous research on children of divorce suggest that young children have very little opportunity to talk about the break-up. Grandmothers seem to be prepared to talk and listen to their grandchildren".

I want to share with members a poem written by a grandmother who has been denied access to her grandchildren. I believe she is asking us to listen:

The Voice of the Children

We've given our all or we wouldn't be here And I'm saddened to say we don't have the ear Of those, who we pray, might listen to us, Until then we'll cry and try not to fuss- Or worry about the children we love-

May they be safe, while God up above Listens and answers our prayers from the heart- While giving us guidance and some way to chart A way, to the children, so near yet so far- Hoping their plight is not going to mar

An innocent child, whose crime was to be Bonded to parents who don't wish to see The child is a victim, who does not deserve To be treated as chattel-the purpose they serve When used in a battle they can't understand- Their cries go unheeded-the laws of the land Must soon see the light, in the grandparent's role, Until then, their lives are the terrible toll

That are paid, while they suffer, alone, with no way To fight for their rights, with so little say In who they might see or what they may do- To whom they can speak-yet never to you- Do they forget-believe we don't care? I pray they are happy and not as aware

As I, who am saddened, with each passing day, Not seeing their sweet little faces, at play- With tears, never ending, at least in my heart Each day is forever that we are apart- Grant me some wisdom-the strength I will need To comfort another, for I know how they bleed- In their anguish and sorrow they look for a sign As their tears intermingle, so freely, with mine-

All children are precious and sacred to me- We're fighting a battle to help them be free Of parents who own them-both body and soul As long as I live may this be my goal! They suffer, in silence, and never a word- The voice of the children needs to be heard!

This poem is both a statement and a question. It is from one of our many hurting grandparents.

Ruth Isbister, Toronto author of Grandparents Don't Just Babysit says that the role and function of grandparents as the connection between past and future has not changed nor has their natural ability to make a child feel special. ``You transfer a feeling of confidence to your grandchild''. By their presence, grandparents add something to the child's comprehension of the continuity of life.

In fact one of the leading jurists in the United States in the area of grandparents' rights stated in 1992 that there were over three million children nationwide in the states being raised by grandparents.

The case for grandparents' rights has also been captured dramatically in the brief submitted by the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association of Richmond, B.C., to the Department of Justice. I would like to quote some passages from this brief:

The experience of the grandparents' society shows that the true safety net with regard to child rearing is not the state but the grandparents.

It is important to understand that this safety net is provided by grandparents not based upon the hopeless inefficiency of state bureaucracies. It does not function on the basis of filling out forms, making appointments, or qualifying by any test, nor is it governed or supervised by a psychologist, a counsellor, a therapist or a mediator. It is usually available on a phone call, the call often being a product of an emergency and attracts no publicity at all. It does not become an occasion for grandstanding in the press or in the courts.

The brief goes on to say:

At present when there is a family break-up and the need to look after children, there is no obligation on the state to even notify members of the extended families, let alone consult with them, although state agencies will occasionally issue statements suggesting that that is the policy. In fact the state's policy is that the family ends with the parents which defies the social practice of Canadians across the country. In dealing with aboriginal communities in B.C. the same policy has come to be quite otherwise. An Indian band for instance will be notified if children of a band member have been apprehended. They will be given every assistance to look after the child within that community.

It is not clear to us why a perfectly sensible policy now developing in the case of aboriginals should be denied the overwhelming majority of Canadians. "This, with regard to grandparents specifically, where they are often more than ready to look after the children of a broken family.

When family is available, grandparent or extended family, it should be preferred to strangers in matters of custody, and that should be a statutory presumption. Access should be provided to grandparents also by a legal presumption, so that a parent who would deny it will have to make that case, will have to go to a judge and persuade".

I think you will agree this is pretty powerful stuff. On the other hand it is written by people who have contributed to society for a great many years and are now frustrated by the rules of that society.

There is another issue here we need to address. We have a growing crime rate with young offenders. Jails are crowded already. Is it not time we began to use common sense and preventive measures? We must reach children before they begin school. This is not a problem to be dumped on teachers. It begins in the home. Responsibility begins in the home.

Why then are we ignoring the very group in our society who can help build strong character and a sense of responsibility within our children, our senior citizens. They are experienced. They are wise. They are loving. They are willing to help, yes, willing to help.

I recently had the honour of listening to Judge Andrea Ruffo speak of her concerns that children know they are loved and needed, that they are encouraged to try to follow their dreams. Grandparents have the time to discuss our grandchildren's dreams with them and to encourage them.

I am not suggesting that all grandparents should have access to their grandchildren. I know there are some problems. That is why I stress the courts will make the decision in the best interests of the child. We must not punish 95 per cent of grandparents for 5 per cent of the problems.

Bill C-232 is designed to relieve some of this frustration. We owe it to these grandparents and we owe it to the grandchildren to see this bill passed into law. This is the year of the family. Families should include grandparents and great-grandparents. It is important that grandparents be given the rights set out in the bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the House, we can do something. We have been sent to Parliament to make a difference. The passage of Bill C-232 will not cost the Canadian taxpayers anything except the cost of a stamp to alert grandparents when the divorce case will be heard before the courts. This bill will only give Canadian grandparents the right to be heard.

Access will only be granted if the judge feels it is in the best interests of the grandchild.

We often say we can do nothing. We have no excuse to say today we can do nothing. If and when this bill goes to committee, necessary changes can be made if it is decided in the best interests of the child.

Bills are amended every day if necessary. Here we can address a problem too long denied in our country, the right of the child to his or her family. May I suggest that this is such a time to relieve the frustrations of grandparents not able to visit or see their grandchildren.

I know that some will question the appropriateness of this bill because it deals with the problems of a very small group of people. It can be argued that this type of change should be made in the context of an overall review of family law at the provincial level. There it could deal with common law relationships and with children put in foster homes.

I can tell you that the grandparents groups that tried this avenue have been given the usual bureaucratic runaround. It is time to do something positive for those who helped to build this great country, grandparents. If this bill is passed and becomes law then perhaps the provincial jurisdictions will move to broaden the group who could benefit from such as law. However, let us, the members of this federal Parliament, take a stand today and get on with this bill.

May I remind the House our Prime Minister on his recent tour to China made the comment that representatives of different political stripes can pull together for the benefit of the country and all Canadians.

As I said at the beginning of my speech this is not a partisan issue. I hope and I know grandparents across the country hope that the government will support this measure so that it will be passed into law and fill one of the large holes in the Divorce Act. The voice of the children needs to be heard.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act which is the granting of access to or custody of a child to a grandparent proposed by my colleague, the member for Mission-Coquitlam.

It is especially important to note, as she has mentioned in her comment, that I am standing in support of this bill. One of the nice things that can happen in this House is that members from different parties can agree on an issue when it is relevant to all Canadians. It is particularly relevant in this International Year of the Family that we are discussing this important relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. More important, we are talking about protecting that relationship.

I am a grandparent. As we all know grandparents can and do play an important role in the psychological and social development of grandchildren. They provide an additional source of love, affection, support and understanding, all of which serve to enhance the child's self esteem and confidence.

Grandparents serve as mentors and as teachers to their grandchildren, giving them the benefit of years of experience and a sense of their roots that cannot be obtained from any other source.

Especially important is the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren when families dissolve and separate. Children are the innocent parties of a marriage breakup. They are the ones who are least capable of coping or understanding the problems that divorce creates. As a result, their disrupted lives and broken hearts need healing. They need someone who can hold them together in this very complicated and stressful time.

Grandparents do play an integral role in this process of healing. Grandparents give a real sense of security and continuity. They provide a sense of being wanted and loved. A grandparent's love is unconditional.

Despite the positive role that grandparents play in the lives of their grandchildren prior to the family breakup, during separation and after the divorce they often do not have access to these vulnerable young people. As a grandmother it is very difficult for me to understand not having access to my wonderful grandchildren.

They are sometimes denied the right to visit or to have contact with their grandchildren. Grandparents rights organizations across Canada have thousands of documented cases where grandparents have been obstructed from contacting their grandchildren.

I recall a case in Toronto in which a woman lost contact with her seven year old grandson when her former daughter-in-law refused to take her phone calls or allow her any visitation rights. After considerable attempts to contact the mother in order to work out some kind of visitation, the grandparent was charged with phone harassment and thrown in jail, locked up with the criminals.

Yesterday I received a letter from a grandmother in my riding of Nepean relaying her anguish to me over her inability to see her young grandson. I would like to quote from her letter. She says: "Because of a pending divorce I am having difficulty seeing my grandson and this is a cause of constant pain in our family. We waited 11 years for a grandchild. Much of the joy of this wondrous event is now tarnished as we have no right to access. Denying or making it difficult for us to visit with our little guy runs contrary to most people's idea of family. A child has two families and deserves to know them both well. To know he is treasured, to have pride and love from both sides of the family is a birthright".

I could go on and on with testimonials from grandparents across the country fighting for the right to see and speak to their grandchildren. There are many.

On October 5, 1994, I presented over 3,000 signatures in this House of Commons seeking a remedy to this problem. Just yesterday I received another 802 signatures. In many of these cases it is a personal tragedy for the grandparents. More important, it is a personal tragedy for the grandchildren of immense proportions that will probably affect them for the rest of their lives.

There are a number of organizations across Canada that are working very diligently to help grandparents who are experiencing this situation. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the organizations I have been working with. I cannot mention all of the people, but I see some here in the gallery today, although I know I am not supposed to mention that. They include GRAND, Florence Knight of the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association, Liliane George of the Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity and Madeleine Bremner of the Grandparents Right of Wholesomeness Through Heritage.

I congratulate them and all of the many people who have worked so hard in this regard. All of these people have done a tremendous amount of work. I congratulate all of you.

In Canada federal legislation states that grandparents have no legal access to grandchildren. That is sad. If a grandparent wants to see one of their grandsons or granddaughters who for example is living with a former daughter-in-law they may have to go to court unless there is an agreement made with the divorcing parent.

This process can be terribly expensive and time consuming. It pits grandparents against an aggressive and adversarial court system. This is not conducive to the maintenance of harmonious relationships.

Many countries in the world recognize the unique relationships between grandparents and grandchildren. In most cases they have granted either through legislation or through jurisprudence that parents may not without serious cause place obstacles to relations between the child and his or her grandparents.

Since 1980 the Quebec civil code has stated that "in no case may the father or the mother, without serious cause, place obstacles to personal relationships between child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the legalities of the relations are settled by the court".

This recognizes that the personal ties between the grandparent and the grandchild must not be interpreted as an intrusion in the life of the custodial parents, but as an opportunity for the child to maintain a link with his or her ancestry and cultural heritage as well as an opportunity to maintain that unique relationship with his or her grandparent.

The amendments to the Divorce Act proposed by Bill C-232, and my colleague has joined me on this side of the House, would serve to complement this section of the civil code on grandparents.

Bill C-232 recognizes the federal government's role in ensuring grandparents' access to grandchildren by amending the Divorce Act to recognize them as a distinct category of third persons who may apply for access to a child without requiring leave of the court.

The Divorce Act would also provide a presumption that this relationship is in the best interests of the child and that this relationship should therefore not be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated to a court that it is not in the best interest of the child for the grandparents to have access to this grandchild. My colleague mentioned that in her comments.

Upon seeking legal advice with regard to my bill, which is similar to this Bill C-232, there is a clause in my bill as well as in hers that causes me concern. It was lines 10 through 17 which reads: "Unless the court orders otherwise, a spouse or grandparent who is granted access to a child of the marriage has the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of that child".

There is concern with this proposal because this type of information is private and normally only available to parents in normal marriage situations. If this amendment were included in the Divorce Act the effect may be that grandparents of the children of divorced parents could have rights to receive health and educational information that grandparents of children in an intact family do not have.

While I wholeheartedly support the principles laid out in the bill and I will support it, I will seek to amend clause 1 through the justice committee's review. I would amend it by possibly deleting lines 10 to 17. First and foremost, and I must say this quite categorically, I will be supporting this bill and will work to ensure that it reaches final approval in this House of Commons.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this bill. The relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren is unique. During these times of rapid social change, this bond provides a sense of continuity and hope in the lives of our young people. When obstacles are placed in the way of this relationship the results can be devastating for both grandparents and grandchildren.

I call on all my colleagues in this House to support Bill C-232 to amend the Divorce Act, to protect the rights of grandparents to have access to their grandchildren.

I am delighted to stand here today in support of Bill C-232 and I would hope that all my colleagues would do the same.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill to amend the Divorce Act, Bill C-232. The bill would amend the Divorce Act to provide for a person to be granted custody of or access to any of his or her grandchildren. By virtue of this change, grandparents would no longer be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an application.

Furthermore, this bill would give grandparents the right to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child. Finally, this bill provides that these amendments to the Divorce Act would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee four years after coming into force.

Taken at face value, this bill appears eminently acceptable and I must admit that, as a grandmother myself, my gut reaction would be to support the bill.

After all, what grandparent would accept to be denied access to his or her grandchildren after their parents separate or get divorced? Of course, such sensitivity and feelings are only human and quite normal when, for example, they have fewer kids and they live far away, in poverty and in sickness, as the case may be.

Nonetheless, we think that this bill wanders from the primary objective, which is the welfare of the child. The emotional needs of grandparents should certainly not come before their grandchildren's quality of life.

As Madam Justice Andrée Ruffo said, it may be more appropriate to talk in terms of the rights of children to be granted access to their grandparents than the other way around. When there are children involved, the paramount criterion should be their best interests.

All in the name of commendable principles such as the rights of grandparents and the welfare of grandchildren, I can see how Bill C-232 could put the child in the middle not only of family disputes, but also of jurisdiction disputes.

Let us be quite clear on this point. Bill C-232 is inefficient if its primary goal is to facilitate contacts between grandparents and grandchildren. It may make the process easier for grandparents, but it may in turn make things more complicated when the parents are deemed to have retained parental control and there are no reasons for them to be disqualified.

Parental control, incidentally and to the best of our knowledge, is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction under paragraph 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We wonder if giving more rights to the grandparents, when there is a divorce, is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.

As we know, the federal government has jurisdiction in divorce matters. In a general sense, we wonder if Bill C-232 is a challengeable extension of federal jurisdiction over divorce at the expense of provincial jurisdiction in family matters.

Other questions come to mind. What are the rights of grandparents when the parents are not married, as is now the case for 40 per cent of children born in Quebec? Federal parliamentarians must note that the continued rise in the number of children born outside marriage means that provincial family law is gradually replacing the federal Divorce Act on issues relating to child custody and access rights.

It must be understood that Bill C-232 only affects the children of couples in the process of divorcing or already divorced. Most children are not affected by divorce, while others live, as we have just pointed out, with parents who are not legally married.

This bill may not be as helpful to the grandparents who want access to their grandchildren as it purports to be.

Furthermore, the parents or people with legal custody of a child have primary responsibility for looking after the child's best interests. In abuse cases, judicial remedies may be authorized by provincial legislation. Provincial legislation also applies to all family situations, even in the absence of marriage leading to divorce.

After reviewing this bill, we fear that, despite honourable intentions, C-232 only compensates for some provinces' reluctance to legislate in this area.

As for Quebec, it passed legislation on this issue 14 years ago. Indeed, the Quebec civil code, through article 611, allows grandparents who suffer a prejudice, in terms of their relations with their grandchildren, to ask the courts to examine the details of these relations.

Article 611 of the Quebec civil code provides that fathers and mothers cannot, unless they have a major reason to do so, interfere with the personal relations of a child and his or her grandparents. Unless there is an agreement between the parties, the details of these relations are defined by the court.

This article from the Quebec civil code is not only comprehensive, it is also clear. It can be invoked before or after a divorce, in the case of married people, as well as in the case of common-law couples, single-parent families, or after the adoption of a child by a new spouse.

Quebec's legislation is already far ahead of this unbalanced bill. As we said earlier, the federal government does not have to compensate for the reluctance of other provinces to legislate.

We have problems with another provision of this legislation. I am referring to the fact that grandparents would have the right to make inquiries as to the health and education of a child. Based on Quebec's legislation on personal information, we thought

that the protection of information on health and education also fell under provincial jurisdiction.

It goes without saying that the parent of parents having custody of a child must not be allowed to break the contact between that child and his or her grandparents. The underlying principles of Bill C-232 are closely related to those of the Quebec civil code. However, the Divorce Act may not be the most appropriate tool to grant and recognize rights to grandparents.

I will conclude by saying that, as regards Quebec, we fear Bill C-232 would accentuate the existing double jurisdiction concerning family law. As you know, the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over marriages and divorces, while Quebec can legislate wedding celebrations, property and civil rights, marital regimes, adoptions, separations from bed and board, child custody and so on. This double jurisdiction not only leads to inconsistencies in family law, but also prevents Quebec from making an appropriate reform and creating a unified family court. Bill C-232 might worsen the situation for Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that this bill is premature and inappropriate. I want to point out to the hon. members that we only wanted to question the merits of that legislation, not necessarily oppose it.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I did not prepare in depth notes today because I was not aware that I would have an opportunity to speak. However, I am very pleased to stand and support this bill by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.

I have had numerous calls and responses from people in Nova Scotia. Certain things come up frequently from the parents and grandparents in particular who are for the most part over the age of 50. These people through life experiences, through living and through working, have accumulated a great deal of experience in nurturing, guidance, sharing and loving. It is that experience that quite often the child of the second generation needs.

Very often in many instances we see that the parents, whether through divorce, through emotional breakups, through living situations, arrangements that are so different and complex today, are so directly involved with the children through emotion and sometimes the direct link. It does not give them the vision to see the grandparents' needs and it does not give them the opportunity. The grandparent is at an arm's length so to speak and they can look at situations quite often more objectively than in an emotional situation in which two parents or two partners are having difficulty with children.

Although this does come under federal jurisdiction, and the hon. member from the Bloc has pointed out the complexities that might arise because of this and because of family law in some provinces, I believe that we can work on those details, that we can look at this bill in depth and bring in the changes or the amendments, whatever is required, to make it more workable, more effective.

It is imperative. I have seen, as I am sure all of my colleagues would have seen, throughout our provinces that today we have so many young people raising children in isolation quite often without access to the experience of the older population of both men and women who have lived long and have that experience of living and working and have the wisdom of nurturing and sharing without the biases and the direct emotional interference that the first generation often has to combat.

I have recommended this in my own province. Quite often the young women today having babies and being isolated in apartments on their own have no guidance. They have no connection to those older people in society who have the wisdom of common sense, love and nurturing. This is a fault in our society.

I believe this bill would bring in a closer connection to that whole realm of family and bringing love, nurturing, guidance and common sense of old wisdom that just comes from raising a family.

This bill might go a long way in not only having grandparents' rights to the children but more than anything serving the children who need to know the love and nurturing and wisdom of living.

A survey was done in one of the American schools asking the children how many of them could cite their grandparent's name. It was unbelievable the high number of children who could not even tell their grandmother's or their grandfather's name. To me, that is quite deplorable. It is a fact of society today.

I believe we are on the right track with this bill in helping society, in helping parents to get an added abundance of love and nurturing that can come from the grandparents' side.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, a bill put forward by my hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.

Bill C-232 would amend the Divorce Act in such a way to give grandparents the right of access to their grandchildren. In this the International Year of the Family is it not the perfect opportunity to legally recognize the important place that grandparents occupy in the family unit? I am pleased to see support in this House as we take the initiative in this important area of family development.

Today's family structure is threatened by a host of uncertainties, tensions and stresses which can be attributed to unfortunate financial circumstances, job loss, career or vocational instability or family breakdown. There are occasions when the provision of adequate care for children within these situations becomes secondary to the unexpected disturbances or turbulence within the family setting. The very urgent and oftentimes invisible needs of the children in such an environment can be overlooked.

I am sure all of us here have met adults who, despite being adequately nourished and cared for physically as children, demonstrate the impoverishment of their emotional upbringing. While it is unlikely that any single event can be said to be responsible for all adult distress, we can nonetheless argue there is abundant evidence to suggest that the adult personality is constructed to a considerable extent from childhood experiences and that those who care for young children determine and define the nature of these experiences.

As we consider this bill, let us not forget to address how best to meet the needs of children in dysfunctional settings, acknowledging that those who care about the children are also likely to be better able to care for them.

Under the provisions of this bill and in the case of divorce the trial judge would be permitted to address the needs of the whole family at a time when it is least able to deal with problems. It is difficult for children after a marriage breakup to adjust to this change and if in addition they lose their grandparents, it can be devastating. It is devastating for the children because they lose what may seem to be the only stable element in their young lives and devastating for the grandparents because the children they love can be taken away from them with little legal recourse.

Since most grandparents are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to initiate a court action to help their grandchildren maintain some security and stability in their lives, I believe the government should intervene to alleviate the fear of losing their grandchildren. Many grandparents experience a sense of tremendous loss during divorce proceedings and this sense of loss in many cases becomes a reality. Bill C-232 sets out to change this.

The bill before us would amend the Divorce Act in such a way as to provide a person wishing to make an application under the Divorce Act to be granted access to or custody of any of his or her grandchildren and shall not be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an application. The bill would also provide that a person who was granted access to any of his or her grandchildren shall have the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

To make sure these amendments to the Divorce Act are actually serving their intended purpose they would be subject to a review by a parliamentary committee every four years after their enactment.

Most grandparents are concerned about the well-being of their grandchildren. This whole subject was debated in the Alberta legislature. I would like to read from its Hansard . In her speech Mrs. Hughes quoted a study by Jim Gladstone from the University of Guelph. Gladstone conducted a study in 1986 that reinforced the importance of grandparents, that relationship of grandparents to grandchildren.

That report concluded that when marriages break down, grandmothers have more contact with their grandchildren than before the breakdown. Gladstone believes this means grandparents have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and emotional upheaval of their grandchildren. Previous research on children of divorce has suggested that young children have very little opportuntiy to talk about the breakup.

Gladstone believes that through the child's unique relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of counselling, comfort and reassurance that they need providing they have continuous access.

In the Winter 1991 issue of Your Better Health Magazine , a writer Jane Widerman writes of the personal devastation experienced by estranged grandparents: ``Until recently when it came to the fallout from divorce, the primary focus has been on the nuclear family''.

Professor Edward Kruk of the University of Calgary does social work there. He first began to formally study the effect of divorce on the extended family. He says: "Mental health practitioners have tended to ignore the extended family and the importance of the grandparent-grandchild attachment, which doesn't decrease after divorce".

Social work experts are beginning to recognize that the phenomenon of estranged grandparents is larger than was first suspected and Kruk agrees. In his recent study of non-custodial fathers he found that more than 50 per cent lose contact with their children. By extension, the fathers' parents probably also suffer the loss of access which, says Kruk, likely translates into major mental and physical health problems for grandparents.

It is called involuntary child absence syndrome when referring to non-custodial fathers. The symptoms encompass a range of health problems including disrupted sleep, anxiety attacks, grief, mourning and depression. It is bad enough that anyone should suffer. But what parents may not realize is that if the grandparent-grandchild relationship is sabotaged the children are casualties too.

Kruk says that older relatives represent stability, giving children a sense of personal history, a sense of personal belonging. This becomes even more important when one link in the familial chain is removed. During the trauma of divorce grandparents can be a huge source of comfort to the children, a sort of neutral territory in the divorce battleground.

Children cut off from their grandparents experience the double whammy of separation from the non-custodial parent as well as one set of grandparents. Therefore, there is a necessity for creative legislation to protect access for grandparents. Bill C-232 would legally recognize these unique relationships.

We need to also look at the precedents in legislation. For example all 50 states in the United States have similar types of legislation. In Canada, Quebec in article 659 has dealt with this item as my hon. colleague previously mentioned as has Ontario in article 59(4).

It therefore seems to be at the very least reasonable and psychologically sound to argue that children should be nurtured and cared for by people who have actively chosen to be with them and to have a commitment in their development and well-being. I urge all hon. members of the House to give thoughtful deliberation to this bill and based on its merits and for grandparents and grandchildren everywhere give it their vigorous support.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to advise the House that I am going to be a grandfather in February for the very first time. This is a rather interesting experience. I have always wanted to be a grandfather. However when my wife's aunt asked what I thought it was going to feel to be a grandfather, I thought: I cannot be that old. It is a very unusual feeling.

I am standing to speak in favour of this bill not only from a personal point of view but also from the point of view of the concerns that many of my constituents have passed along to me.

The stability of children is the question we are discussing here. When children have stability as they grow to be adults that our society will have stability. Our society is made up of individual components, 29 million of us. As we have individual stability so our society will be as well.

Unfortunately, it is a widely accepted premise that during the course of a divorce many children if not the majority feel as though somehow they are the people who are to blame. They end up blaming themselves for all of the fracture within their family unit that is going on around them. They truly need stability.

Almost invariably there is hostility at that particular time. Again, children pick up on that and unfortunately part of that hostility can be focused specifically toward the grandparents. In other words when the parents are fighting with each other, particularly if their parents in turn become part of that fight, there ends up being this hostility.

If we are going to be able to work in the direction of creating a feeling of roots and self-worth, then the grandparents have a very, very important place in that. Children have to have a feeling of ownership, that they are part of something. Children have to be able to develop a feeling of self-worth.

I also believe that each of us in our own way feels it is important that we have a feeling for our heritage. Many of us have travelled to the places our grandparents came from, places we have never seen before. Perhaps they are overseas or perhaps they are in this country. We have never seen them and yet we have a feeling of belonging and a feeling of heritage.

For all of those reasons I speak in favour of this bill. However I knew that the Liberal members would be disappointed if the Reform Party did not end up talking about dollars and cents at some point in this debate so I will not disappoint them. I quote from a submission on behalf of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association to the Custody and access project, family and youth law policy section of the Department of Justice:

We believe that one large problem in this area is a gross misconception of the powers and capabilities of the state. In British Columbia for instance, out of 850,000 children, the state has seen fit to apprehend into its custody about 6,000 at current levels. Most of these are children who have been in and out of custody repeatedly, rebellious teenagers, or Indian children. Less than 2,000 will be small children it was necessary to remove from their parents. Even this small number (one that has been declining for two decades) creates a huge financial obligation for the state in terms of immediate care, foster care, and the associated activities of the state, including investigation, apprehension and after care. It is hard to reach a definite conclusion as to what those costs are, but we believe they are more than $50 million a year.

There we have it. We have a dollar and cents argument to something that to any rational and reasonable person is not a dollar and cents issue. Nonetheless it does have implications for our society.

Rather than standing and beating my gums for another eight minutes what I simply would like to say is that I speak strongly in favour of this bill. I believe as we have strong citizens in our country with a strong feeling of self-worth which comes in no small part from the feeling of heritage and parentage that we will be building a better and stronger society.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand in support of my hon. colleague's bill. I have a leg up on the hon. member who just spoke because I already am a grandfather.

I put this all into perspective. It is a great privilege to be part of a family. When I think of the influence my parents have had on our children and indeed the influence my grandparents had on

me, I think that we greatly err if we do not do everything possible to preserve that familial connection.

I remember when I was a young man leaving home for the first time to go to university in Saskatoon. My parents made a special point of taking me over to my grandparents' place to say goodbye to them. I will never forget that my grandfather, who is long gone now, took the time to pray with me. That was very important to our family. We had an opportunity to pass on those most deeply held values from generation to generation. Our grandparents were of great assistance.

I think also particularly of my children's grandfather, my father-in-law, who was a tremendously strong influence in their lives. He was most influential and was such a solid and loving man.

To a large degree I will speak on behalf of grandfathers. At the beginning of this debate it was our female members who were promoting it which is wonderful. However I do not want people reading this record to think that we men do not care because we do care deeply. I am thinking particularly of my own children and the high esteem in which they held Grandpa Klassen as we called him, my wife's father, and how we all were so close together during that time when he was fighting cancer. He passed away just a little over a year ago. Therefore those are extremely important connections.

I think too of the occasions that we have had in working together with a number of families in recent years who have experienced this devastation of the family breakup. I remember not long ago speaking with the father of a couple, I will not identify them, who were breaking up and how he literally cried when he thought of his grandchildren.

I can only, as forcefully as I can, support this bill and say how important it is for children, for grandfathers as well as for grandmothers. I commend and congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Elk Island will have four minutes if he wishes the next time this matter comes up for debate. That is the time remaining to him.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 1.26 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.26 p.m.)