House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a press release issued by the Government of Quebec. I will read the first paragraph only, after which I will have a question for the hon. member.

September 2, 1997

In Montreal this morning, Quebec's Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Serge Ménard, unveiled the new family mediation program. As of yesterday, there is a new way to approach separation or divorce in Quebec and it is free. Bill 65, an act adding family premediation to the Code of Civil Procedure and amending other provisions in this Code, which was passed by the National Assembly on June 13, came into effect on September 1. For the first time in Quebec, it will now be possible for couples with children to reach agreement on custody, visiting rights, outings, support payments and even the division of property, at no cost.

That is pretty clear, as press releases go. I also think it is pretty clear as to the approach taken by the National Assembly.

My question for the member who has just spoken is this: Does he think that the other provinces should follow Quebec's example in the treatment of families when they separate, and under the new bill, when they divorce as well, with respect to mediation? Does he not think the federal government should withdraw entirely from the family law sector and leave this completely up to the provinces?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member's question in French, but my French is not good enough.

So I am forced to answer in English. I certainly would concur with my colleague that the model he cites which is being used in the province of Quebec is the kind of thing that I certainly would be advocating for the province of Nova Scotia. In fact I should advise him that the legal aid system under which I worked took some of our own tight budget and directed it toward a pilot mediation program to attempt to indicate to the provincial government the need for this kind of program.

Unfortunately the program is not in place in the way that we would like in the province. I would see an opportunity at the federal level. If this kind of program could be enacted as divorce mediation at the federal level, the different provinces might then see the benefit in this kind of a program and follow the federal lead.

I certainly commend the province of Quebec in taking this type of action but I would not at this point indicate that the federal government ought to withdraw completely. I think it has a role to play, as a leader, in those provinces that might not be as forward thinking as the province of my hon. colleague.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does agree with my point about Quebec's being at the forefront in this area. However, he concluded by saying that the federal government ought not to withdraw completely, because it has a role to play, as leader.

I would like to know exactly what he means by “role to play, as leader” in the area of child custody, alimony, education in terms of level of studies and access. I would like him to tell me not in terms of the Constitution we want, but in terms of the Constitution of 1982. There is something we must not forget. There is a Constitution where Quebec's hand was forced. Perhaps not the hand. I should say it was jammed down our throat, because we did not sign it.

I would like the hon. member to tell me what leadership role, under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government could play in the area of family rights?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my English is not as good as it could have been in delivering the previous answer.

What is the role I see for the federal government. I will use as an example my own province. Obviously the parties have the option of separating and dealing with provincial jurisdiction later on, or immediately the option of divorce and dealing with federal jurisdiction.

In provinces that do not have the types of mediation services or programs alluded to by my colleague from Quebec, and if the committee was to determine that there ought to be federal funding in place for mediation at the divorce level which is a federal jurisdiction, then certain individuals in a province where there may not be provincial mediation available could avail themselves immediately of the Divorce Act as opposed to the provincial statutes under which they might otherwise operate. They could avail themselves of what might be available and provided at the federal level in the supreme courts of the provinces with federal funding.

That would be the leadership role I would see in child custody and access cases.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate we are having this afternoon is a very interesting one.

The hon. member has just said that the federal big brother may be there to protect his province in the event that there is not enough money available to set up family mediation.

He says that there might be financial assistance to set up mediation. Should the federal government once again decide to stick its big nose into this, we in Quebec already have a mediation service, one that costs several million dollars a year. Would he be in favour of a bill that would have the federal government compensate Quebec 100% for its mediation service?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to the federal government paying the way, in whatever province.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the government on presenting this motion to set up a joint committee to examine custody and access in response to the concerns expressed by certain senators on behalf of non-custodial parents.

The government must provide direction on this issue, as it did earlier this year on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, with respect to child support payments.

In the course of the debate on Bill C-41, many parents requested on behalf of non-custodial parents, whose access rights are guaranteed by order, that similar legislation be passed regarding support orders. They wanted legislation that would provide for more effective and less costly ways to enforce access orders.

The points raised by witnesses at the hearings on Bill C-41 included questions on the effectiveness of existing mechanisms to enforce access rights, the rights of second and third families, the opportunity for mandatory mediation in the case of divorce, the rights of grandparents or third parties to apply for custody or access, parents' freedom of movement after the divorce, the right to information and other non-custodial parent rights and the effects of divorce on a child's mental health and development.

We must look at the language of divorce in terms of the divorced parents and the children, as Senator Jessiman pointed out during the debate on this motion.

The language of divorce, the terms used, such as “custody” and “access”, come from criminal law and property law and are not appropriate to designate the relationship between parents.

The parental approach to custody and access has been taken in a number of states, where joint custody is considered the best solution for divorcing couples, and sole custody is accorded only if it is in the child's best interest. Some people are opposed to joint custody.

In 1991, when she was teaching law at the University of Alberta, the Minister of Justice wrote a working paper for the Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues entitled “Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform”.

If, through constitutional reform, divorce were to become an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, the provinces could pass comprehensive family law. Some people would opt for the presumption of shared custody and make mediation obligatory in the resolution of family disputes. Increasingly, commentators feel that sole custody serves only to perpetuate the influence and domination of men over the lives of women.

We all know that education and mediation are the best solution in any dispute, and some witnesses have spoken about education with respect to divorce, an approach that has been taken in a number of Canadian and American cities. Parents seeking divorce take courses about the impact on their children of certain behaviours or attitudes they might adopt—such as involving their children in their dispute—and which are the most likely to have harmful psychological effects on the children.

One of the witnesses before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Paul Carrier, a family counsellor with the Royal Ottawa Hospital, said: “Disputes over custody and access affect children's self-esteem—In the interest of children, it is preferable for parents to maintain a harmonious relationship. Money is important, but the quality of the relationship is even more important. Many people have grown up in poor environments but are still happy. Money is important, but it is not the only thing. The quality of the relationship is still more important”.

In connection with Bill C-41, he said: “The bill does not address the question of access properly. Its approach is not in the children's best interests. It could, and should, attach more importance to parent-child relationships. If the division of resources does not foster more prolonged contacts between parents and children, the legislator will be neglecting one of children's basic needs”.

Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states as follows: “A child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when this is in the best interests of the child. A child who is separated from one or both parents has the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis”.

Article 18 states that “both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. States shall render appropriate assistance to parents in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities”.

I have raised some of the questions I wish to see the joint committee examine. This is an important study and one which, I am sure, will generate measures that will make it possible to create a custody and access system to protect the rights of the child as defined in the UN Convention and will also enable children to continue to benefit from the presence of both parents.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether she finds it acceptable for the federal government to be striking a special committee to examine questions of agreements on custody, visiting rights and parenting after parental separation or divorce, when separation is known to be a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no right to meddle in this area of provincial jurisdiction?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member was saying that separation is a provincial matter, but divorce is federal. I think that the committee will be set up in the best interests of the children. It should be set up.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the hon. member's approach. She cited the rights of children and they indeed have the right to visit their parents and to have a relationship with them. I support that 100%. Even the UN supports these rights.

Is the hon. member saying that a province such as Quebec could not legislate the rights its children are entitled to? Is she, in her centralist and federalist way, saying that provinces like Quebec cannot provide for children the rights they are entitled to?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that Quebec is not able to provide the same rights to children. What I am saying is that these issues could perhaps be raised before the committee. I think today's debate concerns the establishment of a joint committee to try to find ways to improve the situation for children. That is what I am saying, and we can raise these issues before the committee and perhaps they can be decided there.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech.

The questions I have are on the creation of this committee and the recommendation that we go ahead with this committee so that we ensure that if this type of parenting proposal becomes legislation that it recognizes that fathers as well as mothers have every right to nurture and provide for the children. In many cases, we have found in the past that there seemed to be a preponderance of decisions that favour giving the children to the mother when that need not necessarily be the most appropriate decision.

I wonder what the member's thoughts are on these types of issues. As we recognize, the need for equality and for the lack of discrimination in this country are extremely important, but it shows up in more than one place. Here is an example where it has shown up and it has been quite detrimental for many fathers who have made representations to me in my constituency office. They felt that they have been denied access to their children and are looked on as a means of providing cash. It is one of the serious injustices that we have.

I would like to get the comments of the member as to how she feels about ensuring that the legislation, if it does become legislation, demonstrates a commitment to equality.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think in my speech—I am not sure the member was here earlier—I mentioned that we preferred the option of joint custody, with both parents having access.

Should one of the parents be unable to care for the child, then things would be different. But our preference goes to joint custody.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I have a constituent who is a Canadian citizen. His wife is an American citizen and a Jordanian citizen. They had a two-year-old daughter. Unfortunately they are divorced. When my constituent was divorced he received custody of the child. Thereafter the mother abducted their two-year-old child and took her to Jordan. This situation happened seven or eight months ago.

The father who had legal custody could not have access to the child. He went to Jordan to fight with the government and the legal system there so that he could bring the child back to Canada because his daughter is a Canadian citizen.

The legal system had him going up and down and back and forth. After many months he could not get the child and bring her back to Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member what she feels about this kind of situation when the children are abducted and they are carried out of the country. They are not in a position to come back to Canada and the Canadian government has been unable to follow it up. What would be the hon. member's reaction and what would she feel this motion might do to follow up on these kinds of situations?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad for those to whom this happens, but this is precisely the kind of problems that could be brought to the joint committee so that a solution can be sought.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, either the member misunderstood the question by the Bloc Quebecois member for Drummond or I misunderstood her answer.

I shall be brief. One thing is clear: the whole area of separation is under provincial jurisdiction. Members on both sides will agree that separation is under provincial jurisdiction. Divorce, however, under the Canadian Constitution, is a federal jurisdiction.

Is the hon. member in favour of having a joint committee consider the issues of custody, visitation rights and parenting following separation or divorce? Had the government across the way stuck to the deal it made with the other place last year to consider the issue of what happens after a divorce, I would understand, but can the hon. member, who is a member from Quebec, accept that, under the guise of a nice little joint committee and the pretence of protecting the rights of children, they jump in, with both feet, and interfere with the rights of Quebec—because I am a member from Quebec—and discuss separation and divorce as a single issue, mixing everything up as they do on a regular basis? Can she tolerate that?

That was my question.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, my answer is that, if he attends the joint committee, the hon. member will have the opportunity to raise his question there and we can discuss it in then and there.

The specific purpose of this motion is to set up a joint committee and, personally, I am in favour.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a few short comments to make on this topic.

I find it passing strange that included in the motion is a clause saying that the joint committee made up of senators and members of the House of Commons be given the authority to incur travel costs. There is a cute little phrase in it saying “inside and outside the country”.

I am not sure whether they will find it necessary to meet over in some foreign countries. Perhaps in the middle of winter it would be nice to go south and have a government paid trip. Maybe this is what is contemplated. I sincerely hope not. I find it strange that the government should include in the motion the phrase that they should be able to travel outside the country as well. Surely what we should be looking at is the experience, the needs and the aspirations of Canadian parents.

We have many children who are the products of relationships where the parents are not married to each other. I am not sure the motion will direct the committee to look at the implications of that. Many of those couples stay together for a while. They produce one, two or more children, fall into disagreement and walk away from each other. Those children are just as much at risk as those who suffer the experience of a divorce.

I do not know if all members have had experience with couples who have gone through this, but my wife and I have. It is heart wrenching to see the children being jerked around.

My last comment in this extremely short intervention, which I know is unusual for me, is that I think we need to pay attention to equality. We have heard many times today the expression—and I know it is often true—that women are automatically assumed to be the best parent and the fathers are cut out. Now there is a cry to bring equalization into it so that fathers also have access to their children and the children to their fathers. That is a noble goal.

My concern is that when it comes to judging these matters it is a false assumption that the courts always evaluate it correctly. Sometimes we land up with built-in prejudices and biases. I am afraid that perhaps the bias could go the other way so that in these cases family court judges would have a predilection to choosing fathers instead of mothers for equal or greater advantage. That may not necessarily be the case.

I simply urge that in all studies like this one we truly urge objectivity and a true evaluation. That would include much more than just highly paid, court appointed counsellors and psychologists, very frankly some of whom I am not convinced are really competent in their job. Once again the children are the ones who suffer.

These are the few comments I wanted to make in the moments available to me.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question to the Reform Party member, with whom I sat on several occasions, during the 35th Parliament, on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Unfortunately, we had rather different views on many matters. But that was part of the debate, and each one presented his arguments.

As for the motion we have before us, I have a question similar to the one I asked to other members in this House, but I would like to know his opinion as a Reform member. Does he believe that in the interest of greater harmony, of better enforcement of family law, this whole issue of rights relating to custody, support, visits, and other rights concerning separation or divorce, would be better dealt with if it were the province that had complete jurisdiction in this area?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Madam Speaker, I never was on the justice committee. I think the member is recalling days when he substituted on public works and government services. Perhaps it was the ethics committee that we worked on, the Bill C-43 committee.

Be that as it may, in answer to his question, where should jurisdiction lie? Is it provincial or is it federal? It is one of those areas where there is a crossover, as I understand it.

In general principle the closer to the people we have the jurisdiction, the better democracy is served. Sometimes it is very difficult to get politicians in distant Ottawa to hear the concerns of the people, whereas those who are in our provincial legislatures simply because they are closer geographically will sometimes be able to get the message a little better.

I give guarded support to saying let us have the legislation as close to the people as possible, in general principle in the provinces. Where a federal law currently has jurisdiction it is under the terms of parliament.

Perhaps the committee should look at how to devolve the issue to provincial courts, provincial child care agencies and so on, the people who deal with these issues, so that we get the absolute best expression of concern for the children and their welfare.

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I wish take the opportunity to set a matter straight for the member. We sat together on the ethics code committee. We did not succeed in agreeing there more than on the justice committee.

He made a particular comment that I agree with 100%. He said that very often we should ask ourselves which jurisdiction could more properly deal with the matter. He said that we should always give the responsibility to those who are closest to the people. I do not think there is a matter more appropriate than this one, on that score.

Which jurisdiction, the province or the federal government, can more properly apply the law on divorce or separation? I believe that the answer is obvious, it is the provinces.

There is already a lot of social legislation to assist families. I think this is like a puzzle and there is a piece of this puzzle that is missing and without which Quebec and the other provinces cannot have full jurisdiction, and that piece is divorce legislation, which would complete the whole area of family law.

But my question is the following: Is the Reform member familiar with the Quebec example in the area of family law, including separation? Also, is the Reform Party member familiar with how we have decided to proceed in Quebec since September 1, 1997 in the area of family mediation, which is offered to everyone free of charge, which accelerates the process for separation and divorce, and which deals with the issues of custody, child support, joint accounts, assets and other things? Is the member familiar with the Quebec example and does he recognize that it goes well beyond what the federal government can provide by asking a committee to review this issue?

Parenting ArrangementsGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Madam Speaker, I must concede that I am not aware of the full details of the Quebec bills. I have heard of them and he has alluded to them in the debate today.

One of the very valuable things that happens in the House is that we get to know more about each other. We understand each other better and we see where we are all coming from. I certainly agree with the member that if there is a good system in place in that province it should be allowed to work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.

However, when we are talking about the welfare of children it is very important for children to be in a home in which there is a stable relationship between their parents.

It is distressing to me when I look at the demographics across the country that there is a variation among people who enter into long term, permanent, legal relationships with each other in order to make a family and have children.

I simply respond to the member by saying that the issue in Quebec is no less than it is in any of the other provinces with respect to the care of children. We need to make them our focus. There is a great need there. Many of our children are growing up in homes where the parents are not permanently committed to each other. In those situations statistics show that children are at greater risk in terms of their own personal well-being and welfare.

Personally I think we ought to emphasize more the stabilization of families. One book I read recently indicated that one of the greatest stresses in a marriage relationship is financial. More husbands and wives argue about money than just about anything else. In this country we are nigh taxed to death. The government with its high taxation rates is adding to the stresses of families and thereby contributing to family break-up.

If we could only get that part solved and leave more money in the hands of families so they could provide for each other and their children, we would have less stress and a smaller problem in terms of looking after children from broken homes and from broken relationships where there was no marriage. We should be placing the greatest emphasis on the welfare of those dear children.

I am a grandparent now. When I had my own children they were very special to us. Now we have grandchildren. They just touch my heart. When I see how important they are, how I wish that every family would look at their children with respect, deep love and caring so that we could keep our families together and keep the children in a nice, stable home where they have the best advantages and the greatest security that are important to them.