Madam Speaker, I also thank hon. members for allowing me to address this motion. Sometimes, there are issues in this House about which we care deeply.
For the benefit of those who just joined us, in the House and at home, allow me to point out that we are addressing a motion on custody and access arrangements after separation or divorce.
The motion, in part, reads as follows:
—to examine and analyze issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular—
—and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests;
You will understand that this motion is of great concern to us in the Bloc Quebecois. The subject of children strikes a chord. We believe—not only do we believe, but it is a legislative fact—that the education of children is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Separation is a provincial matter as well.
Going further, to divorce, which is federal, application of custody rights come under the Civil Code of Quebec. Allow me to point this out very loudly and very indignantly.
When the federal government decides to strike a committee to examine a question, I have never seen it—in my short experience at any rate—spend time addressing a subject and then come up empty, saying “Oh no, we are not going to deal with that any longer”.
Why, when writing these lines, this motion, did the minister or ministers concerned not say “That's not really our jurisdiction. We have no business messing about where we don't belong. There are provisions already in place”.
They say that the purpose of this is to clarify things for people.
I would just like to address the comment by the Reform member who has just said that this issue merits examination because children undergo great upheaval at the time of separation. Yes, I can imagine. It is precisely to avoid having both a provincial and federal inspector looking into the welfare of the child. I do not want to see any more battles over who is in charge of what, jurisdictional squabbles between the province and the federal level when parents separate, ending up with the children having two sets of people concerned with their well-being, looking into their case. It is all the more confusing when the children are already the victims of a problem between their parents, children who are undergoing the emotional shock parental separation or divorce can represent.
The wording of the motion embraces—a fancy word—areas under of provincial jurisdiction just a little too much. The word “embraces” may be rather inappropriate when used in connection with divorce or separation, but it is important to point out that what this committee wants to examine embraces areas under provincial jurisdiction too much.
I have already said this, but it bears repeating. The mechanisms for implementing custody and visitation in the case of a separation in Quebec come under the Civil Code. Child rearing comes under parental authority, and when it involves the education system, under the province.
The strangest part of the motion is the tail end—and I would say that it is scary—as it refers to an approach that will focus on the responsibilities of each parent to assess the children's true needs.
This approach focusses on the responsibilities of each parent, on the needs of the children and their best interests at the time agreement is reached on their education. If education is a provincial matter, what business do they have sticking their noses in this?