Debates of April 25th, 2002

Supply

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Of course, if you would only listen, maybe you would understand something.

Of course, it takes more that assembling cars to say that there is an auto industry in a country or a region, as I said this morning. The Premier of Quebec said so also many times when he spoke about the importance of repositioning Quebec's auto industry in the auto parts sector. Many announcements concerning investments were made, and we will develop, in due time, one of the most promising sectors in Quebec.

It is said that Quebec is the fourth largest producer of aluminum in the world, and the second largest producer of magnesium, after China. We have an exceptional advantage over other countries.

To ensure continuity and conformity to the Kyoto accord--this needs to be said--auto makers will put greater emphasis on on building lighter cars. They will kae greater use of lighter metals, such as aluminum and magnesium.

In the case of Quebec, as far as we are concerned, there has been from the start very close co-operation between the two levels of government on this issue. There have been many efforts made and many actions taken. Even today, no solution has been found which would allow the plant to remain open. We have no guarantee that it will remain open. It seems that GM, as my colleague from the opposition said earlier, is restructuring its operations on the international market. As a matter of fact, GM reported large profits for the first quarter. The company is investing a lot outside of North America: in Portugal, in Spain and all over the world. The reason for this is that we are living in a global market, and we are the ones who are paying the price.

While we have some difficulties, because since GM has closed its plant in Ontario it wants to do the same in Quebec, we have a significant advantage in the auto parts sector. I believe it is one of the solutions that has also been put forward by the committee, which includes a Canadian government representative, as well as a Quebec government representative.

So there is auto parts manufacturing. We must use our magnesium and aluminum sector, do the processing here and manufacture parts. We should not think that, tomorrow morning, everything will be over and that a grim future awaits Quebec.

On the contrary, I think we should look ahead. We must continue to find solutions and try to develop the parts sector, which is linked to the auto industry, and focus on our great production of magnesium and aluminum. The jobs we are temporarily losing could then be regained. They would be high quality jobs, which would allow our young people to move ahead.

I always come back to the initial motion, which blames the government of Canada for not having taken action on this issue. Excuse me, but people should at least tell the truth, namely that the Government of Canada was the first to take action on this issue. We developed partnerships with the Government of Quebec as well as with unions on this issue and we are continuing with our work.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, was there a question in there for me? It was like a diatribe devoid of any substance.

I made a 20 minute speech. I expressed my views and made some remarks. Maybe we should explain to the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, who sat in the National Assembly of Quebec and was even a minister, what the parliamentary procedure is here in the House of Commons. We try to finish with a question for the previous speaker.

Having said that, I want to add to the comments made by the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. Both go hand in hand. We are working on promoting parts manufacturing. By providing tax incentives in the region of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean to help develop the aluminum valley, the Government of Quebec has assumed its responsibilities and tried to get secondary and tertiary manufacturing going.

When the Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, announced the production of 500 megawatts in Sept-Îles, it was on the condition—and that is when we realized why Alcan was so interested—that we would no longer only be producing the ingots we see in the Parc des Laurentides on trucks and double road trains, which--by the way--cause so much damage to our highways, or on Powell pier in the city of La Baie, but also get involved in further processing.

I mentioned the region of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean and aluminum valley, but we could talk about the other auto parts made of magnesium. I repeat for the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry that the two go together. We are working on the development aspect. Will we accept second best and say “We will be content with the parts sector since we are losing the assembly plant”? This is not how Quebec's interests should be defended in Ottawa. We are not asking for handouts, but we want to keep the last assembly plant outside of Ontario open.

I am very disappointed by the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry's comments. I do not want to play party politics nor to argue with him, but these comments from a member who has been a minister in Quebec City really disappoint me, because some members of the Quebec Liberal Party are nationalists. I am very disappointed to hear these comments about being content with second best. The member for Beauharnois--Salaberry seems to thrown in the towel.

If the workers in his riding have heard his speech, and they will receive a copy of it in any case, they should ask him “Do you agree that we should lose our jobs? You have told us that there will be an auto parts plant in Alma”. Will somebody owning a house in Sainte-Thérèse have to sell it because of a new job in Alma? It is not even sure that this person will get it. This is not the way things work. The two go together. We agree with the manufacturing of parts, but the assembly plant has to stay open.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague has not forgotten the region he comes from. It is true that I found it amusing at one point when he said that they get the speeches of one of our colleagues from Ontario translated and that gives the Bloc fuel for their fire.

I am not sure that fire is particularly well fueled, because with the 20% or 25% they are getting in the polls, they are going to need to change their fuel. This is not a strong showing, not such a great performance.

In fact, a few months after this business started—it is, after all, some months since GM announced its decision—the government was already involved, through the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development at that time, who took part in the negotiations. We are doing all we can to reactivate the situation.

What I would like to address, however, is the fact that my colleague spoke a good deal about aluminum. It is true that the federal government is investing more and more in R and D with its various programs.

In my own region, the Government of Canada is currently investing $60 million for laboratories that will enable us to transform aluminum. My colleague was right about that. Canada produces 2 million tonnes of aluminum annually, and another 500,000 tonnes are imported as finished products, from Europe and the U.S.

The change that has to be made—I agree on maintaining the assembly plants—is via research and development. The major regions throughout the world that have developed have not done so because of Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois committees. They have done so because of laboratories where scientists carry out research, where products are designed and markets designated. This is what the Canadian government is doing when it takes part in committees. It funded the maintenance committee and it will continue to work hard on this.

I would advise the hon. member to change the fuel he is using. Their 25% performance in the polls shows that they are not using the right one.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not need any advice from the turncoat member for Chicoutimi, who was a PQ member in 1984, then a Conservative and now a Liberal. There are rumours in the Saguenay region that he will be joining the NDP.

People listen to us, and there are persistent rumours that he is thinking about running for the NDP leadership—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member's time has expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate following our colleague's brilliant speech. I must say that his review of the record of the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is extremely realistic. He talked about 20% to 25%, which is still 20% more than during the last election campaign that he did with the Conservatives, is it not?

We will get back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I hope that he will join his voice to those of Bloc Quebecois members, and that he will be an active participant in this debate.

The hon. member for Laurentides, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes worked extremely hard, along with the unions and the stakeholders, to ensure that this would not be a partisan issue.

I know that I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues and say that, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, members who want to work to protect jobs in one of Quebec's most important sector, can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois, the public and the workers.

My colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, has nevertheless left out an important detail. He would have deserved our respect and we would have appreciated him more if he had stood in his place and admitted that his government reneged on a promise.

The mayor of Boisbriand, if he were here today, would not be very proud of the remarks of the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord and of the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. Why? Because they did not acknowledge that the federal government made commitments nearly a year ago. I hope they will stand, ask a question and confirm that.

Can the GM workers rely on the federal government to get the help of two lobbyists and administrative support? Will the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry confirm that? Will they take their responsibilities and stand up for Quebec for once?

When I read the motion moved this morning, I had mixed feelings. First, I was very proud of the work of the hon. members for Laurentides, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and Verchères--Les-Patriotes. Once more, the phrase “defending exclusively the interests of Quebec” had all its meaning.

These mixed feelings meant that my pride was also tinged with considerable disappointment. Why was I so disappointed? If there is a time in the life of parliamentarians when all Quebecers should speak as one and do so forcefully, it is when people's livelihood is involved, when it is a question of maintaining jobs, when it is a question of ensuring that people can put bread on the table. This is no time for partisan politics.

The auto issue is extremely instructive; it illustrates very clearly what Canadian confederation is all about. The 1,400 people directly involved in this issue and the 9,000 indirectly involved are conscientious employees, taxpayers. GM is a family.

People who work in a plant such as the one in Boisbriand have often spent their whole life there. Sometimes, their grandfather or father worked there, their children work there, and the entire corporate culture places value on the family. In a region, this is important to maintaining jobs.

How is it that the federal government was not at least as enterprising as the government of Quebec? If it had been as enterprising as the government of Quebec, there is not one member of the Bloc Quebecois who would not have admitted it. We can tell when the federal government does something good.

I hear the loud guffaws of the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. I could give him many examples where we have supported the government, when it was in Quebec's interest to do so.

I could talk about the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We supported the government. I could talk about the centres of excellence. We supported the government there because it was in the interest of Quebec.

However, it is impossible for this government and I say from my chair that it is impossible for government members from Quebec to act fairly and equitably to defend the interests of Quebec. It is impossible because, for decades, 90% of the auto industry has been concentrated in Ontario.

No one was able to correct this injustice. I say again, respectfully, that when I hear the groveling and servile speeches from some of the members from Quebec, who are prepared to accept the fact that the industry is shutting down, that there will be an exodus of workers, that the assembly will be done elsewhere, I can only conclude that we see things differently. Members of the Bloc Quebecois would never give in. We will defend the interests of the GM workers in Boisbriand.

It is pretty sad that today, we are required to debate a motion such as this. Let us look at history. There was a great deal of hope in the establishment of that plant 36 or 37 years ago. The job market was very different. People with a grade 10, 11 or 12 education would be hired by GM, and become skilled, respectable workers able to see to the needs of their family. They would develop their skills, participate in an industrial culture and especially contribute to the economy of the whole region. That is what it was like at GM.

Earlier we heard a number of speeches. I will not comment on the speech made by the Minister of Industry. I listened to his speech from my office. Is there anyone more spineless when it comes to doing what is needed to defend the interests of Quebec?

What gives us cause for hope? First and foremost the men and women at GM. I am told that they have travelled across Quebec and that they will end their trip with a huge rally in Montreal. These men and women know full well that if the federal government refuses to move, there is only one way to make it move. How? We know governments can be blind at times, but they are never deaf. They show up where there is noise. GM workers will make noise with the help of the dynamic forces of the Quebec civil society and of course of Bloc Quebecois members. If members on the government side want to join us, they are totally, absolutely welcome in a non-partisan way.

The situation is all the harder to understand as we are not dealing with an under-performing plant. This is not the problem. This is an issue of what is called in economic terms product substitution. Because they cannot find a market for a very specific product in a particular niche, they propose getting rid of the plant.

I believe it is my duty to remind members that the president GM, Mrs. Maureen Kempston Darkes, made the following statement. I would like to share it because I believe it sums up the situation perfectly.

“The Boisbriand plant has gone through good times and bad times since it opened in 1965. The decision to close the plant is not based on its productivity”.

“The decision to close the plant is not based on its productivity.” The issue here is certainly not workers' output. This is not the issue.

I continue:

It is not based on its quality or its workers. We consider Sainte-Thérèse as a very good plant. The only reason why we are closing it is that we could not find a product to assemble there in replacement of the Camaro or the Firebird.

What is the role of a government, particularly a government with budget laxness, a government that has such huge surpluses that it does not know what to do with them? When workers who did their job well, who developed an expertise, who work in a plant or an industrial sector that has added value, with interesting working conditions, should we not, as parliamentarians, as Quebecers, and all those who believe in the workers, expect that this government would loosen up its purse strings?

Once again, if this government had shown as much initiative as the Quebec government did, we would have been the first ones to recognize it. But this is not the case and cannot be the case.

When the Government of Canada wants to take action in the auto industry, it has to put up with a strong two-tier lobbying: the auto industry itself and the Ontario caucus. This is the tragedy of our system.

If the government had wanted to arbitrate — I see my friend, the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, who is nodding with a look of despair, and I challenge him to stand up and show me why the government has not arbitrated in favour of Quebec when it is possible to do so—and if it has not done so, it is because one of two things: either because it does not believe in Quebec or because it is not possible due to the clout of Ontario within the caucus.

That is why, historically, as every Bloc Quebecois member has pointed out, 90% or 95% of the auto industry has been concentrated in Ontario. That is the unfairness of the system.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, will not get discouraged. We will put all our energy into this. We have in the area a team of members of parliament who are very familiar with the issue, very involved and very close to the population. We will fight on until the government loosens its purse strings.

I want to conclude by recalling how sad it is that GM has made investments in other parts of the world while totally ignoring what could have been a solution here.

Madam Speaker, I think my time has is up, but allow me to ask for the consent of the House to make that motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent to make this motion a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms Bakopanos)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the debate on the motion is over.

Business of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, April 26. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Private members' hour will thus be cancelled tomorrow and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Divorce Act

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately act on the December 1998 Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access entitled “For the Sake of Children”, and that the Minister of Justice should be condemned for failing to propose amendments to the Divorce Act on the basis of this report.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 329, which is designed to again point out to the Canadian people and to the House the necessity of looking after what might be described as a motherhood issue in old fashioned language. It is the importance of families and children to our society, the importance of the basic family unit to look after those children and the importance of our role as legislators in helping to look after children's needs in the unfortunate and sometimes tragic case of marital breakdown and the subsequent problems that entails for many children.

It is important to note that a majority of parents, even when marriages break down, do their best to look after their children and to put them first. There are occasions when children are used as pawns in a very unfortunate marital breakdown. This motion today is to again highlight the need for the House to be seized by that and to talk about putting children first in a children first agenda.

That is one of the reasons I brought this motion forward. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately act on the December 1998 Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access entitled “For the Sake of the Children”, and that the Minister of Justice should be condemned for failing to propose amendments to the Divorce Act on the basis of this report.

I point out there are two reasons why private members' motions and bills are brought forward. The first reason is the member actually wants, expects and hopes to develop new legislative options. Unfortunately, as we have seen again in the past week or two, that so seldom happens. There is an awful lot of work that goes into proposing alternatives. I have proposed alternatives on the management of CIDA, peacekeeping operations, the most recent blood samples act, et cetera. Members try their best to promote those things, but we all realize the government almost never passes them and the initiatives come and go by the wayside. We do our best but there is not much chance of them coming to fruition.

The second reason is a motion is put forward to point out that the work has already been done and it is simply a matter of the government finally getting on the bandwagon and making something actually happen. The work in this case has been done. It was done in 1998. The report was tabled. It is called “For the Sake of the Children” and be adopted in its entirety for the sake of the children. It is well named.

It is an excellent report and I urge people to read it. It deals with difficult issues like custody, alimony, payments for access to children, joint parenting proposals, the way the courts should be organized and all those kinds of things. It is also excellent because it puts the children first and that is what we should be talking about. I hope in the debate today we have a chance to describe the situation currently in Canada and what this report recommends.

I brought this motion forward because a few years ago I was dealing with a problem that a constituent of mine had. He was from Abbotsford. His former wife took their two children and moved to the east coast. He was subsequently laid off from his job and it took three full years for the courts to acknowledge the change in his employment status. In this case the court system pushed the father to the edge of financial ruin and dropped him into the abyss of deep, emotional anguish because the court would not recognize the change in his financial situation. Nor would it allow him access to his children on the other side of the country.

He felt that if the “For the Sake of the Children” report or parts of it had been adopted and had been passed into law by federal and provincial governments, it would have helped both he and his children during those difficult years. This constituent's interests were also driven by a sense of selflessness. He did not want the suffering that he had gone through to happen to others. He was especially gripped by the tragic story of Darrin White, which I will relay very briefly.

Darrin White was from Prince George, B.C. He committed suicide on March 13, 2000 after a court gave him only limited access to his children and ordered him to pay his estranged wife twice his take home pay in child support and alimony each month. The man was so desperate he eventually took his own life. The B.C. supreme court ordered him to pay his ex wife and three children $2,071 a month while his net pay was less than $1,000 per month. It was a shameful case. It drove this man to take his own life because he could see no way out the situation.

Because of this case and for his own well-being, the well-being of other parents and especially the well-being of children my constituent has continually kept the issue in the forefront when addressing the groups he speaks to. He has urged me to do the same. I am happy to do so today.

The roots of the report “For the Sake of the Children” date back to 1996 and 1997 when we were studying Bill C-41 which proposed to amend the Divorce Act. Witnesses came forward in large numbers. It was decided the committee should tour the country to get a holistic overview of how to fix a system that seemed based in another era, bring it up to date and put forward a modern, 21st century solution for all of us who want to put the concerns of children at the forefront.

The 48 recommendations in the committee's report not only had broad support from the all party Senate and House of Commons committee. They had the support of interest groups, parenting groups, children's advocates and others. They seemed to have the support of everyone but they have not been acted on. The report was tabled in 1998. Here we are four years later and there has been no significant change to the Canadian divorce system.

I will highlight a number of the recommendations. The committee recommended amending the Divorce Act by replacing the term custody and access with the principle of shared parenting. This would give mothers and fathers equal decision making powers on matters of fundamental importance such as schooling, medical treatment and religious upbringing.

At present custodial parents make all the decisions while access parents are only visitors. The principle of shared parenting would change that. It says both parents are essential to the proper development of children and that the best way to ensure this, even when a marriage breaks down, is to put the children first and allow both parents not only to have access but to be part of the important decisions in their children's lives.

Children develop best when left in an intact home. However when that cannot happen, as it unfortunately cannot from time to time, it is best that both parents share in the responsibility as much as possible. This recommendation is one of many that would make that possible.

At the same time the proposed recommendations would make it possible for courts to deny shared custody to abusive or negligent parents, which is of course our role. It is up to us to make sure parents do not abuse their children and that children are safe in that most hallowed of places: their own home.

The recommendations called for the rejection of the tender years doctrine under which judges routinely award custody of pre-adolescent children to the mother. Responsibility should not be gender specific. It should be shared. Both parents are necessary for the proper development and security of their children.

Recommendation 16 advocated:

--that decision makers including parents and judges consider a list of criteria in determining the best interests of the child--

Again, children should come first. The whole report was a breath of fresh air because it promoted the idea that it is not about parents who may have their own problems whether interpersonal, financial or who knows what. The important thing is to put the needs of children first. The so-called problems of the parents would often fade into the background if both of them and all of us looked at the children's needs first.

Recommendation 18 urged the Minister of Justice to undertake:

--a comprehensive review of the Guidelines to reflect gender equality and the child's entitlement to financial support from both parents--

Again, the concept of shared parenting was a key theme throughout the report.

Recommendation 21 called for the provincial and territorial governments to:

--consider amending their family law to provide that maintaining and fostering relationships with grandparents and other extended family members is in the best interests of children and that such relationships should not be disrupted without a significant reason related to the well-being of the child.

I refer to the motion brought forward in 1995 by former Reform MP Daphne Jennings advocating the rights of grandparents to access. This recommendation echoed that. It said unless it could be shown to be not in the best interests of the child we should do all we can to allow the supportive, nurturing relationships that are possible with grandparents and extended families to be maintained.

Recommendation 24 advocated:

--that unified family courts, in addition to their adjudicative function, include a broad range of other support services--

These would include family counselling, legal education, parenting assessment and mediation services. In other words, they would include doing what we could to prevent divorce whenever possible. They would also include looking after the needs of the whole family unit at that stage and eventually the needs of the children if necessary.

Recommendation 30 urged:

that the Divorce Act be amended to require (a) that a parent wishing to relocate with a child, where the distance would necessitate the modification of agreed or court-ordered parenting arrangements, seek judicial permission--

This recommendation would affect my constituent particularly. His estranged wife picked up her children and moved to Nova Scotia from Chilliwack. One cannot get much farther away than that. This constituent of mine went to visit his children. He should not have been doing so because there should have been shared parenting. However he went to the expense of going to the other end of the country, knocked on the door of his estranged wife and said he was there for a week to visit the kids. Her response was that she had decided not to let him see them.

My constituent sat in a hotel room and contacted a lawyer who told him he would get a court order in two or three weeks or a month. In the meantime he had to travel back to Chilliwack to look for work. Every time he went back to Nova Scotia his wife denied him access.

If the recommendations were implemented the courts would not let this happen because there would be a system of shared parenting. A parent who wanted to move that far away would have to seek permission from the court because shared parenting and the rights of the father to have an impact on his children's lives would be paramount.

The recommendations would allow custody relationships to become less adversarial. They would give greater protection to the needs of children, hence the report's title “For the Sake of the Children”. The recommendations should have been enacted.

The recommendations have broad public support. They have support in parliament as well. The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River has put forward 48 private member's bills on the issue, one for every one of the recommendations because he likes them so much. He too has been seized by the groups across the country who beg and plead with us to make sure the recommendations go forward. A National Post poll from February asked whether Canadian child custody and access laws should be overhauled in favour of the concept of shared parenting. Some 91% of those polled said yes.

The concept of shared parenting has broad public support. It has broad support in this place. It has support in the Senate. It is the desire of parliamentarians in this place that it go forward. Yet in 1998 nothing happened. In 1999 nothing happened. In 2000 and 2001 nothing happened. Here we are in 2002 and still nothing has happened. That is a shame because as each year goes by more and more children, 50,000 children a year, are left in the lurch hoping their parents have enough maturity and common sense to find a shared parenting arrangement. However we have no legislative framework, mediative services or common court systems that allow this to be done easily and without confrontation.

It is a shame. The government has agreed that families need to have a high priority. In 1999 the then minister of justice said we must make the needs and interests of children our highest priority. Here we are in 2002 and there has been no reaction. The new Minister of Justice says changes to the Divorce Act may be tabled sometime this spring. That may be good as far as it goes but I plead with the minister to reconsider. It is not only about the Divorce Act. There are 48 recommendations. It is not only about making it simpler to steer one's way through a divorce. It is about doing what is right for kids. It will take more than a fixed divorce act to do that.

The biggest reason of all for the government to move now on the 48 recommendations and stop dragging its feet is the children. It is for the sake of the children. Thousands of difficult situations could have been avoided in the last four years alone if the recommendations had been implemented. People such Darrin White have died because the issue has not been properly fixed.

Children do not get to see their parents. That could have been avoided. Some families suffer grief and pain. That could have been avoided.

I realize we are not going to vote on this motion tonight. However, I urge the government to not just look at the Divorce Act in isolation, but to look at the 48 recommendations. I urge the government to listen to the pleas of parliamentarians in both houses that we move forward, make the changes and enact the recommendations. Let us do it for the sake of the children.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 329 which calls on the government to act immediately on the recommendations in “For the Sake of the Children”, the December 1998 report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. The motion further suggests that the Minister of Justice should be condemned for failing to propose amendments to the Divorce Act on the basis of the report. There are important points to note in responding to the motion.

First, the motion does not acknowledge that the Government of Canada has already responded to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Custody and Access in “Strategy for Reform” which was tabled in May 1999 and that much of that strategy has already been implemented. It is worth noting that the special joint committee's recommendations were directed not only at the Government of Canada but also at provincial and territorial governments, as well as judges, relevant professionals and even the divorcing parents themselves.

Second, in criticizing the Minister of Justice for failing to propose amendments to the Divorce Act, the motion fails to appreciate the complexity of the legal issues. It also fails to acknowledge one of the most challenging aspects of family law, that many of the problems facing divorcing families are, in reality, only partly legal in nature and cannot simply be legislated away by Divorce Act amendments.

There are no easy answers. Indeed, one of the reasons the committee's report “For the Sake of the Children” is so important is precisely that it underscores this very point. There are no easy solutions to the wide variety of complex and controversial issues facing divorcing families.

Let us examine what has clearly come to be considered the main recommendation of that report, the recommendation on shared parenting. I quote:

This committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”.

On the surface it may appear to be an easy amendment to simply replace the terms “custody and access” in the Divorce Act with the new term “shared parenting”. If we look closely at what the report actually says about shared parenting, we will find it anything but simple.

In view of the diversity of families facing divorce in Canada today, it would be presumptuous and detrimental to many to establish a one size fits all formula for parenting arrangements after separation and divorce. By the new term “shared parenting”, the committee intended to combine in one package all the rights and responsibilities that are now embodied in the two existing terms “custody and access”, and leave decisions about allocating the various components to parents and judges.

There is other very clear wording in the committee report confirming that this recommendation was not intended to mean that the Divorce Act should adopt a legal presumption that would impose shared parenting on all families.

Many witnesses, including individual fathers, fathers' groups and shared parenting advocates, recommended strongly that the act be amended to include a presumption in favour of joint physical custody, meaning an arrangement in which children would spend roughly equal amounts of time with each parent and where decision making would also be shared.

The committee was interested in testimony about the benefits of joint custody for both parents and children when it is agreed to voluntarily and works effectively. This type of arrangement generally involves joint decision making by parents, at least respecting important issues such as schooling, religion and medical care, with significant periods of time spent in the care of each parent.

However, legislation that imposes or presumes joint custody as the automatic arrangement for divorcing families would ignore that this might not be suitable for all families, especially those families with a history of domestic violence or of very disparate parenting roles.

In other words, while the report recommends that shared parenting be incorporated into the Divorce Act, it makes it clear that the recommendation does not mean that the Divorce Act should be amended to include a presumption of shared parenting. To the contrary, it specifically says that it should not.

The problem is that the meanings and interpretations of the term custody have been the subject of much confusion and debate. Different variations of the terms, such as the role of custody, joint custody and shared custody, are sometimes used but are not always understood. Simply substituting shared parenting in the Divorce Act would not resolve the current confusion and debate about the parental roles and rights. In fact, because there are differing meanings and understandings related to the word shared this could potentially promote even more conflict and litigation.

While it is true that there are problems relating to the meaning of the term custody in the Divorce Act, it is also clear that the current provisions of the Divorce Act allow for the very type of shared parenting concept that the committee appeared to be promoting. When it can work effectively and is agreed to voluntarily the Divorce Act says that custody and access can be granted to one or more persons. It provides that the best interests of children must be the only consideration and that children should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with their best interests.

The reality is that the committee's recommendation to amend the Divorce Act to incorporate shared parenting, contrary to what the private member's motion suggests, is not simple or clear cut. It is not only reasonable but is also responsible that the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice carry out all the required legal analysis and consultations necessary to interpret this recommendation, especially given its complexity and importance.

It is critical to acknowledge that the federal and provincial governments have specific constitutional powers with respect to family law. While federal laws govern the cases of divorce, the provinces have legislative responsibility for custody and access in cases where the families choose to separate rather than divorce or where the parents have never been married. The provinces also have the constitutional authority to establish rules of civil procedure, including the court procedures, respecting the Divorce Act matters within their jurisdiction.

Making changes to the federal Divorce Act would have serious implications for the provinces and territories and cannot be rushed. It would require, at minimum, provincial and territorial support and, ideally, their co-operation and commitment to develop co-ordinated corresponding provincial and territorial reforms.

The overall objective is to assist all separating and divorcing families across Canada. The provinces have jurisdiction for the administration and delivery of court services. For many parents court based and community services provided by the provinces are the most important things that help them resolve the issues to reach agreements.

The motion fails to recognize that the federal government has been providing a great deal of assistance by funding and promoting these services, which include parenting education programs, dispute resolution services such as mediation, and counselling services. The Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that these essential services are in place when parents and children need them.

I cannot support Motion No. 329 because it fails to appreciate the complexity of the extremely emotional and divisive issues that divorcing parents face. It focuses only on the Divorce Act amendments and does not acknowledge that there are many other problems which in reality are only partly legal in nature and cannot be simply legislated away. It also ignores the important joint planning and collaborative work that the federal government has done with the provinces and territories to develop and improve court based and community services to help separating and divorcing families.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion, all the more so because I practiced law in my former life. I had studied labour relations and wanted to specialize in labour law. However, the reality of the practice of law, with all the separations and divorces, led me to submit petitions for divorce, of course, but also to argue divorce cases on their merits in various courts.

I am concerned with the whole matter of children, especially after separation. This concerns me as a lawyer, a member of the House and a father of two.

For the same reasons raised in a dissenting opinion when the report entitled “For the Sake of Children” was published in 1998, you will understand that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will have difficulty supporting the motion by the member for Fraser Valley requesting immediate implementation of this report by the government.

By the way, I would not want people to act like rabble rousers. Unfortunately, political discussions sometimes lead people to take a sentence or a phrase and say “Oh yes, the Bloc Quebecois does not care for the children's rights in the case of a separation”. We were not against the substance of the report.

The same applies to the motion. The principle involved is fine. But this is a constitutional matter and it is unfortunate that the government does not want to assume its responsibilities in resolving this issue. The matter is one of power sharing among provinces. And I am not talking of Quebec only. I am not talking about Quebec's interests and rights only. This has to do with the sharing of powers between the provinces and the federal government.

We know that the study by the joint committee dealt with issues that are still very current and constantly evolving: the increasing number of divorces and the reality of the children. We remember that a few decades ago, in Canada and in Quebec, marriage was the most standard form of union between two persons. Now, cohabitation is becoming increasingly widespread.

As a result of this cohabitation, children are born out of wedlock. I do not deny the appropriateness, however, it is a reality. Thus, children come to be part of a new dimension, which is often very complex.

In our opinion, this special joint committee was not the appropriate forum to look at legislative solutions to social issues that affect more and more of our fellow citizens.

Indeed, we realized, when the report was being drafted, that there is a paradox, an unjustifiable dichotomy, in the view of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, in terms of power sharing between the provinces and the federal government. All matters relating to the family, education and social services, as well as all issues relating to legal separation, are clearly under provincial jurisdiction.

In Quebec we have the civil code. As members know, our civil code comes from the Napoleonic Code; our civil law is the civil law of France. In Quebec, sections 493 and following deal with legal separation.

However, under the Constitution, divorce comes under federal jurisdiction. Members will agree that most divorces are settled out of court. They are settled through agreements. The court simply ratifies whatever the parties agree upon. In Quebec, we also have family mediation services to help couples come to an agreement. We have lawyers who specialize in mediation.

In most cases, it is at the time of the legal separation that agreements on child custody and access are signed. As legal separation comes under provincial jurisdiction, it would be logical for divorce legislation to also come under provincial jurisdiction.

We think it would be much simpler if all of family law came under the same jurisdiction, the provincial one.

Let me quote a long text from a prominent expert in constitutional law in Canada, whose expertise no one would question. He is a specialist; it is Senator Gérald Beaudoin, a Conservative member of the other house.

Senator Beaudoin is not known for being a sovereignist. We must recognize this. I hope we are able to agree that there will be a summer, and a winter. I would also like us to agree that Senator Gérald Beaudoin is not a sovereignist. He says so himself, he is a federalist. Sometimes, however, he is a tired federalist, as was the father of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Léon Dion.

So I quote Senator Gérald Beaudoin, who wrote in 1990:

One might ask why, in 1867, the framers gave Parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. This seems to have been for religious reasons. Under article 185 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, marriage could be dissolved only by the natural death of one of the spouses.

It was impossible to divorce under the civil code of Lower Canada. This principle was accepted by the vast majority of Quebecers, who, at the time as you know, were Catholic.

Let us talk about the situation of Protestants. We must refer to people from other provinces because Quebec was by and large French and Catholic, and the other provinces were English and Protestant.

The Protestants, however, wanted the Canadian parliament to legislate divorce, hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gave the federal parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.

Yet, that which was appropriate in 1867 may no longer be appropriate today, because the society in which the law evolves is, by definition, an evolving society. I do not need to tell the House that we do things differently today than we did in 1867.

So, it is important, critical even, that our laws reflect contemporary society. It is our responsibility as legislators to tailor the statutes to today's realities.

We in the Bloc Quebecois were of the opinion that the provinces should have had complete jurisdiction over family law and should have been able to legislate in this area.

Given that I am out of time, I would simply like to say that we cannot support the motion moved by the member for Fraser Valley.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fraser Valley for the work he has done on this issue. Although we are not that close in terms of seating arrangements, I think most of us acknowledge that he has done a good job on this issue and it does deserve some attention from the House. I want to put a few points on the record.

In December 1997 the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access undertook a challenging task to examine the issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, with special emphasis on the needs and the best interests of the children. Over a 12 month period the committee held 55 meetings and heard from over 520 witnesses. The committee also received hundreds of letters and detailed briefs from concerned citizens and professionals interested in various aspects of the study.

In December 1998 the report came back to the House. It took the government five months to issue a draft response to the report. At the time the Minister of Justice said:

The Committee’s review has shown that those who must turn to the system would be better served by a less adversarial approach that encourages parental responsibilities and provides both parents with opportunities to guide and nurture their children. In most cases, children and youth benefit from meaningful relationships with both mothers and fathers.

It has been over four years now and nothing has been done. The committee report told the government that the Divorce Act should be amended and recognized that the parents' relationships with their children do not end upon separation or divorce.

Among the many suggestions made, the committee pointed out that children should have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made. It also pointed out that those children whose parents divorce should have the opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional whose duty it would be to make these views known to any judge, assessor or mediator making or facilitating a shared parenting determination. As well, the court should have the authority to appoint an interested third party, such as a member of the child's extended family, to support and represent the child during parental separation or divorce.

The committee also noted that the relationships of grandparents, siblings and other extended family members with children be recognized as significant and that provisions for maintaining and fostering such relationships where they are in the best interests of these children be included in the parenting plans.

Some men's groups and fathers asked that the committee consider recommending a presumption in favour of shared parenting or joint custody. They argued that this would be the only way to ensure that both parents negotiated or participated in mediation in good faith and with the children's best interests as the main focus.

While the committee made no such recommendation, it did recognize the value of shared decision making and equal time sharing where appropriate. Witnesses included psychologists and social workers who stated that children benefit from maintaining a relationship with both parents after divorce.

Dr. John Service, executive director of the Canadian Psychological Association testified at the committee. He stated:

The best solutions are, of course, those that can effect a separation and divorce with a minimum of trauma. Generous custody and access arrangements are most often in the best interests of the children and parents.

The witnesses from Families in Transition testified that the children they see seem to be more secure when the parental conflict has decreased and when the child feels sure of the parental commitment of love for them.

Many witnesses testified that parenting education immediately following the separation would help reduce conflict between divorcing spouses. This in turn would benefit the children by making parents aware of how divorce affects them and the damage that can be caused by ongoing conflict. We see that in our communities, that ongoing conflict with no resolution.

Several witnesses presented detailed evidence about parenting education programs offered in their communities. In Alberta, for example, a parenting education program entitled “Parenting After Separation” has become mandatory and parents must attend the course before they can proceed with an application for divorce. In other parts of the country social service agencies, community groups, family court clinics and at least one law firm, yes, a law firm, offer educational programs.

“For the Sake of the Children” was a positive step toward laying the foundation for legislation which would take into consideration the best interests of the child when these unfortunate circumstances occur.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports shared custody as long as it is in the best interests of the children. We are proud to say that we played an effective role on the special joint committee. We were a strong voice on the issue of shared custody. We feel that the courts should work in harmony with social services to ensure that no matter what the custody arrangement, the best interests of the children would be paramount.

We share the frustration of many Canadians knowing that our children would continue to suffer because the recommendations for change would not be legislated into law. The Liberal government seems unwilling to take action on this issue. We recommend any proposal that would move this into the view of the House and the Canadian public. We need legislation that would give fair and equitable treatment to both parents involved in child custody arrangements while ensuring the best interests of the children.

We acknowledge there are problems in the current system. After a bitter divorce some parents deny visitation access to the other parent and use their children to get even with their former spouses. That is happening across the country as we speak.

We have seen recent abductions of children by non-custodial parents who have become desperate after repeatedly being denied visitation rights. None of us can defend that kind of action, but it provides evidence of the negative effect that this has on our children. Shared custody should help avert the often extreme animosity that exists between divorced parents fighting for access to their children. This would provide a much healthier environment with less conflict for children to grow up.

Along with my PC colleagues I hope the government would put children first and take the necessary action to fix the problems, and to implement the recommendations of this report. We support the motion.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing the motion forward. It is high time that we discussed this matter.

Let me quickly read from the Canadian Alliance policy which states:

We will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated to not be in the best interests of the children.

Because I usually run out of time, I will give the bottom line first. The bottom line for me is that every child has a right to be loved and parented by both parents. A new approach which legally and truly emphasizes children's needs and parental responsibilities should be adopted through new legislation. The typical present application of the Divorce Act prevents that from happening. We say all the good things but somehow or other it does not come out to be that way.

There is a prevalent spirit of divorce in this country. Unstable families and disposable marriages are national problems which have not been sufficiently recognized by the present government.

I believe that the government is responsible for certain things. Sometimes we go way out on the limb on things we try to bear responsibility for and we forget to deal with the trunk or the root of the problems.

We are responsible for infrastructure and the family is social infrastructure. We need to protect our families. We need to do whatever it takes to make that family unit. However that family unit is made up and described, we need to be family friendly. We need to protect that basic foundation of our society.

The legal practice sets the climate. Many arguments have been made that if a couple were to enter a shared parenting agreement it would only heighten the fighting between the two parents involved. If it was the expectation and the norm that these two parents had to deal more equitably with their children, they would go into that relationship expecting that to happen.

It is set up so that if one person complains louder or makes more allegations than the other, then perhaps that person will walk away with the spoils. We set ourselves up for the bitter battle. If we were determined to treat each parent fairly for the sake of the child, we would defuse the situation simply by setting that kind of legal climate. Therefore some of the arguments just do not hold water if we put them into practice.

Over three years have past since the joint committee brought forward its report and no action has been taken, except for another $1.5 million in consultations trying to find reasons to violate that report. That is a shame.

In too many cases the legal system poorly serves the interests of the children by failing to adequately address parental responsibilities. Everyone is out for their own rights. They selfishly seek their own rights. That is a problem with human nature.

We have to turn this thing in two directions for the honest sake of the children and for the honest right of each parent involved. A new approach that legally and actually emphasizes children's needs over short term parental wants should be taken by placing an emphasis on parental responsibilities with perhaps less emphasis on parental rights.

The best interests of the children should be the primary concern of the courts in the event of marital breakdown. Parental rights should be encouraged. However, the rights of any parent should be subject to the best interests of the children.

I would like to read the first paragraph from a report entitled “Strategy for Reform”, which I believe was authored by the former minister of justice. It is wonderful and we should put it into practice. It states:

Canadians agree that when families break down the needs and best interests of children must be the highest priority. Even after divorce or separation, parents do not cease to be parents, and continue to have responsibilities to their children.

What a shocking new idea. The report continues to state:

The role of the justice system is to ensure that children are given priority during this traumatic period in their lives. Concerns have been raised, however, that the current system is not doing a good enough job and that it must be improved

The date on the report is 1999. The report came out in the last century and still nothing has been accomplished.

The right to be a parent is a right we need to protect on both sides of a divorce settlement. The right to be a parent has been violated many times in our country. The stories the hon. member from the Fraser Valley mentioned of suicides are replicated many times over in our land. Men and even women are sometimes driven beyond their means to be that non-custodial, cheque writing parent. Something needs to be done about that.

Something needs to be done that will not allow a judge to assess a payment to a non-custodial parent, to use an old term that I hope we get away from, of more than half of what the parent makes to go toward child support. This is not right. We are not protecting the family. Each parent is still a part of that family no matter whether they go through a divorce or not.

I believe that if we had written into law what is happening with these judgments in the divorce cases, it would be challenged under the charter of rights, and yet it is still happening.

It is a shame and a self-condemnation on the government for not moving forward with its report. It should have been done if for no other reason, and there are many more, than for the sake of the hurting children.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.)