Debates of May 7th, 2002

Lisa's Law

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

moved that Bill C-400, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most meaningful opportunities I have had in the nine years I have been in the House. I am bringing forward a bill concerning two little girls aged five and six, a bill with which I have become emotionally involved.

I believe in putting children first. My experience as a father of six and grandfather of twelve have given me a real feeling for children and what it is all about. I have talked many people about Bill C-400 during the last year. Things like the Sharpe case come to mind. People wonder how a guy with over 500 pictures of nude boys does not get a jail sentence. It is upsetting to people.

In our community a fellow was convicted nine times of being a pedophile and attacking young children. I asked in the House what I should tell the parents of the 10th victim. I was told offenders must be given a chance. A year later he picked up two little girls, a five and a six year old, and was in the process of assaulting them. They were his 10th and 11th offences.

When I get to this case I can hardly describe to members the emotions I feel. I will give the House some quick background. In Saskatchewan a doctor named Schneeberger married a lady named Lisa. She already had two children by a previous marriage, a boy and a girl, and together they had two little girls.

In 1992 one of Schneeberger's patients suspected something was happening on the examination table. The police were called in, blood samples were taken but there was no DNA connection. Lisa then discovered that her 13 year old daughter had been raped a number of times. A drug had been used on her and there had been repeated rapes over the course of about five years.

After taking numerous blood samples from what turned out to be a tube in the gentleman's arm, the police finally took a hair sample. The DNA matched. During that period the divorce occurred. Schneeberger had not seen the two young girls since they were less than two years old.

He was convicted in November, 1999. He was given a six year sentence for the assault and rape of a patient and of his 13 year old daughter. He was then sent to jail. The woman and her two little girls moved to Red Deer which is my constituency. Schneeberger managed to be transferred to Bowden which is some 30 kilometers away from my community but still in my constituency.

In the process Schneeberger made an application to a Saskatchewan court that the two little girls should pay forced visits to him on the last Sunday of every month and phone him every Monday and be on the phone for an hour. Of course the little girls cried each time this happened. They could not believe they would have to go into a jail setting.

This was appealed in a Red Deer court but the judge said it had to go back to Saskatchewan. A single mother on limited income trying to start a new life was told she had to go back to Saskatchewan to fight the case. She did not have the money. We managed to raise some money but not enough.

On May 27, 2001, a day I will never forget, we finally heard the news. The night before the visit was to take place we were told Lisa's five and six year old daughters would have to go into the prison to visit the man they had not seen for so many years, the man who had raped their sister in their home.

I was in a parking lot. I was to speak at a Kinsmen meeting some 15 kilometres away from the prison in Innisfail. I got the message when I stopped the car. I immediately called the local radio station to tell them the bad news. I told the Kinsmen club about it in my speech. The truckers broadcast it on truck radios across the province. They said if people were in the vicinity of Bowden on Highway 2, a busy highway, they should stop the next day to let people know they cared about the mother and her two kids.

Sunday morning came. It was a cool day. We went to a local hotel. A news conference had quickly been put together and was packed with media people. Lisa was there. Her daughter who had been raped was there. She is probably one of the bravest young girls I have met. She is now 19 years old and is carrying on with her life. She is a totally open and brave young person. At the news conference the usual questions were asked. Nevertheless they had to go to Bowden. The fine would have been $5,000 if they had not gone to Bowden prison that day.

When I arrived at the news conference I was surprised by the hundreds of people who were there. Big rigs had stopped and the police were there. I have so many memories of that day. I am sure it is the same for Lisa. One memory is that the people there wanted to block entry. They wanted to protect the mother and the two young girls. They said it was wrong that this had to happen in Canada. An RCMP officer told me he would love to be part of the protest because he had young children. The tears coming down his face had an impact on all of us but he was there to do his job. He had to provide entrance to the prison.

Lisa and the girls arrived. I cannot imagine what the drive must have been like for them. If it was traumatic for the adults in the crowd let us imagine what it must have been like for them. Lisa, the two girls and a psychologist arrived at Bowden some 35 kilometres away. The outpouring of support gave the adults strength. The common emotion everyone had is something I had never experienced before.

The crowd parted. The psychologist, the two little girls, Lisa and myself proceeded into the prison. We then entered the security area. The deputy warden met us. The guards made a point of saying they were not the ones making this happen. They did not think it should happen. They wanted us to understand that. Prior to that I had asked the attorney general if we could take them to a hotel somewhere under guard so the visit could occur there. I was told the man was too dangerous to take out of the prison.

We went through security. We were told this was to make sure we did not have weapons. There was tension as we passed through the gate. I have visited the prison before. Hon. members will recall that about 80% to 90% of the inmates are sex offenders. I will never forget the tension that was building in us. We entered the doorway. The door slammed and there we were in the waiting room.

Schneeberger felt he had a victory. He had used the court system and the Divorce Act against the lady who had testified against him. He hated her. Divorces are war. The two little girls, a five and a six year old, were the pawns that Sunday afternoon. As they entered the room and saw the man who had raped their sister they started to cry. They started to sob and then they grabbed their mother.

At that point I said this could never happen again. It cannot happen in a country like Canada. Fortunately we had a psychologist with us. The psychologist said it had to end because it was too traumatic for the children. She immediately ended the visit, took the children back to the vehicle and out of the prison.

The two young girls are still receiving psychiatric treatment. They still wake up screaming in the night. They were forced to go into the prison to go through that. As I say, I did not need any more motivation for creating Lisa's law, Bill C-400.

After that Mr. Schneeberger said he would not make them come back. However the law is still on the books. Every time the phone rings in Lisa's house she does not know whether it will be him on the other end of the line saying next Sunday she must go back to the prison. Next time there would be a lot more support for Lisa across the country. That is gratifying. It has given me hope for us all because thousands of people have phoned, written and communicated with Lisa. They have called their members of parliament and talk shows to say what they think should happen.

Every member of parliament should have received a card with a picture of Lisa on it. I had originally written the notes for the back, with Lisa's permission of course. However she wrote me a letter to give to all members of parliament, and when I read the letter I simply threw away my notes and put Lisa's letter on the back of the card. The letter on the back of the card is a true message. I did not edit it. I did not even talk to her about writing it. It is a true message from the bottom of her heart.

What do I want to accomplish with Lisa's law? It is not about access to children in prison. Everyone must understand that. All the lawyers I talked to advised me to make it specific. It is about sex offenders and pedophiles who force their children to visit them in prison probably to get at the other partner. It is not about wanting to see the kids. It is about the force involved.

Maybe the bill is not perfect. I have talked to a couple of my colleagues on the other side about how it could be made better. I trust the justice committee to make it better and fix it. I am not married to the wording. I am not a lawyer. However I want the bill to work and I want the problem to stop.

I think all members would agree that it is not a partisan issue. It is about not forcing kids to go into prisons against their will to visit pedophiles. It is not about kids visiting prisoners. That is a whole different issue. The bill does not cover that. Bill C-400 is about kids who are forced to visit sex offenders.

I will put something on the record so everyone understands. If after consulting with experts there is a mutual consent between the parents that having the kids visit would be good for the children and the prisoner, that is fine. That is not what I am after. I am after what I saw on May 27, 2001.

I believe that to be a slight defect in the Divorce Act. It can be fixed by this minor amendment to the Divorce Act. Lawyers tell me that it can be done very quickly. We must do it quickly so it will never happen again.

Some would say that we should not force judges or make decisions for them. In a case like this, it seems to me that all of us in this House were elected to make the laws. Yes, the judge needs guidance and needs to look at the child's best interest but the judge in this case said that because it was not written in the law he really did not have a choice and could not prevent access to those children. That was his interpretation.

What I am saying is that we need to clear that up for judges. The bottom line is that we need to make sure judges know what parliament thinks about pedophiles, about children and about putting children first. I look forward to suggestions from other members.

Lisa and her two young daughters are the people who should receive credit for this bill. They are the ones who went through this. They need to find confidence in this parliament, which I think will help us all. No matter what party we are from, I do not think this should ever have a party name on it. This is Lisa's law. It is dedicated to a single mom out there who is trying to make a life for herself.

Lisa is afraid of the publicity but she has committed to doing this. I think that is very important. She just happens to be a constituent of mine. I would not want any other MP to ever have to experience what I did on that Sunday in May. It was something that no one should ever have to go through.

Therefore I put forward today Bill C-400. It is the most emotional thing I have ever presented to the House. I feel more strongly about this than anything I have ever done. If we can make it better we should make it better. If someone votes against it, I and I do not think Lisa will be able to believe it. As I say, most of the people I have talked to right across the country would agree with that.

I thank all members who will be speaking on this and I trust that they will vote for it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to hear such an inspired speech by the hon. member for Red Deer.

Occasionally I understand the House does in fact have a special way about it and does capture all the members within the House and I think maybe we have the essence of that happening today.

Bill C-400 deals with an important issue. I certainly welcome the opportunity to confirm to the hon. members of the House the government's commitment to safeguard our children and to examine all measures that can better do this.

The government is strongly committed to protecting children from all forms of victimization and recognizes the need to continuously make efforts to strengthen protection in all appropriate ways.

The intent of Bill C-400 is admirable. It is clearly wrong to force a child to visit in jail the person who is serving a term of imprisonment for victimizing him or her even if, or perhaps especially if, that person is a parent of that child. Nor should a child be forced against his or her wishes to visit a sex offender parent in jail.

It is also important that all attempts be made to prevent another situation like the one Lisa Dillman faced. Her ex-husband was a doctor serving a six year sentence in a federal penal institution after being convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting an adult female patient and a 13 year old girl, as the House has heard.

As the custodial parent, Ms. Dillman was ordered by a judge in Saskatchewan to facilitate access visits between her children and their father after he chose, despite his incarceration, to legally enforce the access provisions contained in the court order.

As members have heard, it was a terribly distressing situation for Ms. Dillman and for the children, and it should be prevented from happening again.

That is why I believe it is important to examine Bill C-400. Its objective is to prevent this type of situation and to protect children from inappropriate access visits. The government is open to looking at all proposals that have this objective.

As I understand it, Bill C-400, as presented to the House, proposes to amend section 16 of the Divorce Act. It would add a new subsection 9.1 that would deem that any custody and access order made under the Divorce Act would contain a provision that would suspend a non-custodial parent's child access rights while he or she was serving a term of imprisonment for certain criminal code offences, unless, and a very important unless, the custodial parent consented to that access.

The bill specifically refers to an offence under any provision of the criminal code of which the child was the victim. In addition, 10 additional specific criminal code offences are identified, whether or not the child was a victim. These are the offences of sexual interference, sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography, parent procuring sexual activity, corrupting children, sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

Those are all serious sex offences. As I noted earlier, the government is strongly committed to examining ways to protect children from all forms of victimization.

However, I have to wonder why these specific offences were chosen. I also have to ask if this is in fact the most appropriate list. Do not get me wrong, I completely support the objective ensuring that no access order under the Divorce Act would be used to require children to inappropriately visit a parent in jail.

However, if the intent of the bill is to protect children from the trauma of visiting an offender in jail, why not expand it? Why not bring in other offences? In certain cases maybe the offence of murder would be an appropriate situation where one would not want the convicted parent to have access to the child.

This matter needs to be looked at fully by the committee.

It is also important to remember that the practical effect of the bill would be to impose an automatic suspension of access rights in those cases unless the custodial parent gave consent. These access rights would be suspended while the access parent serves the term of imprisonment. The suspension would be achieved through a deeming provision.

How would the deeming provision legally work in practical terms? Would the access rights automatically resume after the period of incarceration? Would a suspension apply retroactively to an already existing access order? Would access remain suspended if the offender parent gets out on parole but arguably is still technically serving his or her sentence?

I would also note that the way the bill is worded, the provision does not provide for any flexibility or discretion and does not refer to any consideration of whether the automatic suspension of access would be, in the classic case, in the best interests of the child. Will this amendment legally stand up under the charter of rights and freedoms? I do not know the answer. Could there be an alternative way to create legally a presumption against enforcing an access order in those cases where it would be inappropriate? Would the onus be squarely on the offender to show why access would be in the best interests of the child?

My point is that I strongly support the intent and objective of Bill C-400 and it is for this very reason that I believe it is important that it be examined carefully if and when it goes to the standing committee for review.

As I started speaking today, I thought of today as being a very special day. It is a day to sit back and reflect on the reflections of the member for Red Deer on this situation. I personally believe it is very important that this matter receive the full consideration of the justice and human rights committee and that we look at this in the most positive light for the benefit of all those who find themselves in this situation, as did Ms. Dillman.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-400, introduced by the member for Red Deer.

The purpose of this bill, the law for Lisa, is to protect a child in the custody ofone parent from being required to visit the other parent, while the otherparent is serving a term of imprisonment for any offence under theCriminal Code of a sexual nature.

Obviously, I will be pleased to support the principle of such a bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, because we must always be guided by the interests of the child in our legislation.

However, I will have a few suggestions to make to the sponsoring member at the end of my remarks.

As the Quebec bar association mentioned in its June 2001 brief on custody and visiting rights, and child support, and I quote:

Federal and provincial legislation gives considerable importance to the concept of the child's best interests, which is now well established as the cornerstone of all decisions with regard to the child, no matter who is doing the deciding, from parents to the courts.

In this regard, one such principle is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified in 1989. However, it should be noted that the criminal code does not define the best interests of the child. The civil code, however, sets out what must be taken into consideration, and I quote:

—in addition to the moral, intellectual, emotional and material needs of the child, to the child's age, health, personality and family environment, and to the other aspects of his situation.

Accordingly, the countries signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children may adapt their legislation to their own moral and social values.

How then are we as parliamentarians here in the House of Commons to apply the principles in such a convention?

It seems clear to me that Bill C-400 is a step in the right direction, because the best interests of the child must be taken into consideration. When a parent, either the father or the mother, is found guilty of a sexual offence under the criminal code, the child should be protected from being required to visit the person while that person is in prison. This is in the best interests of the child. A child who is the victim of a sexual offence will be marked forever by this horrible and repugnant act.

So, according to Bill C-400, it would be in the best interests of the child not to be forced to have contact with a parent who happens to be his or her assailant. This only makes sense.

Can members imagine, besides not providing sexually abused children with the proper treatment, forcing them to visit the parent or the mother who has assaulted them? It would be total nonsense.

As the member for Red Dear pointed out when he introduced his bill, the motivation for his initiative was the high-profile case of two young girls of five and six who were forced, because of a court order, to visit their father in prison. The two young girls have been exposed to psychological damage. It is unacceptable.

The purpose of the bill introduced by the member for Red Deer is to prevent other young children from going through that. We must act to protect our children.

The government must put words into action and do whatever it takes to implement the fundamental principles set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have had enough of empty promises that never materialize.

As I said at the beginning, although the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle behind this bill, we still have suggestions to make to the sponsor of the bill.

In its present form, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer provides that it is the spouse of the person who is serving a term of imprisonment who should decide whether his or her child should visit his father or mother in prison.

The Bloc Quebecois believes, and we will debate this issue in committee if the House gives its support to this bill, that the child should have some say and freedom. Parental authority applies until a child reaches the age of 18. However, if a young person of 16 or 17 decides to visit his father in prison, and if his mother objects to the idea, what should we do? What should take precedence? Worse still, what should we do if the child simply does not want to visit his father in prison, but his mother forces him to do so?

We cannot let parents decide alone. The child must be able to decide for himself what is in his best interests. This is an issue that should be examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and the hon. member's bill is an excellent way to launch this debate and find solutions that will promote the best interests of the child.

Through today's debate, we are asking the federal government, and particularly the Minister of Justice, to see how the federal legislation could be amended to reflect the guidelines of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In conclusion, I want to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for raising this extremely important issue. He can be assured that the Bloc Quebecois will support the principle of his bill at second reading.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a couple of very brief remarks. I have been listening with interest to the debate on Bill C-400 and it is a very moving tale. It is important that this issue is looked at much more closely by members of parliament. The New Democrats and I would support having this sent to committee for further study.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Red Deer for all his hard work and dedication. The time, energy and care that has gone into Bill C-400, Lisa's law, is extraordinary.

This bill is not being proposed to gain political points. The bill before us today is due in part to the emotional upheaval witnessed by the hon. member. The member of parliament for Red Deer saw firsthand the terror and shock that was inflicted upon Lisa and her family. The court decision to force her children to visit their father in prison must have been devastating.

As a mother and a grandmother myself, I cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering caused by that court decision. A mother's strongest instinct is to protect her children. To be ordered to put one's children in harm's way, to subject them to an environment that is not in their best interests would be horrific.

Children should be given every opportunity to experience a happy and carefree life. It should be the goal of adults and society at large to see that this is achieved. It is also the responsibility of government, law makers, courts and judges to help our nation's children achieve this goal. I believe that changes need to be made to ensure that others in similar situations do not suffer what Lisa and her children suffered.

Canada's corrections system affords great freedoms and privileges to its inmates. Offenders are offered access to golf courses and horseback riding. Offenders in many cases are living in cottage style housing, the club fed of prisons. In an attempt to be seen as an evolved and civilized nation, we too often afford privileges, privileges that are neither warranted nor deserved.

The rights of offenders and criminals must never be placed before the rights of the innocent. Children are the most innocent of our society and absolutely every effort must be taken to ensure their safety, security and innocence.

Bill C-400 proposes amendments to the Divorce Act that would see individuals who were convicted of sexual offences being limited in their access to their children. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. It is a common sense approach.

Sexual offences are among the vilest imaginable. Those who commit these offences and are incarcerated for them should not be able to use this country's court system to gain access to their children.

In normal cases it is usually beneficial to the children involved to have open access to both parents. The involvement of both parents in the raising of their children is a good thing. The situation we are discussing today is not usual. It is not normal and therefore should not be treated in the same way.

This bill came about due to the court's decision to force Lisa Dillman's children to visit their father in prison. Their father is a convicted sexual offender. Not only did he prey on an adult, but he also assaulted his own stepdaughter who at the time was 13 years old. Forcing two small children to visit their sex offender father in jail can in no way be viewed as beneficial.

Do we as a country really want to send more children down this same path? Actions taken by the court were based on the current Divorce Act statutes. Those statutes are exactly what Bill C-400 seeks to change.

Changes to the Divorce Act would help to protect our children. I have been discouraged by the fact that children and families are being viewed less and less as a priority within society and by this government. The changes outlined by Bill C-400 would be an excellent step in the protection of our children.

In 1990 Canada signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. One of the key considerations of the convention is that the best interests of the child should be of paramount consideration when addressing custody and access. In cases where a parent is convicted of sexual assault and subsequently jailed for that offence, it would not appear to be in the best interests of the child to be forced to visit that parent in prison.

Another provision of the UN convention is that children have the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them. I have concerns that too often in the adult world of the judiciary the children are not consulted. The actions taken by parents in courts have the biggest impact on the children involved. I would suspect that visiting parents in prison would not always be what children wish for. They must be consulted in such matters. An offender jailed for sexual assault should not be afforded the right to circumvent the wishes and ultimately the well-being of a child to gain access to that child. The rights, health and well-being of our children should come first. It is our children that should be of the greatest importance when examining issues such as the one before us today.

In 1997 a special joint committee was established to look at the issues of custody, access and possible changes to the current Divorce Act. The final report, entitled “For the Sake of the Children”, included recommendations from the national family law section of the Canadian Bar Association. Its suggestions for additional criteria in custody and access included: the caregiving role assumed by each person applying for custody during a child's life; any past history of family violence perpetrated by any party applying for custody or access; and the importance and benefit to the child of having an ongoing relationship with his or her parents.

I believe that these are key considerations when evaluating access requests. Is it beneficial to the child? Is an ongoing relationship with that particular parent beneficial? Is there a history of family violence?

For the protection of the innocence and stability of our children, I believe that it is important to support the bill before us today. As a society we cannot afford to put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights and safety of our children. Again I wish to commend my hon. colleague from Red Deer for his hard work and dedication on behalf of our nation's children.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I commend the previous speaker and all members who spoke, in particular the hon. member for Red Deer. I would indicate at the outset that, yes, the Progressive Conservative Party will wholeheartedly support his efforts.

Like the previous speaker, I certainly commend the extraordinary effort he has put in on behalf of his constituent, Lisa Dillman, on behalf of her children and on behalf of all children whom the bill aims to protect. It would result in a very common sense, concrete enactment of change to the Divorce Act to protect children, to protect them from being subjected to the emotional trauma of having to confront a parent in prison knowing that their parent, sadly, had committed an offence that was a danger to them or a danger to another person.

It is clear from the personal circumstances that have been laid out in this case that there is tremendous emotional damage done to a child who has to confront these circumstances, who has to be brought into a prison environment in any circumstance, but to have a judge interpret the letter of the law in such a way as this, that the visitation is to occur in a prison, is totally inappropriate.

This enactment is aimed at amending that law. The legislation would give the child in the custody of one parent the ability to opt out of or suspend a previously enacted court order for visitation, that is to say, it would do away with the requirement of one parent bringing children to see the other parent while that person was serving a period of incarceration for any offence under the criminal code in which there was a child as a victim or for any certain specified sexual offences under the criminal code.

It is trite to say that the impact of a sexual assault on a child is everlasting. It is a life sentence for that child to come to grips with. I think that the personal circumstances outlined in this case clearly referenced the fact that the children are continuing to receive counselling as a result of the trauma and the emotional distress that came to them by virtue of this visit.

The hon. member for Red Deer made a very passionate and very emotional case for the reasoning behind this effort on his part. It is a very good one. It is completely in line with what we should be doing in every instance to try to enhance the health, welfare and emotional and moral needs of children.

This is a very straightforward occasion on which we can do something. I was very touched, as were other members, by the personal words that were penned by Lisa Dillman on the back of the cards sent to members of parliament.

She stated in that letter, which I will quote directly from:

I feel confident that you will do the right thing and protect this country's children from the abuse that the current legal system forces them to be subjected to and victimized by.

That is a direct plea to all of us, one that we must heed. I know that the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick, very much embraces those same ideals and wants to do everything within her power and everything within our power to help protect children from this type of victimization, mental or physical.

This law, Lisa's law, very appropriately named, comes about as a result of what happened to her children, but they have turned a horrific circumstance into a positive action that would help benefit others, that would help protect others from being subjected to the same thing.

I had a law professor named Victor Goldberg who used to say that bad facts made bad law, yet I would suggest that this is an instance where bad facts could make good law. This horrible circumstance that occurred to Lisa Dillman, her children and her family could lead us to make a change in the Divorce Act that would protect others from a similar circumstance in the future.

Previous members of parliament have referenced the 1997 report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which some members of this House took part in, including, I believe, the current Speaker. It examined a number of very complicated issues relating to access and custody arrangements after separation and divorce, with special emphasis on children's needs. Over a 12 month period, that committee held no less than 55 meetings and heard from over 500 witnesses. It received hundreds of letters, submissions and briefs from concerned individuals and professionals across the country who wanted to provide input to this study. In December 1998 the report came back. It took the government an astounding five months to even respond.

At that time, the Minister of Justice, the current Minister of Health, stated:

--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.

There is no denying that, but where there is denial is that forcing a child to confront, in a prison environment, a parent who has been convicted of a sexually violent offence certainly runs completely opposite to the intention of what the minister described. It is counterproductive to the nth degree to suggest that a court ordering mothers, or fathers, which I suggest could happen, to subject their children to that sort of encounter is the antithesis of what we want to do and what we hope to achieve in nurturing good relations between both parents.

Madam Speaker, you would know that it has now been four years since this report was tabled. Because of that void, because of that failure on the part of the government to respond to this report, I would suggest that hon. members like the member for Red Deer have taken it upon themselves, and it is incumbent upon members of parliament to do so, to act in situations like this. He has done that. It is a reminder and a wake-up call for the government to get on with it and respond to this report. The Minister of Justice should know that. He has been tasked with this issue.

The committee at that time heard about the negative impact that divorce can have on children at a very basic level. I would suggest that it is even further exaggerated when parents in this circumstance are told by the court that they must bring their children to see the other parent. Very few witnesses supported the assertion that decisions made on the basis of a parent's right to personal happiness were automatically in the children's best interests. It was described clearly that this individual was being very vindictive and hurtful to the other parent by forcing the children to go through this ordeal. Clearly it was the complete opposite of the interests of the child.

The Divorce Act gives legal status to an individual's decision to terminate his or her marriage, thus recognizing for legal purposes that individuals have the right to end a marriage. Yet children can sometimes, as is the case here, I would suggest, get lost in that fight and in that adversarial atmosphere that very often exists. The rights of the children, balancing those rights, are an extremely important ingredient in that effort to find a proper balance between parents' rights and children's rights. To that I would add grandparents' rights in many cases. Some of the other suggestions that came from the report recommended that children themselves have the opportunity to be heard before parenting decisions that will impact on them are made.

I want to conclude in order to give the hon. member for Red Deer an opportunity to say a few words. I would again suggest that we wholeheartedly support the motion. The member for Saint John and the Progressive Conservative Party wish to congratulate him on his effort. We hope that the government will expand this effort, look at some of the recommendations of the report and, more important, today support the initiative of the member for Red Deer. Let us get the bill before the justice committee, where we can have an opportunity to make the necessary changes, to enact this change in the Divorce Act and protect Lisa, her children and others across Canada who might be subjected to this type of intrusion into their lives in the future.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Red Deer for putting forward this initiative. I think he knows that all of us are very supportive of children's issues and would hope that the bill would go to the justice and human rights committee for further study. As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for justice, outlined, the bill is fairly specific in terms of which offences people must have committed before this act would take place. Maybe the list is not complete or maybe there are some other considerations.

I must say that I am particularly pleased to see that there is a provision in the discussion for consent of the custodial spouse or former spouse. I can imagine over the course of someone's time in jail that there would be changes to the children, not for the children who are direct victims but for children whose parents have committed an offence.

The essence of the bill is worthy. Even before the committee gets it through the process for consideration I would hope there is a possibility to work with the Correctional Service of Canada and with the Canadian judiciary to educate them so we are not forced to pass these kinds of laws. I hope they will use common sense in making decisions about custody and access to ensure that children's rights are being protected. It is children who have the right to grow up and have freedom and protection.

The bill which the member for Red Deer has brought forward is consistent with the government's commitment to protecting children. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who worked for many years on those issues and I as vice-chair of the justice committee passed a lot of laws related to the protection of children in our first mandate, whether it was pornography, predators or sex tourism. We worked hard to make a lot of changes. Additional ideas are coming forward and that is important.

The other thing I would stress is the context for this discussion. Jail is supposed to be a place to rehabilitate people. It is supposed to be a place where people can come out as better individuals. Families play an important role in that process, both while the person is there and into the future. I would hope there would be some facility to ensure that for those children who do want contact, their wishes would be considered and that we would have common sense.

The member opposite wanted to move that the bill be brought forward to committee. I am not exactly sure on the timing but I would sit down with the member in support of the committee doing a thorough job in analyzing what other laws should be included in the legislation.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to protect the child in the custody of one parent from being required to visit the other parent while the other parent is serving a term of imprisonment for any offence under the criminal code of which the child was a victim, or for any specified sexual offences under the criminal code, whoever was the victim.

Court access orders would be deemed to contain a provision that any right of access by the non-custodial spouse or former spouse would be suspended while serving a term of imprisonment for such an offence, unless the custodial spouse or former spouse consents. That is exactly what we are talking about.

The member for Red Deer in his pleadings in some respects is almost embarrassing because he understands the culture of what he is up against and what he has already heard in trying to move the bill this far. It is encouraging to hear members from the government's side and others say that they support the bill, but no one has said that they expect the bill to ever become law. It is always again to study, to perhaps refine, and just get it to committee. How many times in the House have we heard “Let us get it to committee and see what happens”?

The bill is subject to the part of the larger question of the joint Senate and Commons report “For the Sake of the Children” which the government has promised in various throne speeches that it would enact. Here we have a circumstance that is not by accident, so I question the government and the Department of Justice. Are they making a mistake? I do not think so. It must be special interests or whatever that seems to do an end run around the open, democratic process where in the House we say certain things and have good intent but then they just does not quite happen.

I am encouraged that the bill seems to be gaining support from all sides of the House. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-400 pass at second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the House will now go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. I now leave the chair to allow the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence in the main estimates, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Supply

[The Chairman]

House in committee of the whole on all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

I would like to open this committee of the whole session by making a short statement. We are about to begin the first debate on the estimates in committee of the whole as provided under Standing Order 81(4)(a). The standing order provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to five hours.

Tonight's debate will be on all of the votes under National Defence, less the amounts voted in interim supply.

No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use his or her time to speak or to ask questions and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member.

Members may speak more than once. Finally, members need not be in their own seat to be recognized.

As your Chair, I will be guided by the rules of committee of the whole. However I am prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the application of these rules. The first round will be the usual round for all parties: the Canadian Alliance, the government, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

I also wish to remind members that members wishing to split their time will require unanimous consent. At the conclusion of tonight's debate we will rise, the estimates will be deemed reported to the House, and the House will adjourn until tomorrow.

To begin this session of committee of the whole I will recognize and give the floor to the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chairman, this is a real thrill tonight to lead off these five hours of questions to the Minister of National Defence. I thank him for being here with his parliamentary secretary, with his officials and with General Jeffery. I welcome all of them.

What I want to do tonight with my time is to ask short questions and hopefully get short responses so I can make the best use possible of my 20 minutes. In the spirit of providing better accountability to Canadian taxpayers I hope the minister and his officials will respect that format.

The minister on page 2 of the estimates stated that spending increases starting in fiscal 2001-02 to 2006-07 total more than $5 billion. This statement has been made repeatedly over the past few months. I would like to know what the defence budget is in this fiscal year?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chairman, we applied for $11.8 billion. At one time the estimates were much lower than that, but there has been about a 20% increase in the last few years in the budgets and that has brought it up to $11.8 billion. However with add ons that will take it over $12 billion.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I asked that question because in part III of the estimates it says that the budget is $12.4 billion. In parts I and II it says $11.8 billion, so there is a slight discrepancy. I would like to ask the minister what the total defence budget was in 1993-94 when his government took office?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it was $12 billion in 1993.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chairman, page 8 of part III of the 1993-94 estimates says $12.8 billion, which is higher than the budget today even in nominal terms without adjusting for inflation or the purchasing power for military equipment which has gone up faster than inflation.

Whatever figure is used from the 2002-03 estimates compared to the 1993-94 estimates still indicates that we are actually spending less today than we were back when the government took office. When an adjustment for inflation is made and we look at the cost increases of military supplies and equipment specifically, that makes the comparison that much more unfavourable when we look at today's budget. That decrease in spending is quite dramatic when we take those factors into account.

The minister keeps saying that we are spending $5 billion more on the military today and this is a cumulative figure. I would like to ask how much is actually being added to the budget base over this period of the next five years?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, $5 billion over the next five years is being added to the departmental budget.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

The question was how much was being added to the budget base and the answer was $700 million. Is that the amount added to the base? Could the minister comment on that because he seems to disagree?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

To the base over the next five years, Mr. Chairman.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chairman, we had better get this established right away because when we talk about what is being added to the budget base, what that reflects is the change in the budget on a yearly basis from one year to another. I do not know of any budget forecast that adds $5 billion to the base from one year to another or in fact over the next five years.

Is the minister saying that the budget base will be increased from $12.4 billion, or whatever today, to $17.4 billion five years from now?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

That amount of money is being added over a five year period of time.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

My question was what was added to the budget base, and that is one year to the next. I was asking a very specific question. The answer was $700 million, therefore the $5 billion that the minister refers to is not accurate no matter what way we look at it. To quote the Conference of Defence Associations for example, it said that between fiscal year 2001 and 2006-07, that is 2000-01 to 2006-07, the budget base would rise only by $700 million, and I concur with that figure. I believe that is accurate.

Is the minister refuting the figures of the Conference of Defence Associations?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the Conference of Defence Associations did not prepare the budget. There are many different ways of calculating the figures. I am sure that if the member had told me in advance exactly what information he was looking for then we could have provided it, but carry on and we will answer the questions.