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.