House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other Acts, be concurred in.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-6.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think if you ask you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with the Liberal members voting yes.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

February 4th, 2003 / 3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote no to the motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote no to the motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Guy Carignan Liberal Québec East, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I vote no.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Independent

Pierre Brien Independent Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Rick Laliberte Liberal Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against the motion.

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against the motion as well.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Specific Claims Resolution ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Judges Act and to amend other Acts in consequence , be now read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, before the interruption, I was saying that this bill, which seeks to amend the Divorce Act, will have to be reviewed and reworked. Groups representing Canadian and Quebec women are asking that hearings be held, so that all groups representing both men and women can express their views.

I was saying that Canada does not have a family policy, and it does not have a policy to promote equality for women and the well-being of their children within the family.

During the World March of Women, which took place in the year 2000, women made recommendations to eliminate poverty and violence, and they also made, among others, a recommendation to amend the Divorce Act, to take into account the fact that some women are victims of violence.

I also said that the bill now before us turns responsibility for the family into a private responsibility, and I said that we were opposed to this, because it is society which should assume its responsibilities toward the family.

There are many poor children and the reason for this is that there are poor parents, including poor women.

We do not think that the child-centred family justice strategy reduces—as the legislation attempts to do—the possible negative impact of separation or divorce on children. Take, as an example, the current guidelines on child support, which show that, in the case of joint custody, this support is far from being maintained and is in fact drastically reduced, if not totally eliminated.

The reality is that today many women find themselves looking after their children on their own, even though there may be a joint custody agreement. Moreover, these women are deprived of child support.

This is the problem that exacerbates the already heavy burden of poverty on single mothers and creates some of the worst social and economic hardship in Canada. This is why a rather significant number of mothers become all the more vulnerable to harassment, threats and violence.

I was saying that women are very concerned about the proposals to include a model based on the idea of shared parenting. Indeed, while there is no formal presumption to the effect that judges will rule in favour of joint custody, we think that it is very likely that, in reality, they will tend to do so.

Moreover, in June 2001, a brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee recommended against adopting the policy of creating a legal presumption in favour of joint custody or shared parenting. Imposition of such a formula on reluctant parents would most definitely have disastrous results.

In fact, studies have proven that the real problem faced by many women and children after divorce is the father's refusal to meet his parental responsibilities, or lack of interest in doing so.

Moreover, we are already seeing the results of joint custody arrangements that have been cobbled together in mediation or imposed by a court.

In most cases, the father gradually loses interest in the children and it is of course the mother who ends up having to do all the child care.

Family law reform must also take into consideration the ongoing inequality of women within the family and within society. In 2001-02, Status of Women Canada allocated—as it has for the past three years—in excess of $10 million for an action plan for gender equality.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill to indicate that the legislator has taken any gender specific analysis into consideration, which I shall elaborate on.

The bill insists on formal equality between women and men and does not in any way do anything to ensure material equality for women. Nor does it assure divorcing or separating women of legal aid, representation services or social and economic programs and services.

We know that when a couple separates, divorces or ends a common law relationship, women are not likely to be able to negotiate custody and access rights on an equal footing. The non-availability of legal aid, the fact that legal professionals are still not adequately informed about the complex dynamics of violence in the family, and the lack of accountability in the legal systems, which continue to let off those guilty of assaulting women and children, are some of the factors that continue to impede access to justice for women.

This is why we condemn the third pillar of the strategy, which is to ensure that the way to proceed in justice is primarily based on cooperation, and that recourse to the courts is restricted to the most difficult cases. In our opinion, widely promoted alternate dispute settlement mechanisms such as mediation, counselling, adjudication and parenting courses can become dangerous avenues for women and children who are victims of violence.

To view the courts as mechanisms of last resort is a serious mistake in the case of families in which violence prevails, and for which the courts should be the first and the only option.

There is another issue that deserves particular attention, and that is the confusion and uncertainty that the bill could generate. Take, for example, the issues of access rights and child support. The terminology is changed, but the reality remains the same. The bill introduces some amendments, but it does not include any policy or guidelines that would allow us to envisage what will really happen. Who will make the decisions for the child? Who will make the decisions regarding the child's needs? What decisions will the parents be able to make? Will these decisions be proportionate to the amount of time spent by each parent with the child?

In the case of a trip, how will a parent that is with the child 20% of the time, which means that he does not have joint custody, be able to take his child on a trip? Who will decide that he can take his child on a trip? This is not clear in the bill. Basically, everything has to be redefined, and debated all over again. We agree that joint custody is a very popular concept these days.

I could go on and on. We, women and women's groups, think that one would have to be really irresponsible to introduce such a bill, especially since the approach the federal government is proposing is in part that of the 1998 report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. My colleagues have been referring to it since this morning in this House. The purpose of this special joint committee was to examine and analyze issues relating to child custody and access after separation and divorce. The committee's mandate was to look at what is called a child-centred approach.

I was listening to the opposition members this morning—I should point out they were men—who were against the Bloc Quebecois position. We must not lose sight of something that people must know very well—it is certainly clear to me—and that is that the special joint committee was established and given its mandate because fathers' rights advocates have been pushing for changes to the Divorce Act on the basis of a number of myths and false assumptions.

I would like to present some of these myths and, perhaps, the reality.

The first myth is that including presumptions in favour of joint custody or enhanced access in the Divorce Act will result in good and responsible parenting.

That is what we are told but in reality, good parenting cannot be achieved through legislation alone. What needs to be changed are the broader economic, social and cultural foundations of parenting.

The major impediments to men sharing in parenting responsibilities for children are not legal, but rather are based on assumptions about the roles of fathers and mothers. Changing these constraints on equal participation of men in child rearing is a very difficult task, as many social science studies have shown.

The act cannot achieve this objective. We feel it is inappropriate to try and use it for that purpose, especially at the time of a divorce or separation. We must help the children's primary caregivers so that they can ensure continuous care and security to the best of their ability, while recognizing the difficulties they—90% of those who provide care to children are mothers—may be faced with, including financial difficulties, lack of access to legal advice and their ex-husband' s violent behaviour.

The second myth is that men want to become more involved in raising their children after a separation or divorce.

That may be, but what is the reality? Most men who sue for custody or access are not interested in getting more involved in the day to day care of the children. They want a greater say in all decisions concerning the lives of their children and ex-wife.

A study conducted in Canada on fathers advocacy groups, among others, showed that members of such groups expected the mothers to be primarily responsible for the children, while fathers viewed their role only as one of support.

Not one of these father respondents mentioned wanting to take charge of the day to day care of children. So, the primary caregiver should also be the primary decision maker.

The third myth is that alternative dispute resolution procedures, and mediation in particular, are an alternative to lengthy legal battles over custody and access.

Mediation supposes that the parties are on an equal footing. It cannot work where power is not equal to begin with. If women refuse mediation, they are considered the parent the least open to work out an agreement.

There is a long list of such myths, but I shall conclude.

I will ask the members of the committee currently reviewing this bill, first, to be very careful not to fall for what is very “in”. Caution must be exercised, because what is “in” one day is “out” the next day or a year later.

Human behaviour must also be considered. To update or modernize legislation is not always the best thing that can happen. Let us not forget that great promises may be made about changing behaviours, but there is no guarantee such changes will take place.

Finally, as a last request, I would to see the gender-based analysis, which Status of Women Canada is normally supposed to do in this case. I wonder if they did one, because it costs $10 million.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague's position on this issue, I have some concern about the way in which she has phrased some of her words and comments.

It is quite clear that the tragedy of divorce is the fact that two people cannot get along together, and that has gone on obviously for a period of time, which has led to irreconcilable differences and a split in the marriage.

However for her to make comments, which, from my point of view, tend to continue this kind of unhealthy tension, that men are not prepared to be part of the care of their children once a divorce has taken place and that somehow this is a myth, goes against the reality of the changing world in which we live.

A great deal of change is going on in the kinds of roles that men and women play in our society. Both men and women are often the breadwinners in the family. Fathers are showing much more interest in the care of their children. The very fact that the joint custody and access committee brought these recommendations to the floor of the House shows that there is a genuine concern to change things.

Does my hon. colleague not see that perhaps there is a place now for us to look at shared custody and access that would truly bring both men and women into a shared role even beyond divorce?

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are two parts to the question posed by my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

First, I think that, yes, more and more young men are interested in sharing in family responsibilities and their children rearing. I think that, slowly, attitudes are changing with regard to the sharing of family responsibilities.

However, in reality, according to Statistics Canada or all the data available for the provinces, and it seems true, about 7% of fathers, after the shock of a divorce or a separation—and it is as much a shock for women as for men—continue to be interested in responsibilities related to caring for their children. Caring for children means changing diapers, washing them, helping them with their homework and lessons, talking to them, and so on.

After a certain phase in their life and, I would even say, and this is a shame, once fathers have someone new in their lives, a new partner, they are no longer interested. Ninety percent of mothers shoulder alone the responsibility for their children.

The law leads to joint custody, but the father does not come around, he is no longer there, he is no longer interested. If he is interested, it is because, essentially, he feels perhaps guilty for not continuing the relationship. Perhaps he is interested because he feels that a relationship is important, but he spends less time with his child. That is when women's groups say “We could sit down together again and see if there were not some way of having a law reflecting reality that would benefit everyone”.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am somewhat shocked by what I just heard. The statistic that only 7% of fathers are interested in their children after divorce is quite shocking coming from the member because it simply is not true, it is inaccurate and not a reality.

As with many fathers, the happiest time in my life was when I was sharing in the parenting of my children. I am talking about the very active sharing in the parenting of our children. I think the member ought to check out the statistics a little more.

However she went beyond that and said that it was clear to her that most men simply did not take an interest and that they really did not want to be involved in parenting. What a shocking base to come from when we are looking at an issue as important as this.

I want to ask the member a question straight out and I would like her to give a straight answer? Does she feel that both parents should have equal access to the children following divorce?

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Canadian Alliance must have time to waste, with a question like that.

First, 7% of fathers provide constant care to their children after a divorce. I am talking about fathers who provide constant care to their children. That seems clear to me.

Second, this does not mean that 50 to 60% of fathers do not want to see their children. I am talking here about constancy of care. Eventually, the father gets tired of going to pick up the children. Eventually, the father gets fed up with making support payments. Eventually, the father gets tired of changing diapers and lets the mother take care of the children. How many times have we seen fathers who were supposed to come and pick up their children suddenly, some Friday night, turn around and say that they cannot come over. The law does not guarantee that with shared parenting, the father will assume his responsibilities.

Third, I am quite aware, as is my colleague, that amendments must be made and that parents want to assume their responsibilities. However, this particular bill is not going to make fathers assume more of their responsibilities. Where are the mechanisms? Where are the suggestions? Who will we educate about the cause of fathers and mothers? Will we educate the judges?

Quebec is in the process of establishing a real family policy that will take into consideration everything: access to daycare, legislation and parental leave that is fair. Here in Canada, there is no such policy. What good will shared parenting do? Will it help make up for the absence of family policies?

That is my answer for my colleague.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when we hear that kind of commentary from the member. The broad generalization she has given about men not caring for children is simply not true. All most men want is to have access to their children after divorce. She is saying that is simply not true. Working with that foundation, we have no hope of working out an arrangement that will work for the children after divorce. This truly is shocking.

In the 1998 committee report, “For the Sake of the Children”, it called for shared parenting because it found, after listening to both men and women, fathers and mothers who had gone through divorce, that the best thing for the children was to have both parents involved, unless there was some special reason why one parent should not be involved. However the member kind of brushes all that aside.

Does the member believe that report said the right things and really did point out what was best for children? If she does believe that, why is she not pushing for the government to implement that in the legislation. That is what the committee came up with.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague from the Canadian Alliance misunderstood what I said. At the beginning of my speech, I did say that we agreed with the principle of shared parenting, but we will have to be careful as to how it is applied.

With regard to the 1998 report, the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access obtained some support at the time from women's groups, who agreed with amending the Divorce Act.

However, the problem is that the committee was responding to requests from fathers who wanted to be able to negotiate on an equal footing.

You know full well that mediation or negotiation on an equal footing is out of the question when, for example, a woman is trapped in a violent situation. That is why we discredited the report by the special joint committee.

Divorce ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore Ontario

Liberal

Jean Augustine LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues here in the House to address Bill C-22 at this stage. The bill proposes to modernize the family justice system in Canada by promoting a less adversarial system that will benefit children, their families and ultimately Canadian society.

I want to focus my remarks on the issue of enforcement because the bill also would improve support enforcement and enhance and strengthen existing provincial and territorial support enforcement programs.

These improvements are being proposed through Bill C-22 by amending the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act.

As I know we are all very interested in ensuring that we work in the best interests of our children, I will speak about the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This is a federal statute enacted in 1986 and it is divided into three parts. The first part speaks about the release of information that may assist in locating persons in default of a family provision. The second part speaks to the garnishment of specified federal money to assist support provisions. The third part of the act refers to the denial of certain federally issued licences, including passports to those persons in persistent arrears under a support provision.

The federal government provides locating information for 14,000 requests from provincial and territorial enforcement services annually. That is a good deal of requests. In the last three years between $80 million to $90 million has been collected annually through federal garnishment services.

Several changes are being proposed to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. The processing of electronically transmitted applications for tracing information by the provincial enforcement services will be improved by the removal of the requirement to file an affidavit in support of that application. This requirement is not needed because it is already a condition set out in the agreements entered into between the provinces, the territories and the federal government under section 3 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.

Additionally, the binding period of a garnishee summons is extended from five to twelve years. Recent analysis shows that 75% of garnishees that reach the five year maximum are renewed. This amendment in Bill C-22 reflects the upper range of the life of a family support obligation and will better support efficiencies in program operation.

A major amendment proposed to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act is the creation of a mechanism whereby the Minister of National Revenue may demand that a debtor who is subject to this act file a tax return.

The Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act provides tracing and interception services. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, along with Human Resources Development Canada and other federal departments and agencies, is an important partner in the delivery of these two services. Currently, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will, at the request of the Department of Justice, search its files for address information to assist in the tracing of support debtors.

It is important that the partnership between Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Human Resource Development Canada and other federal departments and agencies be really affirmed. This would help departments to search files to determine whether a support debtor has a tax refund that can be garnished. The effectiveness of this would be significantly reduced when a support debtor does not file a tax return.

The creation of a mechanism whereby the Minister of National Revenue could demand that a debtor who is subject to this act file a tax return would improve the effectiveness of the tracing process and would further confirm our commitment to ensuring that children continue to benefit from the financial support of both their parents after separation or divorce.

Let us keep in mind that everything we do, and the direction of this bill, is in the best interests of the children.

The CCRA and the Department of Justice would closely monitor the operation of this amendment.

Bill C-22 proposes amendments to the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. That is a federal statute enacted in the early eighties to provide for the garnishment of federal salaries and other moneys. It consists of two main parts: garnishment procedures to satisfy the payments of judgments and orders, including those for family support; and the diversion of pension benefits to help satisfy financial support orders.

In addition to a number of minor technical amendments Bill C-22 proposes amendments that would provide the federal government the option of paying the garnisheed funds to a provincial enforcement service where this is allowed by provincial law, because it is not allowed in every provincial area. It would introduce in part I of the act the notion of recovery of overpayment, and that is already in one of the sections of the act, but the amendment would reflect current practice as well as provide greater uniformity within the act. It would allow for the diversion of more than 50% of a net pension benefit where there were no provincial limits to satisfy arrears, arrears that could be set out in an order or decision. This would provide greater clarity concerning the interpretation of the section as well as ensure its uniform application. We are again working in the best interests of the children.

Lastly, this section speaks about providing legislative authority to make regulations, to amend schedules, and thus ensure greater flexibility and ability to reflect changes to pension legislation that is in the schedule. We were looking for greater transparency. We hope this would be achieved in federal enforcement legislation by including specific provisions concerning the research and monitoring functions.

These functions would help us to determine if policy objectives are being met. This is legislation that speaks to policy, policy change and decision. We must see the bill as providing us with a kind of direction which is backed by the necessary research so that we do the best we can, and again in the best interests of children.

Provision has been made to ensure privacy by setting strict limitations as to whom disclosure of the monitoring and research information can be released. I am sure we are in a period of time where privacy is very important, where information cannot be provided indiscriminately to everyone who asks, so there is cognizance in the bill to ensure that measure of privacy.

There is a major amendment that is being proposed to the Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. We are talking about the creation of a priority for family support obligations over other judgment debt, thereby acknowledging the pre-eminence of family support obligations over other debts. In other words, the family comes first, before other debts are looked at.

Both judgment debt creditors and family support obligation creditors may apply under the act. There is currently no section in the act that addresses the situation where a debtor has both support and judgment debts.

Five years ago Canada's governments launched the national children's agenda, engaging Canadians in every part of the country on how to ensure that all Canadian children have a good start in life and that families with children have the tools they need to provide care and nurturing.

We made a presentation at the United Nations regarding the elimination of discrimination against women. We were asked questions about families in our country, the situation of our children, and the issue of child poverty. What we do in all the pieces of legislation that we put forward, especially in this area, is keep the interests of the family and children at the top of the list.

In the Speech from the Throne of January 30, 2001, the government identified as one of its top priorities that no Canadian child should suffer the debilitating effects of poverty. We have been working in this area with programs and policies. We have been looking at all of the possibilities that are before us as policy makers and government to meet the issue of the effects of poverty on our children. Creating a priority in favour of family support obligations over other debts would support this goal. Putting the family first, putting debt toward the family and support obligations before all other debts, must be pre-eminent and supported in this legislation.

Bill C-22 forms part of the government's stated goal to reduce child poverty and reform the family justice system.

Much has been debated and I think all members on every side of the House would agree that we must ensure that the quality of life for families and children is really at the base and the root of everything we say and do in the House.

I applaud all members who have participated in the discussion. I look forward to the work in committee as we ensure that whatever we do as legislators and policy makers will ensure that in supporting Bill C-22, in whatever necessary changes or however the discussion goes, that we come back with something where we keep in mind the best interests of our children.

We want the justice system to work for all of us and in such a way that it will ameliorate and lessen the issue of conflict that arises and brings to some of our families the kinds of distress that faces them on a daily basis today.

This is legislation, not only for today, but for tomorrow. This is legislation that will improve our community and improve relationships. This is legislation that is trend-setting because there are many jurisdictions that are looking at us as federal legislators for the guidance and the policy route that we must take in the best interests of our children.