Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Young Offenders Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I believe most Canadians understand that the problem of youth crime is much more complex than that perhaps suggested by comments of the hon. member.
Let me reassure the hon. member and all Canadians that we take the problem of youth crime very seriously and that is why in fact we are consulting with provincial counterparts. We are consulting with those. We work with young offenders to make sure that when we reform this law, we get it right.
Young Offenders Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. In fact, as the hon. member is probably aware, my department is preparing a government response to the standing committee report on the Young Offenders Act which was filed in this House in April. My provincial colleagues and I will be meeting in Montreal next week and the Young Offenders Act will be one of the most important items on that agenda.
Airbus November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned at the suggestion the hon. member has just made.
It seems to me he is suggesting that the government interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I would think that hon. member would be the first to complain if we were to do so.
Justice November 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that this government takes very seriously the issue of victims and victims rights. In fact, that is why I intend to discuss this important issue with my provincial counterparts in Montreal a week and a half from now.
Airbus November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very plain to the Swiss authorities to whom the letter was sent that anything contained in that letter are in fact allegations. No conclusions of guilt or innocence are raised. They are in fact allegations.
The terms of settlement are clear. The former prime minister acknowledges the right and responsibility of the RCMP to pursue these investigations.
Airbus November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, I cannot comment on the Schreiber case. It is a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me remind the hon. member that in the terms of settlement entered into between the government and the former prime minister of Canada, he specifically acknowledged the fact that it is a duty and obligation of the RCMP to pursue all investigations and all allegations made in relation to the matter before us.
Youth November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. In fact she raises a very serious issue and one that I can assure her my provincial colleagues and I will be discussing when we meet at a federal-provincial justice ministers meeting early in December.
Parenting Arrangements November 5th, 1997
moved:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests;
That seven Members of the Senate and sixteen Members of the House of Commons be members of the Committee with two Joint Chairpersons;
That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of the Committee, be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly, examine relevant research studies and literature and review models being used or developed in other jurisdictions;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;
That a quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees, all or any of its power, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee present its final report no later than November 30, 1998; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to rise and speak on the motion to establish a special joint Senate and House of Commons committee to examine child custody and access issues.
Before I do, since this is my first opportunity to rise in the House while you have been in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I want to say what a great pleasure it is. You are a fellow Edmontonian. We have contiguous ridings. On behalf of my constituents in Edmonton West I want to say what a great pleasure and honour it was for all of us when you were appointed Assistant Deputy Speaker in the House. I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.
The motion calls for a special committee to examine and analyse issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce and, in particular, to assess the need for a more child centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests.
I know there is a great deal of interest and concern about these very important issues. When a marriage breaks down, arrangements have to be made for the care, upbringing and maintenance of the children.
Some parents, many parents, are able to work together to decide what these arrangements should be. They are able to focus on the interests of their children and can agree on where the children will live and how decisions will be made about the children's schooling, religious upbringing, medical care and participation in extracurricular activities.
For other parents, however, this is a difficult task. Divorce is a complex and emotional time in people's lives. As parents, most will want to try to do what is best for the children, but they may be confused, hurt or angry. They may be unable to agree about what arrangements are best for their children. They may vie for the loyalty of their children.
There can also be genuinely complex issues that need to be resolved. In these contested cases is the family law system that governs custody and access determinations. I know that many criticisms have been raised about the current family law system. Courts that address family matters are the forums for deciding parenting disputes and there are many complaints about the high costs and delays associated with the legal process.
There are also concerns that parents who cannot agree about parenting issues involving their children must often resort to an adversarial system that tends to promote the anger and hurt associated with separation and divorce. Many believe that the very terminology of custody and access in family law legislation reflects a winner and loser approach that encourages the parties to compete with each other for the status of real or best parent. Too often the legal process contributes to the conflict between the parents and results in outcomes that do not resolve matters but in fact further promotes ongoing difficulties and pain.
Recent experience with child support reforms suggests that these issues to be dealt with by the committee will promote vigorous debate, dare I say at times probably contentious debate.
There are many different views about what problems should be emphasized and about what reforms are required. The difficult and controversial nature of the issue should not dissuade us from beginning the process of reform.
The many transitions and reorganizations that accompany family breakdown greatly affect the children involved. While the long term effects of divorce should not be exaggerated by any of us, there is no doubt that divorce is a painful experience for children. There is a real need to look at custody and access issues and attempt to reform the family law system to minimize the negative impacts of divorce on children.
The motion asks that the committee specifically look at the need for a more child centred approach to family law policies and practices. I believe this is very important. The goal must be to identify the legal rules, principles and processes that will emphasize what is best for the children. This can be done if the committee is steadfast in focusing on children. I believe there is an obligation to examine this issue through the lens of the needs and rights of children. All concerned Canadians, ourselves included, must reject the temptation to cast this debate as one between the interests of mothers versus fathers. If we are to move forward in dealing with the challenge of parenting after divorce, both individually and in our public policy, we must be vigilant in making the needs and rights of children our primary source of inspiration.
To help in this task the committee can review the professional literature about the developmental needs of children and examine models being used in other jurisdictions that have attempted to alleviate the negative impact of divorce on children. The committee can also meet with and listen to the many individuals and groups that care about the quality of life for our children. I know there is a great deal of interest, concern and insight that Canadians will bring to these issues.
I urge all members of the House to support the motion. It is time to find ways to help parents better resolve their differences and focus on what is in the best interests of their children.
Unfortunately, because of prior engagements, I have to leave the House in a few minutes. But I want everyone to know that I am going to follow and review with interest the speeches that follow in this debate because I do believe this is an opportunity for all of us, in the Senate and the House of Commons, all parties, to work together to do something that is not only right but very important to ensure a better quality of life for all our children and families as we approach the millennium.
Child Support Payments November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member yesterday in response to her question, the support guidelines were enacted by the government. In fact we believe those support guidelines will ensure that the children of divorced couples will be better off.
If the hon. member has any indication that these guidelines in any part of their application are not working well, I would be very happy to discuss it with her.
Health Care November 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I point out the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada did not give that power to the Parliament of Canada. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada talked about provincial legislatures.
I remind the hon. member that what we are dealing with is a very important issue of health. Therefore I suggest that perhaps he talk to the provincial Government of Manitoba in relation to legislative responses dealing with health and child welfare.