Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing the motion forward. It is high time that we discussed this matter.
Let me quickly read from the Canadian Alliance policy which states:
We will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated to not be in the best interests of the children.
Because I usually run out of time, I will give the bottom line first. The bottom line for me is that every child has a right to be loved and parented by both parents. A new approach which legally and truly emphasizes children's needs and parental responsibilities should be adopted through new legislation. The typical present application of the Divorce Act prevents that from happening. We say all the good things but somehow or other it does not come out to be that way.
There is a prevalent spirit of divorce in this country. Unstable families and disposable marriages are national problems which have not been sufficiently recognized by the present government.
I believe that the government is responsible for certain things. Sometimes we go way out on the limb on things we try to bear responsibility for and we forget to deal with the trunk or the root of the problems.
We are responsible for infrastructure and the family is social infrastructure. We need to protect our families. We need to do whatever it takes to make that family unit. However that family unit is made up and described, we need to be family friendly. We need to protect that basic foundation of our society.
The legal practice sets the climate. Many arguments have been made that if a couple were to enter a shared parenting agreement it would only heighten the fighting between the two parents involved. If it was the expectation and the norm that these two parents had to deal more equitably with their children, they would go into that relationship expecting that to happen.
It is set up so that if one person complains louder or makes more allegations than the other, then perhaps that person will walk away with the spoils. We set ourselves up for the bitter battle. If we were determined to treat each parent fairly for the sake of the child, we would defuse the situation simply by setting that kind of legal climate. Therefore some of the arguments just do not hold water if we put them into practice.
Over three years have past since the joint committee brought forward its report and no action has been taken, except for another $1.5 million in consultations trying to find reasons to violate that report. That is a shame.
In too many cases the legal system poorly serves the interests of the children by failing to adequately address parental responsibilities. Everyone is out for their own rights. They selfishly seek their own rights. That is a problem with human nature.
We have to turn this thing in two directions for the honest sake of the children and for the honest right of each parent involved. A new approach that legally and actually emphasizes children's needs over short term parental wants should be taken by placing an emphasis on parental responsibilities with perhaps less emphasis on parental rights.
The best interests of the children should be the primary concern of the courts in the event of marital breakdown. Parental rights should be encouraged. However, the rights of any parent should be subject to the best interests of the children.
I would like to read the first paragraph from a report entitled “Strategy for Reform”, which I believe was authored by the former minister of justice. It is wonderful and we should put it into practice. It states:
Canadians agree that when families break down the needs and best interests of children must be the highest priority. Even after divorce or separation, parents do not cease to be parents, and continue to have responsibilities to their children.
What a shocking new idea. The report continues to state:
The role of the justice system is to ensure that children are given priority during this traumatic period in their lives. Concerns have been raised, however, that the current system is not doing a good enough job and that it must be improved
The date on the report is 1999. The report came out in the last century and still nothing has been accomplished.
The right to be a parent is a right we need to protect on both sides of a divorce settlement. The right to be a parent has been violated many times in our country. The stories the hon. member from the Fraser Valley mentioned of suicides are replicated many times over in our land. Men and even women are sometimes driven beyond their means to be that non-custodial, cheque writing parent. Something needs to be done about that.
Something needs to be done that will not allow a judge to assess a payment to a non-custodial parent, to use an old term that I hope we get away from, of more than half of what the parent makes to go toward child support. This is not right. We are not protecting the family. Each parent is still a part of that family no matter whether they go through a divorce or not.
I believe that if we had written into law what is happening with these judgments in the divorce cases, it would be challenged under the charter of rights, and yet it is still happening.
It is a shame and a self-condemnation on the government for not moving forward with its report. It should have been done if for no other reason, and there are many more, than for the sake of the hurting children.
