Lynne Yelich

[Divorce Act, October 17th, 2006]

Over 30 years with the same man.

With the end of marriage, the difficult questions surrounding custody of dependants have to be attended to.

Again the tender of such proceedings can vary, and sometimes custody arrangements will limit the access of one parent to a child. This is not exceptional in itself for it occurs daily in courtrooms throughout the country. The exceptional occurrence, what Bill C-252 seeks to address, is the conditions or privileges granted to a terminally ill or a critical condition parent. The bill before us today seeks to grant such a parent access to their child in this difficult period.

Adding subsection (11) to section 16, custody orders, of the Divorce Act, the proposed subsection reads:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

I would like to draw attention to the House a key provision drafted in that amendment which has the effect of ensuring that such access is granted provided it is in the best interests of the child involved.

Proposed subsection (11) is subject to subsection (8), which reads, “In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”. A child would consequently be shielded from possibly being returned to the custody of a parent who may have, or may again, inflict any harm upon the child.

I believe this provision speaks to the fact that the bill seeks to strike a proper balance between parental rights and child protection. Providing a legally entrenched avenue for a dying parent to have access to their child to say a last goodbye with the provision I just mentioned is the decent thing to do.

I cannot, nor do I wish to, imagine facing the prospect of being prevented from looking into the eyes of one's child the last time before the hour of death. More important, robbing a child of such a moment, that final reassurance everything will be all right, is not something that should be facilitated by the state.

The English poet Matthew Arnold wrote, “Truth sits upon the lips of dying men”. Most would hold this to be an intrinsic truth. As difficult as it may be to the parent and child, the period before one's expected death represents a final opportunity to impart what a mother or father holds to be true to their child.

The language of the dying is usually stripped of generalities and devoid of excess of words, especially when spoken from a parent to their child. There is typically an economy of words used, not because of a lack of things to say, but to ensure the impact of those few spoken are magnified to the fullest extent, often simply limited to three.

The anguish of a child following the death of a parent is inevitable and it is natural. As legislators we have no power or desire to avert that. However, ensuring the welfare of children is not simply limited to sheltering them from harm, but also allowing them the experiences of life.

Bill C-252 can assist in a small way by permitting recourse for parental access at this sensitive time.

In psychology the term “closure” refers to a state of experiencing an emotional conclusion to a difficult life event like the death of a loved one. Bill C-252 will not bring closure, for as the Canadian journalist Robert Fulford once argued that closure cannot be achieved consciously. One cannot arbitrarily shorten the length of time it takes to soften the edges of grief, and this is especially true for a child. But there is solace and comfort inherent to acts of finality, such as the solemn moments of farewell with a dying loved one which, with the passage of time, contribute to the process of closure.

On that basis, I ask my colleagues to support unanimously Bill C-252 proposed by the member for Lethbridge.

[Divorce Act, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act introduced by the member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Before I continue with my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the member for his continued advocacy for the protection of society's most vulnerable, our children. Since his initial election to the House of Commons in 1997, the member has been persistent and vigilant in ensuring issues surrounding the welfare of Canada's children remain on Parliament's agenda.

One highlight of his ongoing advocacy includes his private member's bill, Bill C-313, from the 38th Parliament. That bill would have amended the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Although that particular legislation was unsuccessful, chiefly due to the previous government's opposition, it helped draw national attention to the age of consent issue and it also crystallized in the minds of many Canadians the need for a new approach in Ottawa toward criminal justice, especially where our children are concerned.

I am proud to report that, unlike the previous government, this Conservative government and this Prime Minister are committed to comprehensive criminal justice reform, including raising the age of consent between children and adults from 14 to 16 years of age. As we move forward in implementing this necessary change, I would like to recognize the member for Lethbridge for his laudable contribution and, on behalf of Canada's children and their parents, thank him.

That brings us to the matter under debate here today, legislation which again deals with an issue important to the welfare of children. It involves difficult and emotional matters. It deals with those parts of life we do not necessarily bring up in casual conversations. When we talk about these matters we tend to do so in hushed tones, with long pauses and guarded expressions: Death and divorce.

These are not parts of life we anticipate in any great measure, only accept for we have no choice. While there is the rare exception, these events are saturated in the most wrenching of human emotions for all those involved. This is particularly true for young children. For it goes without saying that neither the break-up of a parent's marriage or the death of a parent are elements we associate with the carefree innocence of childhood. It is a cruel coincidence of fate that would visit both such events on a child, but the destiny of fate knows not of the sorrow it inflicts.

While death is inevitable, the end of a marriage is not, but it is today a distinct possibility. A divorce is not a flippant decision for most people. It represents the lamentable end of earlier promise. Some are mutual and amicable, others are bitter and acrimonious.

According to Statistics Canada, each year approximately 70,000 couples will get a divorce. Furthermore, today almost 40% of marriages will end in divorce by the 30th wedding anniversary. I would like to say that I beat that anniversary.

[Status of Women, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very committed to the full participation of women in Canadian society.

We have undertaken initiatives to improve women's economic well-being, including lowering taxes and putting more money in women's pockets; creating more child care spaces; protecting women and children from sexual exploitation, violence and abuse; and increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying federal income taxes impacts on low income women and women living in poverty. We do believe in making a difference.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. What would the member think if we suggested that it is about displaced older workers, not just older workers? Many older workers still participate in the labour force again.

Recently, an OECD report on aging and employment policies in Canada recommended that the participation of older job seekers in employment programs be increased and that changes to programs and services should build on lessons learned from previous programs.

How does the hon. member's motion take into account this OECD research, which recommends that unemployed older workers benefit from participation in employment programs?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how would the hon. member define an older worker? How would an older worker be determined and why? When my colleague on the committee put this forward I understood that he wanted to ensure that the intent of the motion was directed toward those who were most vulnerable, those affected by downsizing or closures, and not simply age.

Does the member not think we should be focusing more on downsizing and vulnerable workers in order to ensure we target the resources toward those who need it most? In many parts of the country there is a labour shortage. What would she consider to be the appropriate age range that would need this real income support program? I would appreciate the member's comments.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how could the Government of Canada improve the labour market flexibility to support adjustments in the labour market?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's remarks. That is why I would like to make some remarks, because the member says that right now Quebec does have some real disastrous situations and crises. That is what we want to target. In other parts of the country right now we have the opposite problem; we have a labour shortage.

I would like to see us support the motion if we could clearly focus on older workers in vulnerable communities and especially those affected by downsizing or closures. Such a change would ensure that we target resources to maximize the support for those regions most in need, while making our first commitment toward retaining older workers.

We recognize the merits of today's motion. I sit on committee with the member who brought forward the motion. I understand that he is genuinely very concerned. The intent of his motion is more about helping the most vulnerable.

I ask the member if he would agree that we refocus today's motion so that it would be more about displaced workers and more about support measures because as members have said previously, many of these older workers do want to be back in the workforce. Maybe we can find tools to help them get back into the workforce. Would the member agree to this more prudent course of action?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the hon. member speak, I could not help but hear her say that they had programs for all Canadians. I would ask her to think about this. Some areas in Canada have lower levels of unemployment and ample opportunities for employment. Older workers in those communities do not need access to income supports as there are opportunities for work. In fact, 44% of unemployed older workers live outside of censused metropolitan areas.

Thus, how does this motion take the different situations in the labour market across Canada into account and into consideration?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, does the motion take into account the issue of shared jurisdiction because the members on our side of the House take it into consideration? They think the Canadian labour market is an area of both federal and provincial jurisdiction. The motion does not speak to any cost sharing mechanism between provinces and the federal government.

We are the federal government, Therefore, the government members he cited, from his province of Quebec, are not taking into consideration that we are a federal government making decisions on a federal program, trying to help all Canadians who have to be employed and re-employed.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why older workers are being encouraged to remain active in the labour market.