They are 40 years old.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Supply May 7th, 2002
They are 40 years old.
Supply May 7th, 2002
They are 40 years old. They can't fly in that temperature.
Lisa's Law May 7th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I commend the previous speaker and all members who spoke, in particular the hon. member for Red Deer. I would indicate at the outset that, yes, the Progressive Conservative Party will wholeheartedly support his efforts.
Like the previous speaker, I certainly commend the extraordinary effort he has put in on behalf of his constituent, Lisa Dillman, on behalf of her children and on behalf of all children whom the bill aims to protect. It would result in a very common sense, concrete enactment of change to the Divorce Act to protect children, to protect them from being subjected to the emotional trauma of having to confront a parent in prison knowing that their parent, sadly, had committed an offence that was a danger to them or a danger to another person.
It is clear from the personal circumstances that have been laid out in this case that there is tremendous emotional damage done to a child who has to confront these circumstances, who has to be brought into a prison environment in any circumstance, but to have a judge interpret the letter of the law in such a way as this, that the visitation is to occur in a prison, is totally inappropriate.
This enactment is aimed at amending that law. The legislation would give the child in the custody of one parent the ability to opt out of or suspend a previously enacted court order for visitation, that is to say, it would do away with the requirement of one parent bringing children to see the other parent while that person was serving a period of incarceration for any offence under the criminal code in which there was a child as a victim or for any certain specified sexual offences under the criminal code.
It is trite to say that the impact of a sexual assault on a child is everlasting. It is a life sentence for that child to come to grips with. I think that the personal circumstances outlined in this case clearly referenced the fact that the children are continuing to receive counselling as a result of the trauma and the emotional distress that came to them by virtue of this visit.
The hon. member for Red Deer made a very passionate and very emotional case for the reasoning behind this effort on his part. It is a very good one. It is completely in line with what we should be doing in every instance to try to enhance the health, welfare and emotional and moral needs of children.
This is a very straightforward occasion on which we can do something. I was very touched, as were other members, by the personal words that were penned by Lisa Dillman on the back of the cards sent to members of parliament.
She stated in that letter, which I will quote directly from:
I feel confident that you will do the right thing and protect this country's children from the abuse that the current legal system forces them to be subjected to and victimized by.
That is a direct plea to all of us, one that we must heed. I know that the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick, very much embraces those same ideals and wants to do everything within her power and everything within our power to help protect children from this type of victimization, mental or physical.
This law, Lisa's law, very appropriately named, comes about as a result of what happened to her children, but they have turned a horrific circumstance into a positive action that would help benefit others, that would help protect others from being subjected to the same thing.
I had a law professor named Victor Goldberg who used to say that bad facts made bad law, yet I would suggest that this is an instance where bad facts could make good law. This horrible circumstance that occurred to Lisa Dillman, her children and her family could lead us to make a change in the Divorce Act that would protect others from a similar circumstance in the future.
Previous members of parliament have referenced the 1997 report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which some members of this House took part in, including, I believe, the current Speaker. It examined a number of very complicated issues relating to access and custody arrangements after separation and divorce, with special emphasis on children's needs. Over a 12 month period, that committee held no less than 55 meetings and heard from over 500 witnesses. It received hundreds of letters, submissions and briefs from concerned individuals and professionals across the country who wanted to provide input to this study. In December 1998 the report came back. It took the government an astounding five months to even respond.
At that time, the Minister of Justice, the current Minister of Health, stated:
--the Committee’s review has shown that those who must turn to the system would be better served by a less adversarial approach that encourages parental responsibilities and provides both parents with opportunities to guide and nurture their children. In most cases, children and youth benefit from meaningful relationships with both mothers and fathers.
There is no denying that, but where there is denial is that forcing a child to confront, in a prison environment, a parent who has been convicted of a sexually violent offence certainly runs completely opposite to the intention of what the minister described. It is counterproductive to the nth degree to suggest that a court ordering mothers, or fathers, which I suggest could happen, to subject their children to that sort of encounter is the antithesis of what we want to do and what we hope to achieve in nurturing good relations between both parents.
Madam Speaker, you would know that it has now been four years since this report was tabled. Because of that void, because of that failure on the part of the government to respond to this report, I would suggest that hon. members like the member for Red Deer have taken it upon themselves, and it is incumbent upon members of parliament to do so, to act in situations like this. He has done that. It is a reminder and a wake-up call for the government to get on with it and respond to this report. The Minister of Justice should know that. He has been tasked with this issue.
The committee at that time heard about the negative impact that divorce can have on children at a very basic level. I would suggest that it is even further exaggerated when parents in this circumstance are told by the court that they must bring their children to see the other parent. Very few witnesses supported the assertion that decisions made on the basis of a parent's right to personal happiness were automatically in the children's best interests. It was described clearly that this individual was being very vindictive and hurtful to the other parent by forcing the children to go through this ordeal. Clearly it was the complete opposite of the interests of the child.
The Divorce Act gives legal status to an individual's decision to terminate his or her marriage, thus recognizing for legal purposes that individuals have the right to end a marriage. Yet children can sometimes, as is the case here, I would suggest, get lost in that fight and in that adversarial atmosphere that very often exists. The rights of the children, balancing those rights, are an extremely important ingredient in that effort to find a proper balance between parents' rights and children's rights. To that I would add grandparents' rights in many cases. Some of the other suggestions that came from the report recommended that children themselves have the opportunity to be heard before parenting decisions that will impact on them are made.
I want to conclude in order to give the hon. member for Red Deer an opportunity to say a few words. I would again suggest that we wholeheartedly support the motion. The member for Saint John and the Progressive Conservative Party wish to congratulate him on his effort. We hope that the government will expand this effort, look at some of the recommendations of the report and, more important, today support the initiative of the member for Red Deer. Let us get the bill before the justice committee, where we can have an opportunity to make the necessary changes, to enact this change in the Divorce Act and protect Lisa, her children and others across Canada who might be subjected to this type of intrusion into their lives in the future.
Government Expenditures May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because since March 19, when the matter was first referred to the auditor general, it appears that on the government's own website that it not only continued to pay Groupaction but increased payments.
In the case of an anticipated RCMP investigation, will the government stop all payments to Groupaction pending the outcome of that investigation? What a gong show. It ripped the country off and then we give it more money.
Government Expenditures May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government of Canada continues to have contractual obligations with Groupaction?
Supply May 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's remarks. He has a great deal of compassion for the struggles of rural Canada and for farmers in particular. I ask the hon. member, how is it that he lives with the policies that his government has been producing? They are not consistent with being empathetic and sympathetic toward the plight of rural Canada.
He knows that in the species at risk bill, it is not the species that are at risk, it is the property owners. They are the people in rural Canada who might have their property seized or may have to foot the bill for the relocation of an endangered species. How does the member live with the fact that the government has brought in legislation that hurts rural landowners and farmers in particular with respect to the cruelty to animals legislation?
Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 are two perfect recent examples of his government's attack on rural Canada, not to mention the ill-fated useless gun registry that is still being perpetrated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. These are concrete examples of his government's policies.
The hon. member from Miramichi is shaking his head because it is good for his riding but it comes at a huge cost to the rights and privileges of farmers, fishermen and people who legitimately use guns.
How is it that the member can defend that record and say that he stands for rural Canada?
Supply May 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of global warming going on in here.
I have a very straightforward question for the hon. member who comes from the province of British Columbia. He has talked a great deal about his policies and his government's enactments. Could he tell the House and Canadians what one meaningful legislative change in almost a decade has his government brought in? What meaningful legislation has his government produced in almost a decade to protect the environment? We know that the Kyoto position was made up in the back of a cab on the way to the conference, but when will his government actually deliver a piece of legislation that will help protect the environment?
Supply May 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the rather fiery, freewheeling and somewhat frivolous rhetoric coming from the hon. member.
We had seen a lot of this mean-spirited, mealy-mouthed attack throughout the debate but I have yet to hear anything productive from the hon. member. It is the same old Reform wrecking ball approach, tar everyone with the same brush, and throw in some snide references to the Conservatives and previous governments. He will be the last person to be intellectually honest and admit that there were previous governments that did good things for rural Canada.
The Progressive Conservative Party did a lot to help the west. It brought in free trade, put in infrastructure such as the Confederation Bridge, put in projects such as the frigate project in Saint John, New Brunswick. It helped people in regions who needed the government's help.
What are we hearing from this member and from his party to help build a targeted strategy for rural Canada? What are we hearing from him? We are hearing some vague references to everything that is wrong in the country and the fact that his party brought up questions of this for the past five or ten years.
Thankfully it has never been in government where it had to make hard decisions, where it had to spend political capital to get things done, as did the previous Progressive Conservative government.
It is all about besmirching people's names, tarring the record and repeating baseless allegations about people's reputations. That is what we get from this member constantly.
Why do we not hear something productive about what we can do for regions that need help? Regions like his own. What will we do in terms of improving relations between the provinces and the federal government to do away with things like clawbacks from provinces such as Nova Scotia, which has its offshore oil and gas revenues clawed back by the federal government? What will we do about fuel tax money that is being taken out roads instead of being put in or the ways in which we can improve upon legislation, improve upon the tax regimes that hurt students and entrepreneurs? What sort of positive initiatives could we hear from this member?
I fully expect that he will ignore the question. He will get up and make some other snide comment about a previous government. Let us hear something positive from his mouth for a change.
Supply May 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. I know he has long been a defender of rural Canada and his part of the world.
He spoke recently about a government that cares. The previous speaker who asked him a question alluded to a time when there was a government that cared for western Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada cared for western Canada. It did not engage in cutting back subsidies that hurt rural Canada. It did not engage in severe cuts to transfer payments to provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, provinces that needed assistance. They need these subsidies now because of decisions that were made to build this country from the centre.
I would like to ask the hon. member a specific question about aid to farmers, and he is very knowledgeable on the issue. He referenced the fact that there was a need because of drought and conditions over which farmers had no control and because of decisions the government made which took the rug out from under farmers affecting their ability to deal with crops and to get their product to market.
Is he talking about an aid program similar to what we saw with the TAGS program? That program, which was well intended and aimed toward helping fishermen was abused. Surely he would agree that, with the record of HRDC and the government in ensuring the money gets into the hands of the people who need it most, there has to be stringent application of the principles for which one is eligible. There also has to be enforcement and follow up to ensure that the process in place is not being abused.
Is that the type of program for which he is looking for farmers in his riding?
Supply May 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question. Yes, an individual abroad accused of doing something criminal in Canada could be prosecuted whether or not he or she was a diplomat in a foreign country. The problem would arise if a diplomat in a country like Denmark were accused of a crime there and chose to claim diplomatic immunity and come back to Canada. One cannot claim diplomatic immunity when out of the country serving as an ambassador.
As to who began down this road, I think the hon. member is suffering from some degree of memory loss. He should recall that it was an unprovoked question from himself that caused me to respond in kind.
Once again, only the Liberal Party benefits when we engage in this type of banter. I take no umbrage at all at the hon. member's comments. The member has no lessons to give this party or this member about what public statements were made and what complete turnarounds, somersaults and olympic backflips were done a short time later when Alliance members reversed themselves on all kinds of positions. The public record is clear on that.