Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the child to have, wherever possible, both parents involved in the parenting of said child;
AND WHEREAS the current adversarial process pitting parent against parent with the child in the middle is promoted in legislation like the federal Divorce Act;
AND WHEREAS it would be desirous for the federal government to propose amendments to the federal Divorce Act so that in law and in practice the rights of both parents to due process are observed in all proceedings and that children benefit from equal parenting from their mothers and their fathers after separation or divorce;
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that this Assembly signify its support for amendments to the federal Divorce Act to protect the rights of both parents to be involved in parenting the children;
AND FURTHER that the content and result of these proceedings be forwarded to the federal Minister of Justice and the Member of Parliament for Western Arctic for their consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know yesterday we had a bit of a go-between with the Minister talking about amendments to the Maintenance Enforcement Act. Part of supporting a motion like this, again, gets back to the children. I believe strongly that both parents should be involved in the upbringing of a child.
If you look around the world, the movement is going to a default system of equal, shared parenting so that both parents in separation and divorce have equal access to children. To me, that’s a fundamental right. I believe many rights in this country, Canada…. We call ourselves a democracy. I think given our current divorce legislation in this country, the rights of many parents, not just fathers but mothers in some cases, have been trampled on. I believe strongly that we need to be looking at this. It’s happening in Australia, in Belgium, in Italy and in Great Britain.
Unless proven otherwise, both parents should have equal access to children. I think when custody is shared, there is not as much animosity between the parents. There are not as many issues with maintenance enforcement, as both share the children and the upbringing of the children. I believe this is fundamental. For the sake of the children of this country, I’m waiting anxiously for this vote to take place and debate to take place in the House of Commons in Ottawa this fall.
I would look to Members of this House to lend our support to the government in Ottawa to open up the federal Divorce Act and make amendments to it so we do have a default to equal, shared parenting in this country, and we get with the program of respecting the rights of everybody. Again, it’s for the sake of the children — having both parents in their life. This is something we need to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the deputy premier to allow Cabinet a free vote on this motion today, and I would request a recorded vote as well.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I made a Member’s statement on this issue yesterday: equal and shared parenting. There’s tons of evidence out there that suggests that children — and that’s who this is really about; this is really about the children — benefit from equal access to both parents, to mothers and fathers. They develop stronger relationships with their parents and with others. They do better in school. They’re often healthier. This is kind of a no-brainer. We need to be moving down this road. We need to be moving toward equal and shared parenting.
This motion goes to this government saying that we believe and we support equal and shared parenting. As a result, I second the motion, and I will definitely be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First off, I fully support this motion, and I appreciate the Member for bringing this forward. I think we’ve all seen experiences around us where cases haven’t worked out as they’ve dreamt upon, where sharing children hasn’t always worked out through the courts and they’ve deemed that one parent should have rights over the other parent. I truly think it’s unfortunate that that’s happened.
I think every parent has a right to have access to their children. Every parent — willing, of course — has the right to make sure they’re there in the lives of their children. For one reason or another, I can’t imagine that being the first thought: trying to decide where the children should go and separating access as a normal philosophy or formula for doing business.
You don’t have to look too far to see the struggles that parents go through who don’t have that type of access to their children. It’s demoralizing; it probably leads to depression and probably to a whole school of things. The fact is, they deserve the right to their children. Now, for the children’s sake, equally they deserve the right to the other parent who has been stolen from them.
I don’t think in any way that the courts may have been thinking it was probably better this way or that way, but the question is: who is putting the children first? That needs to be the principal question every time this situation comes up. I think that relationship is stolen from any child when they’re fostered in the situation by saying they go with one parent or the other. They lose that.
Mr. Speaker, the model designed by the courts by pitting parent against parent causes such a caustic atmosphere. They’re struggling and saying things maybe they don’t mean or shouldn’t say or didn’t need to say, and in the end they’re just fighting for control over the child so they have access. What model is that for the child or children to see? That’s not a model we need to be raising our children under.
We need to have a system that says both parents will always have equal rights, both parents will always play a role in the child’s life and both parents are recognized as critical to the fabric of their future. That engagement needs to have intervention right at the highest level, and that is our courts, to make that decision early on.
Mr. Speaker, as a parent who shares love for his child with his wife, we struggle very hard to ensure that everything’s a balance. As we who are parents all know, in the sense of trying to make life work, it’s a struggle on a good day. Can you imagine taking those rights away, and now one parent has to live somewhere else, fostering that relationship? It almost becomes both unbearable and difficult to comprehend. Like I say, I really can appreciate the struggles these parents who don’t have access must be going through.
Again, I’ll be supporting this motion. I want to thank Mr. Ramsay for bringing it forward and, of course, Mr. Abernethy for seconding it, because it speaks wholeheartedly that these Members, as well as probably others, are fully committed behind those principles of equal and shared parenting of children. I certainly am.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. The honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Assembly has expressed interest in protecting the rights of children whose parents are separating or divorcing. However, the Cabinet will be abstaining from the motion that has been brought forward, and I would like to explain why. I will also provide concepts for Members who are not certain whether they should support this or not.
As you know, we do have acts and laws in place within our jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories. First of all, the NWT Family Law supports the principle that decisions should be made in the best interests of the children. The NWT Children’s Law Act already states that unless otherwise provided, the father and mother of the child are equally entitled to custody. In the vast majority of cases, having the most contact possible with both parents is in the best interests of the children. This is consistent with the federal Divorce Act, which expressly supports the principle of maximum contact.
Fundamentally, we are talking about children’s rights. Changes to the law that protects those rights can only be supported after careful assessment of what those impacts will be. We have not had the opportunity to make an in-depth assessment of this motion, so as a government we cannot make an informed decision on this particular issue. With that, again, the Cabinet will be abstaining from this motion. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. To the motion, the honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank Mr. Ramsay for bringing this motion forward. We’re talking about the best interests of children, and I believe that first and foremost the best interests of children are to be in a home, in a family, where they have parents who are in a committed and long-lasting relationship. However, we know this is not always possible.
When a relationship breaks down, then I think it does become incumbent upon the law and the lawmakers in the process to ensure that children are never used as a pawn or as a weapon of one against the other, because in those types of situations the children are the losers. I think this is very much what this motion is about — protecting children and protecting the rights of both parents. Both parents should have rights. Both parents should have responsibilities that go with those rights, and for that reason I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. I will allow the mover of the motion some closing remarks. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate that Cabinet is going to abstain from the vote today, but I thank my colleagues over here who are going to support this motion.
I have seen first-hand, for myself, the devastation noncustodial parents face. Their money might be good enough, but they aren’t, and in a country like Canada that is just not good enough. I know the Minister of Justice talks about the NWT Family Law having the best interests of the children at heart, and so does the federal Divorce Act. But if this was the case, why would there be a movement, not just in Canada but across the world, to protect the rights of both parents, specifically fathers? Why would many fathers feel our current system is biased against fathers? Also, it is riddled with false accusations against either side, with no substantiation of those allegations. I think that, fundamentally, is a breakdown in our current system. I believe we do need to fix it.
There was a report commissioned by the Liberal government a number of years ago called “For the Sake of the Children.” None of the recommendations in that report have been acted upon. Mr. Maurice Vellecott, MP from Saskatoon–Wanuskewin, is the MP in Ottawa who is spearheading an effort to open up the federal Divorce Act so we can see a move toward equal and shared parenting. What is wrong with equal and shared parenting, where both parents have equal access to the children? It’s only fair; it’s only just.
Again, I wanted to thank the Members who are going to support the motion that is before us today. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. A recorded vote is being requested.
All those in favour please stand.
Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Roland, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Results of the vote: 11 for, zero against, seven abstaining.
Motion carried.
The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
