logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 

 
 
 

[Canada] Supreme Court Act

An act to amend the Supreme Court Act to restore law-making powers to Parliament


-----Original Message-----
From: R&E Sodhi rajeeva@ripnet.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:44 AM
To:
Subject: Supreme Court Act

This will be interesting to follow.

Eeva

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 051

CONTENTS

Monday, February 3, 2003
Excerpt:

Supreme Court Act

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act.

    He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that would attempt to bring back to Parliament the role of law-making.Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, has taken on the role of Parliament and establishing law.

    This act would amend the Supreme Court Act to the effect that whenever there is a question before the court that deals with constitutionality, the court would be required to take the debates in Parliament into account, which it does do not right now, and when a decision is rendered, if the decision is not unanimous, then the constitutional decision would only be binding on the case before the courts and would not be taken as a precedent.

    This would get us around the problem that has so often happened in the past when there has been a split decision on a constitutional or charter matter and it has led to a new law being made without Parliament's approval.

    (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Contact Information (Source):

Name:John Bryden
Political Party:Liberal Caucus
Constituency:Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot
Province:Ontario
Telephone:(613) 995-8042
Fax:(613) 996-1289
Email:Bryden.J@parl.gc.ca

I went through the Hansard index [October - December 2002] and this is all that I found. Though I have been in constant touch with my MP, Scott Reid (CA), and keep on getting assurances from him that he acts on behalf of "all" of his constituents, he has not made a squeak on this issue.

Eeva

For starters, Cauchon admits that the has heard from the people of Canada

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for participating in the debate today. It is always a pleasure.

My question for the minister relates to his concern for children. I have heard no response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. When might the House expect to hear a response from the government on that report? It was extremely anguishing to listen to parents and the legal profession talk about this issue.

I would very much like to hear the government's response. Would the minister tell us when it is coming?

Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, first I thank very much the members of the committee. They did fantastic work which will be very useful in order to take the necessary steps to reform, if I may use that word, the Divorce Act.

When we look at the Divorce Act we always take positions based on the best interests of children. It is key to our nation. At the same time we have been looking at custody and access. We have been talking a lot about those issues. We have heard from people across Canada. Shortly we will come forward with some amendments with regard to the Divorce Act.

At the same time we are looking at the notion of services, to get involved and help families that are facing crises. The notion of services support is as important as any reform we as the government may bring forward on the Divorce Act.

See also:

At this time I would like to thank the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Its important work has directly led to many of the recommendations I will be taking forward.

What others are saying:

Rights of the Child

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people from across the country who are calling upon Parliament to immediately enact fair family law legislation which incorporates the presumption of equal shared parenting and children having a voice in divorce proceedings that affect them which is in the best and complete interests of children and incorporates their rights as decreed by the United Nations.

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons with regard to the rights of the child having a voice in divorce proceedings. I present this before the House.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today containing some 1,300 signatures.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately enact fair family law legislation which incorporates a presumption of equal shared parenting and children having a voice in divorce proceedings that affect them and which is in the best and complete interests of children and incorporates their rights as decreed by the United Nations.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House a petition with 235 names calling upon Parliament to immediately enact family law legislation which incorporates a presumption of equal shared parenting and children having a voice in divorce proceedings that affect them and which is in the best and complete interests of children and incorporates their rights as decreed by the United Nations.

Children

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present on behalf of my constituents of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound a petition with regard to the family.

The petitioners ask that Parliament make legislation to ensure that we have a clear definition of shared parenting and that all the laws concerning children be looked at with respect to making sure that the kids get the best outcomes and the best values.

Rights of the Child

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise on behalf of a number of citizens of Canada who have chosen to exercise their right to petition Parliament when they feel there are deficiencies in legislation.

I have three petitions. The first one calls upon Parliament to modify legislation to ensure that both parents are actively involved with their children after divorce through specifically defined shared parenting, and to modify the support guidelines to make sure that the support goes to the child.

Divorce Act

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Divorce Act (shared parenting).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again introduce this bill.
Unfortunately, all too often in Canada our courts do not consider the best interests of the children in divorce rulings and grant sole custody only to one parent.

Shared parenting should not be awarded only under special circumstances but it should be granted under all circumstances except in cases of proof of abuse, neglect, mistreatment or if it is not in the best interests of the child. The bill would ensure both parents are put on an equal footing and reduce the likelihood of one parent denying the right of the other to see their children.

The Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access recommended legislation on shared parenting almost five years ago, yet to date the government has done nothing to help the children of divorced parents.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Grandparents

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an act to amend the Divorce Act (custody of grandchildren).

He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Divorce Act would allow grandparents to apply for custody of their grandchildren without leave of the court. Clearly, it would still have to be granted by the court in the final analysis, but would do away with any blocks to do it. It would give automatic standing should the grandparents choose to seek it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Divorce Act

Mr. Eug—ne Bellemare (Ottawa—Orl—ans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 100 Canadians requesting that the government reform the Divorce Act to make changes in matters of family law as it affects the manner in which child support is decided.

Though not directly linked, the one below can be seen to be related

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the people of Canada that October is Child Abuse Prevention Month.

As members of Parliament, individuals and communities, we must act to prevent child abuse. We must intervene when we know or suspect that a child is being threatened, hurt, neglected or sexually exploited.

Neglect, physical, sexual or emotional abuse are all forms of maltreatment. They violate our children and they violate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Canada is a signatory.

The Government of Canada partners with other levels of government and non-governmental organizations on initiatives to support families and prevent child abuse. Included in these initiatives are the federal family violence initiative and community based programs such as the community action program for children, aboriginal head start and the nobody is perfect parenting skills program.

We must all do our part to protect Canada's children. They are a great asset for all of us.

So, given the general apathy by our elected representatives regarding the escalating destruction of our families brought about by our judiciary, will the effort by John Bryden to restore legislative powers to Parliament — in the unlikely event that it will succeed — make a big difference?
   Let us not put all of the blame for inaction on our elected representatives.  We get those we wish for, and we certainly will not get more good things than those we do wish for.  If we don't wish to have the government promote family values and healthy families, why should our elected representatives work hard to achieve what we don't seem to be very much interested in?
   Nevertheless, in the meantime it is great to hear someone say:

We must all do our part to protect Canada's children. They are a great asset for all of us.

Are they now?  At any rate, Hitler had similar thoughts:

It [the state] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must  see to it that only the healthy beget children....

— Hitler, in Mein Kampf

How can anyone tell the difference?

—WHS

________________

See also:

  • Family Law — Table of Contents

  • From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
    Statement of Bill Wood
    FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
    TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

    The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

    When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s.  Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components. 

    From Bill Wood's testimony to the
    Ways and Means Committee


White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2003 02 04
Updates:
2003 02 04 (added excerpts from the Hansard, collected by Eeva Sodhi and illustrating the general apathy and listlessness of Members of Parliament in regards to family issues
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)