The answer is that federal leaders would rather rest on the platitudes of increased funding for a broken system often offered around election time, than to discuss problems in family laws and policies.
Federal leaders appear unconvinced that there is enough support for discussing family issues, to risk aggravating fringe groups who continue to use anger generated by systemic failures of family policy to inflame gender battles for their own ends. Family rights are so far removed from federal discussion, that simple questions regarding accountability in the family services sector are left unanswered.
Work on this article began in late 2019, before covid-19, and social distancing; and before the power struggle over oil and pipelines that preceded the pandemic.
With a new leader at the helm of the NDP, and a leadership race coming together for the Progressive Conservatives, it seemed worth examining who has the real interests of families at heart and who does not.
Canada has not really set an example when it comes to family policy; having been influenced both by the forced assimilation of young indigenous by European culture and religion, and by the nearby development of US child supports; first as compensation to widows of WWI, then depression era family supplements available only to single mothers, and finally with WWII, the financial offloading of a destitute government program, along with mechanisms of enforcement, to force compliance, and payment, upon men.
Though recent policy has attempted to remove the sexual bias in family policy, and to encourage co-parenting after separation, there has been only minimal success removing bias, while policy that creates power imbalances between parents, encouraging abuse, only becomes further entrenched.
Is it really a point of pride, that the selection process for abuser has become less biased.
In a hangover from the apprehensions of indigenous youth, and as a requirement to support and enforce the inequities being enforced on families, provincially hired family service social workers are some of the least accountable authority figures in Canada.
Government social workers function essentially as family police, with the power to seize children, yet in most provinces, they are accountable only to their employer, loopholes sidestep independent regulation, and complaints are not taken seriously.
Two recent federal bills, one that has passed and one that did not, serve as a reference to begin assessing attitudes on the hill in regards to family rights.
While neither bill C-560, nor C-78 is perfect, there are arguments for and against both: there has even been some advocacy recently to rewrite bill C-560 from the perspective of the child, and their right to the benefits of their parents; they do serve as a starting point to gauge opinion and policy.
Bill C-560 the “Equal Rights Parenting Bill” was brought to the legislature in 2013 and failed upon second reading in parliament in 2014. The bill stated that courts should assume equal parenting duties rests with both parents, unless there is a reason otherwise. The Bill was defeated largely on the argument that the interests of the child should take precedence over the interests, or perhaps even the rights of the parents.
Bill C-560 was introduced by Maurice Velacott of the Conservative Party, and contains language that would appear fairly common-sense to most Canadians. Mr Velacott was also a bigot, whose anti-abortion message resonated strongly with religious extremists, and Bill-560, though probably a good thing at the time, could be qualified as an attempt to use the anger of disadvantaged men to build momentum for anti-abortion causes. As such, Mr Velacott’s motions were opposed furiously from the feminist cadre, and his credentials used to unite the country against family reform.
When Bill C-560 failed, it was May 2014, Trudeau had been running the Liberal party for a year, Thomas Mulcair led the Opposition, and Stephen Harper led the country as Prime Minister. The Lieberal and NDP parties both voted as a bloc against the motion. Mulcair voted against the motion, but Justin Trudeau was not in attendance in parliament that day. Stephen Harper also did not vote this day, but let his MPs vote as they wished. Of 164 conservative members, eighty four supported the motion. It may be worth noting that there was considerable lobbying against C-560 by special interest groups and vested interests, and that absence allowed certain ministers to avoid taking a stand on a controversial issue.
Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act
was passed in June 2019 and just recently became law.
Viewed by the federal seat as progressive, British Columbia has been given leeway to develop its own family policy.
C-78 represents a federal cementing into place, of policy previously on display in BC.
Recent BC policy increases the divide between parents, and removes enforcement mechanisms to separate entities, not bound to fair process.
Bill C-78 does not contain much in terms of new policy: the bill appears to simply nationalize BC policy, with the addition of the stamp opposing equal treatment of parents and stating that such concepts are diametrically opposed to the interests of the child. This overarching generalisation in terms of application of the law does not appear to be supported by any statutes within it.
Bill C-78 was brought forwards by the governing Liberals in May 2018. The bill was originally introduced by Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice at the time, although due to some controversy surrounding Ms Wislon-Raybould, the bill was briefly sponsored by Bardish Chagger, a rookie house leader.
The Ministry of Justice appears to have taken an active role in promotion of bill C-78, promoting it specifically as diametrically opposed to concepts of equality as proposed by bill C-560.
Members of the public, engaged with Ms Wilson-Raybould in advance of the SNC affair have alleged that Wilson-Raybould was wholly unaware of allegations of inequities in delivery of Family Laws and Services. Ms Raybould-Wilson was apparently willingly engaging on the subject with voters, until partisan politics brought SNC Lavalin to the spotlight, and effectively drowned out relevant conversation. Ms Wilson-Raybould did not respond to request for comment.
Bill C-78 was supported by the majority Liberals, but was opposed by both the NDP, now under the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, and by the Conservatives, under Andrew Scheer; again with roll call votes.
So who are the new leaders, and where do they stand on Family rights issues?
In early 2020, Elisabeth May, and the Green Party was the only leader and party to have officially endorsed equality in family affairs. Of the leaders and potential leaders surveyed; only Elisabeth May (green party) and Erin O’Toole (progressive conservative party) voted for bills C-560, and against C-78, expressing support for family rights on both occasions.
Leaders and Parties were queried in regards to their positions on the institution of a two parent policy in event of separation, in place of the current once parent policy, and whether they were in favour of increased accountability in the family services sector.
Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NDP, is known to take strong stands on equality and rights issues, and though the one paired NDP vote on bill C-78 does indicate a mandatory roll-call vote in opposition, Mr Singh did not vote himself. Mr Sing has since disappointingly devolved to partisan accusations on the house floor for publicity rather than introducing change and policy of his own. Mr Singh did not respond to request for comment.
Justin Trudeau did not take part in the votes on bill C-560, or bill C-78, perhaps a sign that he is aware of issues involving delivery of family services, but is unwilling to take a point of view, or is unwilling to speak up against vested interests who can influence his voter base. Mr Trudeau has been particularly guilty of playing up his continued support, and funds for the existing system of inequities as a proof of his support for families, while his government’s policies only further the system of inequalities that he is funding. I did not expect a reply from Mr Trudeau, and as much as I like him, he lived up to expectations.
The Progressive Conservative Party is currently involved in the selection of a new leader, and has previously allowed debate on the thorny issue of Family affairs. Bill C-560 was introduced by a conservative member, and the party allowed an open vote on the topic.
In early 2020, the race appeared to be between Erin O’Toole, Peter MacKay, and Marilyn Gladu, and I contacted all three of them. I had hopes of perhaps stimulating some discussion of family issues in the race for similar candidates to distinguish themselves. Erin O’Toole, in particular, stood out with family friendly votes, although hopes have been dashed by Mr O’Toole’s populist rhetoric and inflammatory language of the past six months, revealing that his votes on family matters were likely more influenced by partisanship than by conscience.
So where does this leave us..?
The Liberals and NDP both appear wholeheartedly committed to funding the current injustices of Family Policy, and to spinning it as a good thing for families and children.
They do not even appear to allow discussion on the matter, enforcing party-line votes to get their way.
This shows that both party leaders and house members do not view family affairs as important to Canadians.
The Conservative Party of Canada does allow discussion of family policy, although discussion is often crowded with old fashioned ideals and mores, and discussion of wider family policy issues may only serve as an excuse to allow anti-abortion discussion within their ranks.
The Conservative Party cannot be relied upon to foster open and inclusive debate.
Accountability of family service workers and services is technically a provincial matter, however, just as with police, the federal government could easily mandate oversight.
Grassroots movements attempting to influence politicians in British Columbia and in Ottawa do offer some hope.
Growing family rights movements in Ontario have been attempting to reach out to federal politicians.
British Columbia has a strong movement that has for several years been demanding accountability of family service professionals, and has garnered the attention of BC Health, and support of the BC Association of Social Workers.
There is also a growing anti-parental alienation movement in BC, and there have been co-operative efforts at the grassroots level to unite under the banner of family rights, and combating institutional parental alienation.
There is hope that family rights being fought for in provinces and across the country will manifest in one province and eventually trickle down to the rest of the country via federal legislation.
We certainly won’t be able to rely on the Federal Government to tackle this problem anytime soon.