Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2012

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm not sure if Ms. Doré Lefebvre can answer this question. I don't think she is suggesting that in Quebec people who live common law are not ever awarded spousal support. I don't think that's what she's suggesting. This legislation encompasses awards made—again—in each province. The decision made in each province would be honoured under this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

From what I hear, some people around the table are more competent in civil law than I am. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I will just withdraw my subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I withdraw it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I appreciate that. The subamendment has been withdrawn.

I believe there was a second subamendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I firmly believe this is simple.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So we would—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

And sometimes not. We're suggesting—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

But I think we all do want to thank you for the perspective on that. It's something we need to look at.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

My subamendment would be to amend proposed subsection 78.1(1) by omitting proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(d). This is as we had circulated it.

That's the content that was in the one we had circulated about lines 15 to 17, so now it would just be to eliminate any other amount owing as a result of any other judgment. We still have concerns about constitutionality. Most of those opinions that we've received privately concern proposed paragraph (d), because that's the one that seems most likely to invade provincial jurisdiction, and—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You're going to eliminate all of paragraph (d)...?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Yes, we'd just take out (d). That's our proposed subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Garrison has moved the subamendment to delete proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(d).

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have a question for Mr. Garrison. I'm curious as to why he is more concerned about the constitutionality of proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(d) than he is about proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(a).

I appreciate that proposed paragraphs 78.1(1)(b) and (c) are under federal jurisdiction—restitution under the Criminal Code of Canada and the victim surcharge under the Criminal Code of Canada—and that paragraph (d) would capture everything else. But paragraph 78.1(1)(a) would also capture child support orders as granted by the provincial courts in the various provinces. I understand his concern; I don't understand the distinction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll go to Mr. Garrison and then Ms. Hoeppner.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Just briefly, I think the distinction would be that in spousal and child support we have well-developed jurisprudence in that very narrow area of jurisdiction, which would I think guide the applications very easily. On the other hand, proposed paragraph (d) opens a broad door for a challenge to the constitutionality of this by including a whole grab bag of other things.

So proposed paragraph (a) is different. The federal and provincial law has been worked out in great detail on child support and spousal support because of the split of jurisdiction, but paragraph (d) just opens the door to all the other things that are in provincial jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I wouldn't be able to support this amendment. I would argue that I think it would change the scope of the bill. The drafter of the bill included this as an important part of the priorities that would be paid out, and I think removing it changes the scope of the bill. It takes away from it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just so I'm correct on this, would this take away any other victims out there? You're including the family and spousal and child support, but could it take away...?

Go ahead, Mr. Rathgeber.