Bill C-78 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to, among other things,
(a) replace terminology related to custody and access with terminology related to parenting;
(b) establish a non-exhaustive list of criteria with respect to the best interests of the child;
(c) create duties for parties and legal advisers to encourage the use of family dispute resolution processes;
(d) introduce measures to assist the courts in addressing family violence;
(e) establish a framework for the relocation of a child; and
(f) simplify certain processes, including those related to family support obligations.
The enactment also amends the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the release of information to help obtain and vary a support provision;
(b) expand the release of information to other provincial family justice government entities;
(c) permit the garnishment of federal moneys to recover certain expenses related to family law; and
(d) extend the binding period of a garnishee summons.
The enactment also amends those two Acts to implement
(a) the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, concluded at The Hague on October 19, 1996; and
(b) the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, concluded at The Hague on November 23, 2007.
The enactment also amends the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act to, among other things,
(a) give priority to family support obligations; and
(b) simplify the processes under the Act.
Finally, this enactment also includes transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to the Criminal Code.

Bill C-78—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to 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 and to make consequential amendments to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successfully, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians will remember that when the government unveiled the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 2015, the government made the commitment that all voices will be heard with respect to legislation brought before the House. That has turned out to be a Liberal promise made and a Liberal promise broken, because the current government has introduced time allocation again and again. Indeed, the government has introduced time allocation at least 50 times.

It is a massive bill. It is a 150-page bill that makes comprehensive changes to the Divorce Act, yet there has been very little time to debate the bill in the House. We had one and a half days at second reading and an afternoon at third reading stage. Why is the government once again shutting down debate?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, our government wants to work co-operatively with all members of the House to advance, through Parliament, a bill that is quite frankly 20 years overdue.

At second reading, 32 members of the House rose to speak on the bill or to ask a question: 15 members from the Conservative Party, seven members from the NDP, the member from the Green Party and nine Liberal members. At committee, 54 witnesses presented 53 briefs. At third reading, five Liberal members, three members of the Conservative Party, three members of the NDP and the member from the Green Party spoke. That is over eight hours in this place and 13 hours of study at committee.

There is a great deal of consensus on the bill from all parts of the House. We agree about the direction in which this should go. Frankly, the bill would help families that are going through the pain of divorce and would especially help children. It is a priority to get it through.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve on the committee during review of this bill. I was very impressed by the number of briefs we received. I was very impressed by the witnesses, members of the public, professionals, or association representatives, who took the time to come and discuss this bill and the countless hours they devoted to preparing for our meeting. It is a shame that MPs who did not have this opportunity will not be able to debate this bill.

One of the reasons I got into politics was to combat the public's cynicism about politics. I do not understand this approach to governing that the Conservatives took and the Liberals are maintaining, moving time allocation. The witnesses sent briefs because they wanted us to take the time to debate this bill properly. I do not understand why the government chose to cut off the debate. What makes the government think that we would not be able to pass the bill within a reasonable time?

I think we need to take our time debating this important bill. Yes, there is consensus, but it is our role as parliamentarians to debate the bill and take the time to discuss it and consider all the recommendations out of respect for all the members of the public who took the time to share their opinion on this bill. We should take the time to consider this bill as a matter of respect.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

She is right that there is a consensus. Canadian stakeholders and experts agree that this is a good bill and that we should move forward.

I will quote Ms. Siham Haddadi of the Barreau du Québec.

...the Barreau du Québec would like to welcome the reform of the Divorce Act, which puts the child at the heart of deliberations, adapts terminology to soften conflicts and, above all, modernizes the Divorce Act, which had its last major reform in 1997, to make it more relevant to today's family realities. That is the challenge that the legislator set for itself with this bill, and the Barreau du Québec thinks it has met that challenge with great success.

There is a consensus in this country. It is time to pass the bill.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question asked by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, the minister mentioned that a number of members had spoken on the bill. I was present in the House for part of its debate.

Given the size and complexity of the bill, I would like to ask the minister whether he really thinks debate has become stale and needs to be terminated for the expedient passage of the bill. This is a complex bill about which many members have had correspondence with their constituents. Is that really what he is saying?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is effectively what I am saying. I appreciate the hon. member's question, but there is a large degree of consensus in the House and across Canada.

The experts are weighing in and the voices are fairly unanimous, that this is an excellent piece of legislation. Lawrence Pinsky from the law firm of Taylor McCaffrey said, “Bill C-78 is clearly an advance in family law in Canada, and the government should be commended from bringing it forward. This should be a non-partisan issue.”

From West Coast LEAF, Elba Bendo stated:

West Coast LEAF welcomes the important amendments proposed by Bill C-78. We are very glad that the intended purpose of the legislation—to promote faster, better and more cost-effective solutions to family law disputes—recognizes the difficult reality that many people across this country are alone in navigating the legal system during what is often one of the most difficult times in their lives.

We need to move forward, because the bill has widespread support.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in our parliamentary process, time allocation is meant to be used in exceptional circumstances only, and yet, according to my count, this is the 56th time that the Liberal government has brought in time allocation.

I am wondering about the reason for this afternoon's time allocation motion. Perhaps the Liberals want to beat the record set by the previous Conservative government.

I am wondering about the broad consensus. If there actually is such a broad consensus about moving forward on this bill, why do the Liberals believe that the only way to do it is by imposing time allocation rather than debating it with the other parties?

In my opinion, this is another example of this government's arrogance.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Of course we want to work with the other parties in the House, and that is what we have done. Many speeches have been made at each stage so far, and many reports were studied in committee. I want to share a quote from the testimony of the National Association of Women and the Law:

NAWL fully supports the exclusion from this bill of any presumptions of shared parenting. Determining what's in the best interests of the child must be done on a case-by-case basis.

We are moving forward in this fashion so that we can protect the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child must absolutely be entrenched in law, and that is what this bill will do. We want to satisfy this requirement.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. minister that there is widespread support, but not unanimous support for the bill. My objection is that this is a time when we are not debating the bill, but talking about the use of time allocation.

The government is applying time allocation on bill after bill. This practice used to be extremely rare. It was made common in the 41st Parliament when the Conservatives were in power, though the Liberals in opposition decried its use because it limited debate. It limits our opportunity to take the bill through its proper and full review. I lament it. I find it unacceptable.

I know that it probably comes down to a conversation, to which I am not privy, between the House leaders to come to some agreement about having speedy and efficient use of the House and allowing all members to participate in debate.

I think this is the first time the hon. Minister of Justice has been asked to press a bill through using time allocation. This must stop. We must find a better way in this place to allow full debate and not constantly be applying time allocation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member of the Green Party, as I always do. I appreciate their sincerity. I share generally the member's concern for using time allocation.

In this case, we have very important legislation that will greatly benefit Canadians, in particular Canadian children, at a time in their lives which is particularly difficult. There are a number of provisions in this act which are 20 years overdue. We need to get this legislation through both Houses. It is for that reason and because there has been ample time thus far.

We accepted a significant number of amendments at committee stage in order to represent the good faith with which the bill was moving forward, with the general acceptance on all sides of the House.

It has been a good collaborative project thus far and we hope to get it across the finish line.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice on his appointment. They say that a nation's treasures are its scholars. I know the member was a law professor at McGill. I am a Concordia grad, Therefore, we always had this difference of opinion on what the best football team was. He was also clerk for Justice Peter Cory. I am sure he will do a great deal for Canadians.

He can use it as an endorsement, because I will attack you now on the rest of this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, this guillotine motion has been used 56 times, as the member for Trois-Rivières mentioned, the 56th time being on this legislation. By doing that, only 10% of the members of the House have an opportunity to speak on it.

I was looking forward to participating in a fulsome debate on the details of the bill. As some members know, my parents went through a divorce, so I am intimately familiar with their experience and how expensive it was. However, we do not have an opportunity to bring back our constituents' concerns about how the divorce system works in Canada, often to the detriment of young Canadians who have parents who are choosing to separate and divorce.

Why are we proceeding in this manner when it is not necessary? I really think the minister is doing a disservice by defending what is truly indefensible, which is that in this case, our constituents should have a say. We know many families in our communities have a personal experience they could bring to the table. There is a place for experts, which is at committees, but the place for constituents to be heard is in the House.