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.

Justice

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 2009, Tori Stafford was walking home from school alone for the very first time, but she never made it home. She was lured away by a promise to see a puppy and was brutally raped and murdered.

We have learned that one of the people responsible for this heinous crime has been transferred to a healing lodge. Canadians were shocked to hear this news.

I want to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell the House whether he intends to reverse this decision.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to Tori Stafford's family for their loss.

The minister has asked the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to review these kinds of decisions to ensure that they are appropriate and consistent with long-standing policy.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not looking for a review; they are looking for action. They want to see the government reverse this decision.

Will the Prime Minister do what he has the power to do and reverse this decision?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the family of Tori Stafford for the loss they endured and have lived with these past nine years.

The minister has asked that the commissioner of correctional services review such decisions to ensure they are done properly and in accordance with long-standing policy.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the minister said. The minister said that he trusted the officials to ensure that the killers' bad practices were addressed. These were not bad practices; they were horrific crimes and they deserve to be punished.

The Prime Minister has the ability to reverse this decision. Will he do so?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by the then minister of correctional services and public safety, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, “I”, the minister, “do not control the security classification of individual prisoners”. That is what the Conservative minister said in 2013.

We continue to respect our justice system to take the right decisions in the right way. The current minister has asked to ensure that all of the decisions were taken in accordance with our laws.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when officials get it wrong, the government and elected representatives have an obligation to make it right.

The Prime Minister knows that the department reports to the government and that he has a variety of tools at his disposal. He needs to tell Canadians right now whether or not he intends to use every tool at his disposal to reverse this decision.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the individual in question was classified as a medium security risk a number of years ago and continued to be classified in 2014 when she was transferred to this new facility as medium security.

On this side of the House, we do not look to politicize tragedies like this. We expect people to do their jobs, and that is what we are ensuring will happen.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

That is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. They are not doing their job. This is not a minimum security risk. This is a convicted killer who has been found guilty of the most horrific crimes, the types of things all parents are so fearful of.

We, as elected representatives, and the Prime Minister have an obligation and a responsibility to make it right when officials get it wrong. He knows he has the power to do that. This person bragged about stomping on the face of a fellow inmate, bragging to her friends that she had committed hateful acts in prison. Will he do the right thing and reverse this decision?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will let Canadians make a determination of who is politicizing this situation.

The individual in question was transferred to a medium security facility in 2014. She is still in a medium security facility now.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Terri-Lynne McClintic was found guilty of first-degree murder and rape and torture of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. She was sentenced to life in prison. Eight years into her prison sentence, she is being moved to a healing facility. This is a bad decision by officials. On any calculus, this is a bad decision. When bad decisions were shown to us as a government, we intervened. We stopped rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo from receiving conjugal visits. We blocked child killer Clifford Olson from receiving pension benefits.

When confronted with bad decisions, a good government acts. Why is this Prime Minister not acting?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government, in 2014, transferred this individual to a medium-security facility. She is still in a medium-security facility now. The level to which the member opposite is playing politics with a terrible tragedy is yet again an example of the depths to which the members opposite continue to stoop.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the government members applaud, the way they do, that incredibly despicable answer, what they are applauding is the victim not getting her justice. Today we speak here for Tori Stafford. Canadians understand—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. We need to hear the question and of course the answer after that. Order.

The hon. member for Milton.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the difficulty with a government receiving a bad decision is that the decision has to be made then to act. We acted every single time we found out that a bad decision that infuriates Canadians was made. This is a terrible decision. It is despicable. Why are the government and the Prime Minister not acting?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the noise from my backbench.

The member opposite was part of a government that in 2014 transferred this individual to a medium-security facility. That individual is still in a medium-security facility. These are the political games the members opposite are choosing to play.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness referred to the crimes committed by Terri-Lynne McClintic as “bad practices”. What she did was not bad practices. It was a despicable crime. She was convicted of the heinous murder of an eight-year-old child, yet the minister agreed to transfer her to a healing lodge. That is simply preposterous. The Prime Minister has the power to reverse this decision.

Why does he not send her back to a maximum-security facility?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another question on the same issue. The previous Conservative government transferred this individual to a medium-security prison in 2014. She is still in a medium-security facility now.

The level of political game-playing we are seeing right now is disturbing.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is disturbing is the answer Canadians are getting from the Prime Minister.

We are talking about the kidnapping, rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl, yet all we hear from the Prime Minister is that he is asking for a review of the decision. This was a heinous murder, and a bad decision was made. The Prime Minister has the power to change it.

Why is he not reversing this decision and sending this murderer back to a maximum-security prison?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we live under the rule of law. Politicians do not get to make decisions in regard to the justice system. We respect the system.

I will repeat once more that this individual was transferred in 2014. She remains in a facility with the same security level.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that the only political games being played in this House today are the word games being conducted by the Prime Minister of Canada on this very important issue. Terri-Lynne McClintic helped lure Tori, hit Tori three times in the head with a claw hammer; she was a look-out while Tori was raped and then helped place Tori's body in a garbage bag. The Prime Minister knows full well that he has the power and authority to change this case in an instant. Why will he not use his power and authority right now to do the right thing for Tori's family and the right thing for society?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians pay attention to that question and this answer.

In 2014, the individual was transferred to a medium-security facility under the previous government. The individual is still in a medium-security facility today.

That question needs to be noticed by Canadians and that behaviour needs to be noticed by Canadians.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facility does not even have a fence, but it does have cooking classes.

The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Public Safety characterized the killer's conduct as “bad practices”.

When is the Prime Minister going to do the right thing, admonish his minister, do the right thing for people who care about justice in our society and make sure that the killer is put right back behind bars?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we see in politics these days is a level of polarization, a level of populism, that is creeping into our discourse.

On this side of the House we choose to anchor our decisions in fact, in the rule of law and in due process. This is what we will continue to do.

The individual was transferred under the previous government to a medium-security facility. She is still in a medium-security facility.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, 2009, Tori Stafford left her school to go home. She never arrived there.

When Tori's body was found, it was naked from the waist down. The autopsy revealed that she had suffered beatings that caused lacerations to her liver and broken ribs, and that her death was as a result of repeated blows to her head with a claw hammer.

Her killer Terri-Lynne McClintic has been moved to a healing lodge.

The Prime Minister has the power to reverse this decision today. Will he stand with the family and ensure that this child murderer stays behind bars?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 12th consecutive question from the Conservatives on this issue, and that is their choice. However, I would ask them to please not continue to increase the level of graphic detail read into the official record here. This is not something we want to politicize this way. This is not the way the House should be engaging.

I continue to welcome questions on any matters that matter, but I ask them to please maybe not read the words on the pages in front of them.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. Members from time to time hear things they do not like in here and that is probably going to continue. However, I would ask them to wait their turn to speak, which will come eventually, and to not interrupt.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Tori Stafford never came home because Terri-Lynne McClintic, who Tori thought was a friend, lured her to her. McClintic plead guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

The minister's defence of releasing this murderer after only six years behind bars to spend the remains of her sentence in a healing lodge is unconscionable.

The Prime Minister has the right and the power to change this decision. Will he or will he not?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again, words are important and the member opposite used the word released in her question. The fact is that the individual in question who committed a terrible crime was transferred in 2014 to a medium-security facility and remains in a medium-security facility today.

Anything else the members opposite are asking is fair game, but will they please stick to the facts in this terrible tragedy.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to my way of thinking, a bad practice is texting while driving. We are talking about a rape, a kidnapping and a murder—a vicious murder.

My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. It took him two weeks to appoint the ombudsman for offenders, but one year to appoint the federal ombudsman for victims of crime.

When will the Prime Minister put victims ahead of criminals and condemn the unfortunate remarks made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness about a despicable crime?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has asked for a review to ensure that all procedures, laws and rules were followed in the processing of this criminal.

We will continue to ensure that all rules are followed to the letter. Our country is governed by the rule of law, and I believe it is important to acknowledge that. We will continue to ensure that victims receive justice and that the appropriate penalties are administered by our system.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, McClintic admitted to kidnapping eight-year-old Tori so she could be raped, tortured, murdered and buried in a field. There is no more disgusting crime a person can commit.

The Liberals are now defending her transfer from a prison in Ontario straight to the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in my riding. This facility does not even have a fence around it. It is not intended for child murderers. As a matter of fact, there are often children in the facility.

The Prime Minister has the power to reverse this decision today. Will he do that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep this as simple as I possibly can, because there is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of fear and a lot of politics in that question.

The individual in question was transferred to a medium-security facility in 2014 under the Conservative government. She is currently in what is classified as a medium-security facility.

The Conservatives are playing politics in an extremely troubling way.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 9/11 widow Maureen Basnicki appeared before the justice committee where she criticized the government's $10.5-million payout to al Qaeda terrorist Omar Khadr. Instead of showing respect toward Ms. Basnicki, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice scolded her. This is beyond shameful.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for his parliamentary secretary's disrespect toward a 9/11 widow?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians are frustrated with the out-of-court settlement that was made. I agree. We should all be frustrated with that, because no government going forward should ever think it is okay to violate the fundamental rights of anyone, regardless of how heinous his or her crime was. That is a principle Canadians can understand and hopefully governments today and in the future will heed this lesson carefully.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Tori Stafford's father says that the decision to allow the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic to a facility without a fence is wrong.

Today, the Prime Minister has had over a dozen opportunities to address this question and he has not done so. This is not about the bureaucrats who serve him or previous governments or the preambles of questions that he does not like; this is about his decisions and what he will do to correct wrongs.

Once again, will the Prime Minister use the power that he has to right this wrong and reverse this decision?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the New Democratic Party of Canada for choosing to make gender equity and gender opportunities the centre of their questions throughout this entire question period. I think it goes to the challenges we are all facing as a country moving forward.

Second, on the member opposite's question, the previous government transferred the individual to a medium security facility in 2014 and the individual in question is still in a medium security facility today.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled, “Legislative Background: 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 (Bill C-78)”.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East.

I am pleased to rise today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to speak to an important aspect of Bill C-78, which is poverty reduction.

Over two million Canadian children live in separated or divorced families. Of these, lone-parent families are the most financially vulnerable of all family types and are more likely to depend upon social assistance.

There are couple of other important statistics.

Right now, there is well over $1 billion in support payment arrears in this country. In the vast majority of such cases, 96% of all such cases, the arrears relate to money owed by men to women.

The data on the economic challenges of single parenthood are quite stark. In 2016, the median net worth of Canadian couples with children under 18 was over $300,000, while the median net worth of single-parent families was less than one-sixth of that, $57,200.

Separation and divorce can cause a financial crisis for some families. The benefits of sharing family expenses often disappear as a second home must be established. Some parents need to significantly change their work hours to accommodate their changed parenting schedule, which can affect their income and their employment opportunities. This is what I hear when I speak to families in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. I hear far too often from single mothers who are struggling to access spousal and child support after a marital breakdown. Bill C-78 will directly benefit these residents of my community and the residents of so many other communities in a similar situation right across Canada. It will help lift those individuals, whether they are mothers or children, out of poverty. It will mean less time fighting out support payments in court, which is costly and time consuming, and creates a court backlog. It will mean more tools to allow single parents to identify and locate the assets of their former spouses, and more tools to enforce the actual payment of spousal and child support to single parents and their children.

Allow me to explain. I want to first turn to the payment of child support reducing the risk of poverty.

The sooner a fair and accurate amount of child support is established after parents separate and payments are made, the better the outcomes are for the child in question. The payment of child support is a key factor in reducing the risk of child poverty, especially for low-income, single-parent families.

Parents have a legal obligation to support their children financially after separation or divorce. Children have a legal right to that support. Federal, provincial and territorial child support laws require parents to disclose specific income information, including income tax returns, and set out penalties and consequences if a parent fails to disclose this information. This includes imputing income, which means that the parent’s income is assumed to be a certain amount for child support purposes, and the child support order is based on that income.

Most parents dutifully meet their legal obligations. However, some parents do not provide complete and accurate income information, despite the possible penalties and consequences. This is a significant issue that has serious consequences for children and families going through the family justice system, as well as for the system as a whole.

Family law practitioners and judges often say that income disclosure issues are one of the most contentious areas of family law. Failure to comply with disclosure obligations can put significant pressure on the family justice system. It may also discourage parents from reaching agreements through family dispute resolution processes, such as mediation. If income cannot be properly determined at the outset, it may also prevent families from benefiting from other family justice services such as administrative child support calculation or recalculation services.

I want to turn now to the costs associated with the non-disclosure of income.

The financial and emotional costs to parents seeking income disclosure are significant. They are legally entitled to financial information from the other parent. However, when financial disclosure is not made, they must ask a court to order that the information be provided. This creates significant costs for families and can lead to overburdening of the family justice system, including the courts. The other parent may still not disclose his or her income information, even after the court has ordered it. In these situations, the court may then impute the income of the other parent.

Although imputing income may work adequately in some situations, it is very difficult for the court to determine a fair amount of support that reflects a parent's true ability to pay in the absence of complete and up-to-date income information. Imputing income may result in child support amounts that are too high, which, in many situations, will not be paid or result in support payments that are too low and thereby prevent children from benefiting from the support of both parents.

Consistent with our government's commitment to poverty reduction and to meeting the needs of low- and middle-income families, Bill C-78 would bring much needed changes to middle-class Canadians. It would limit the negative consequences of income-related disputes for the family justice system and parents. Bill C-78 also proposes much needed changes to help reduce child poverty.

I will turn to one aspect of the law that would be amended here, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. Amendments to this act would ensure that a separating or divorcing parent's failure to meet their income disclosure obligations would not prevent the establishment of a fair and accurate amount of support. We would amend this particular law to allow the federal government to release an individual's income information, including information from tax returns, to a court for the purpose of establishing, varying, or enforcing a support provision.

The income information to be released would be listed in the regulations, and important safeguards would be included in the act. An application for information under this legislation would not be permitted if the court were of the view that a release of information would jeopardize the safety and security of any person. Where information is released to a court, it must be sealed and kept in a place to which the public has no access.

The release of this income information would help ensure that child support amounts reflect the parent's true capacity to pay. It would also reduce legal costs associated with ensuring income disclosure for a parent, as well as the associated use of court resources. Child support orders would be made more quickly, more accurately, with less conflict and less expense, helping the very women I mentioned at the outset, the 96% of recipients of spousal and child support in Canada who are women.

The legislative amendments we are proposing will also allow the disclosure of income information to child support recalculation services. Recent information on a parent's income is needed so that those provincial and territorial recalculation services, which provide an administrative service, can do their job. They are an important tool in ensuring access to justice for parents who pay or receive child support. These services help update child support amounts through a process that is fast, more effective, low cost and non adversarial.

These recalculation services recalculate the amounts indicated in child support orders and agreements based on a parent's current income. However, they cannot proceed with the recalculation on income allocated or when no income information has been provided. In such cases, parents have to go through the courts to amend the child support amount.

These amendments to the act will reduce costs, not only for parents but also for the justice system, by allowing administrative services to recalculate to obtain the income information they need. Agreements with the provinces and territories on the disclosure of information will be updated in order to guarantee the protection of income information disclosed to the services responsible for doing the recalculation.

Bill C-78 also proposes amendments to the garnishment provisions. This act provides for the payment of salaries and pension benefits payable to current and former federal employees to another person to help satisfy family support. Amendments to the legislation would help reduce child poverty by making the process more efficient so that families receive the support they are entitled to in a timely manner. For example, the amendments would prioritize garnishment for family support debts over all other debts, other than debts to the Crown, which allow for earlier garnishment where possible.

In conclusion, separation and divorce can be difficult emotionally and financially for families and children. That most Canadians dutifully meet their obligations when it comes to both the establishment and payment of child support is a testament to our society's values. However, when parties cannot agree on what their obligations should be, our family justice system should be there to help resolve those issues. Federal enforcement legislation is there to help when parties do not meet their support obligations. That is exactly what Bill C-78 would do. I am proud to support it, and I urge all members of the House to do the same.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has raised an excellent point, the issue of disclosure in divorce or separation proceedings. One of the more serious problems is getting information from people who are self-employed when many of those people do not disclose to the Canada Revenue Agency what they are actually making. That happens all the time.

I appreciate that the government is trying to deal with this, because the most serious issue is obtaining disclosure. However, with that specific example in mind, there are many people who are self-employed, and just providing their income tax return does not reveal what their actual income is.

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dufferin—Caledon raises a very important point. What we are doing with Bill C-78 is providing more tools in the toolbox to allow better access to and disclosure of financial information. Clearly, there are and will remain instances in which people seek to evade such disclosure, which could happen in many different cases.

However, with this legislation we are responding to the concerns we have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that they need better tools and better information sharing between different components of government and departments to access that information. Then it is for the courts through the provisions already provided for in the law to ensure enforceability of that, including imputing income where necessary for those who still withhold information.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the question that was just asked, I am wondering about the enforceability of this bill.

Would it be up to the provinces through the court system to enforce this bill and the support provided to the children who are in need?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, family law is obviously a matter of dual jurisdiction. This issue of family law is a matter of shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. Issues of divorce and marriage are a matter of federal jurisdiction. The issue of separations that do not include divorce, for example, are a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

We have worked diligently on this bill with our FPT colleagues and collaboratively at various ministerial meetings with the provinces and territories. A component of the enforceability will continue to reside with the courts, as administered in the provinces and territories, consistent with the jurisdictional division of powers under our constitutional provisions. It will be a collaborative effort.

However, what is important to emphasize with regard to Bill C-78 is that we are giving more tools and strengthening the enforcement that is available to the very provincial actors that my friend has mentioned, to the courts that are on the front lines of the important work being done on the family law front and, importantly, not necessarily forcing people to get involved in the courts at the first instance, thereby reducing the costs, the court backlog and the necessity of seeking enforcement. We are creating more tools outside of the court structure that people can access to pursue their rights under this regime.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague, if possible, elaborate on how the government with this bill and its previous efforts will improve the life of our Canadian children, particularly by lifting hundreds of thousands of them out of poverty and ensuring them a better life and future?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval—Les Îles for making this point. This is a fundamental theme not just of this bill, but of our government overall in terms of what we have done with the Canada child benefit to lift 300,000 children out of poverty. We have targeted tax-free benefits to those who need them the most.

This bill complements that. It is a staggering figure that two million children in this country live in families that have experienced a divorce. It is equally staggering that over a billion dollars of spousal and child support is in arrears in this country.

What we are doing through this legislation is responding to that very real need, ensuring that there are more tools in the toolbox that will allow the disclosure of information, the arrangement of child support orders and the enforceability of such child support orders so that those children currently living in poverty are able to receive the support they so desperately deserve. Those are middle-class kids whom we are here to support.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-78 and the significant contribution it would make to improve the accessibility and efficiency of the family justice system.

As mentioned, federal family laws have not been updated substantially in over 20 years and changes are long overdue. Access to justice is a priority for our government and access to family justice is a key component of achieving that. Costs, delays, and complex procedures can make it difficult for Canadians to have access to justice. Along with the expansion of the unified family courts and sustained funding for family justice services, Bill C-78 is part of our government's commitment to improving access to justice for families going through separation and divorce. Under the pen of retired Supreme Court Justice Cromwell, the action committee on access to justice in civil and family matters stated that early management of legal issues and encouraging informal dispute resolution were key to improving access to justice.

Bill C-78 recognizes the need to improve access to justice and offers guidance, information and tools to help families going through separation and divorce, including people who represent themselves, as well as lawyers and courts involved in family law issues.

Bill C-78 encourages the use of family dispute resolution processes. These are defined as out-of-court processes used by parties to help them resolve their family law disputes. Negotiation, mediation and collaborative law are examples of such processes. These are often less expensive and faster than litigation and allow parents to actively participate in creating arrangements that are in the child's best interests.

Part of the role lawyers play is to ensure that parents who have family law issues have the relevant information on family dispute resolution. Bill C-78 would create a duty for lawyers to tell parents about family justice services that could help them resolve their disputes, and to encourage them to try family dispute resolution where appropriate.

In addition, if the case is before the court, the bill gives judges the option to refer parents to family dispute resolution where available. Bill C-78 also introduces duties for parents involved in a family law matter to try to resolve their issues through a family dispute resolution process where appropriate.

That said, family dispute resolution processes may not be appropriate in all circumstances, including where there is family violence. For this reason, Bill C-78 only encourages the use of these procedures where appropriate. Courts and lawyers must evaluate each of these situations on a case-by-case basis and take into account families' circumstances, including whether there is family violence, before encouraging the use of family dispute resolution. In addition, other service providers, such as certified mediators, play a critical role in screening for family violence and power imbalances in order to promote a fair and equitable process.

There are numerous ways that Bill C-78 would facilitate the resolution of family disputes and help parents reach out of court agreements focused on the best interests of their children. For example, it proposes changes to custody and access language, the definitions in the old version of the act, to use terminology that is more neutral and child focused and reflects the actual tasks of parenting, such as parenting time and other terms used in the act. It also includes a non-exhaustive list of criteria to help determine what is in the child's best interest, as well as criteria to assist parents dealing with relocation issues. This additional information will help parents make informed and child-focused decisions and better understand what the outcome might be if they were to go to court. This in turn is intended to help reduce litigation.

Our government is bringing forward some innovative thinking to help improve the family justice system. There are issues currently determined by courts that are administrative in nature and that could be handled outside of the court. Bill C-78 will expand the range of matters that child support services may address and will allow them to perform tasks currently that were in the sole purview of the court itself.

Many provinces and territories have child support services that recalculate support orders, for instance. Bill C-78 proposes several measures to make these services more efficient. This includes the recalculation of interim child support amounts in Divorce Act orders. In addition, the bill would allow child support services to recalculate child support amounts at the request of a parent, for example, if there were a job loss. Currently, the Divorce Act requires that recalculation be done only at fixed or regular dates.

The bill also includes a new approach allowing for the calculation of initial child support amounts by provincial or territorial child support services, where possible. This will allow administrative services, as opposed to courts, to calculate, based on relevant income information, child support amounts based on child support guidelines.

These proposed additions and improvements to the Divorce Act would make it easier, less costly and less adversarial to determine or recalculate child support amounts.

Changing Divorce Act orders when parties live in different jurisdictions can also be costly and cumbersome for families. Bill C-78 proposes to improve the process to change a support order for parties living in different provinces or territories.

Currently, two courts are involved, a court in the applicant's province that makes a provisional order and a court in the respondent's jurisdiction that confirms the order. The new process would involve only one court and would eliminate the need for the current first stage hearing, thereby saving time and money. Because this new system mirrors that in most provinces and territories, it would also ensure consistency whether interjurisdictional proceedings are conducted under the provincial legislation or under the Divorce Act.

The bill also includes provisions to improve processes in international child support cases. These changes are an essential step for Canada to become party to the 2007 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which was signed in May 2017.

The 2007 convention is an international agreement that provides a low-cost and efficient legal framework for cross-border establishment, modification, recognition and enforcement of family support obligations. It will be of particular interest to Canadian families and children, as it provides a means for a parent to obtain child support from a former spouse living in a different country.

Another way in which Bill C-78 would increase access to justice and improve the efficiency of the family justice system is by amending the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This act is used to help parents enforce support. The bill proposes to amend it to permit, in certain limited circumstances, the release of income information when parents do not provide it.

Accurate income information is key to determining fair child support amounts. This change would help to accurately determine child support amounts and enforce support orders, as well as to reduce time spent in court to obtain this information. Proceedings to obtain this information currently take up a lot of court time and resources and this can be expensive for people who are trying to obtain support and is not a good use of family resources.

When this information is given to a court, it would be sealed and kept in a location to which the public has no access, and the court could make any order necessary to protect the confidentiality of the information.

While the bill encourages resolution of matters outside of the court system, there are some matters that require formal court resolution.

Budget 2018 announced funding to expand unified family courts, fulfilling one of the Minister of Justice's mandate letter commitments to Canadians. The family court in my riding of St. John's East has benefited from this.

Unified family courts provide one-stop shopping for the family justice system by combining jurisdiction over all family law matters into one court. They also provide access to a range of family justice services, such as family law information centres and mediation services to help families through a range of family law issues, including separation and divorce and other services.

Funding is essential for the delivery of family justice services which fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In budget 2017 our government committed $16 million per year for family justice services on an ongoing basis. This funding will increase Canadians' access to family justice by supporting provincial and territorial programs and services, such as mediation, parent information, education and support enforcement.

We have to work together to improve the accessibility and the efficiency of the Canadian family justice system. Bill C-78, along with the expansion of unified family courts and sustained funding for family justice services, will help support Canadian families going through separation and divorce and the over two million Canadian children who live in separated or divorced families. This is a great step forward and I trust that the changes we have proposed will bring positive changes to the family justice system.

In closing, I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation, as I do, so we can see it move to committee where it can be studied further.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for St. John's East on his presentation to the House on this topic and in particular, for zeroing in on the topic of dispute resolution.

As a legal representative, my question is: Is one of the problems the lawyers? Litigation is very adversarial in family law matters. Dispute resolution already exists. Currently, a lawyer acting for one of the parties or indeed both lawyers could say they are not interested in dispute resolution and that the matter should go to the courts. This causes a problem because generally speaking, one of the parties does not have the resources to go all the way to the courts. The party has the resources to go to dispute resolution but not to the courts. That creates unfairness and more adversarial attitudes.

Would the proposed legislation correct this discrepancy? Is there something in the bill that would force the legal representatives to encourage dispute resolution?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who sits next to me in this corner of the House, mentioned that this might fall under the framework of sharp practice. I do not think that would be the case for the vast majority of members of the family bar that I know who always try to encourage their clients to obtain the appropriate level of service and support and to try to reach resolutions that are in the best interest of the child. That is very much what this legislation is trying to do.

With respect to the issue of going through the less acrimonious and often more deliberate and successful route of dispute resolution, the bill contains requirements on legal counsel to instruct their clients to do so where appropriate. I provide the caveat “where appropriate” because in this particular bill, there is a new definition for family violence. It is a fairly comprehensive definition. It includes things like psychological harm and other types of manipulation that parents may engage in and former spouses may engage in with one another. In such instances, staying within the court system may be in the best interests of all involved. Otherwise, lawyers are instructed to provide a dispute resolution process to the parents, which would better conserve family resources, which is also, of course, in the best interest of the child.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to mention the fact that today is my son's 20th birthday and say happy birthday to Henry. One of the hardest parts for all people in the House, and so many people across Canada who have to work away from home, is not being with their loved ones on these important dates, so I just wanted to take that opportunity.

Getting back to the issue at hand, one of the challenges in addressing child poverty, in the context of the bill, is when domestic violence is part of the equation. Often it is a safety issue for the family, largely for the children and the wife. This often results in either child support not being received or, on the other side, not being paid.

Consultation is key. It is really important we look at how we are going to make sure this can happen in the safest way possible. I would like the member to talk a little about where he may identify some gaps in the current bill.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one. I also want to say happy birthday to her son. It was my son's 10th birthday yesterday. I had a chance to speak with him on the phone a couple of times, but I really did miss the chance to see him go into double digits. It was a tough one to miss.

The bill does attempt to address many of the concerns raised by the member. I do not see any particular gaps, because this particular legislation builds upon 20 years of work the provinces have done to start to address some of these issues in the courts and before we finally have come to the point where we are actually implementing it into federal legislation.

I have a copy of the definition in front of me now. I will highlight the fact that family violence includes all types of conduct, whether or not the conduct is criminal in nature, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. It includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, threats to kill or cause bodily harm, harassment, failure to provide the necessities of life, psychological abuse, financial abuse, threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property, and the killing or harming of an animal.

If we look at the financial abuse problem the member raised in that context, it is actually embedded right there in the definition of family violence. Therefore, I am hoping her concerns are addressed, but as I suggested in my remarks, I look forward to the bill going to committee where that can be addressed and more gaps might be elucidated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-78, the government's family law bill.

As other hon. members have alluded to in this debate, issues relating to family law, by and large, fall within the parameters of provincial jurisdiction. However, section 91, class 26 of the Constitution Act provides that it is within the jurisdiction of Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage and divorce.

In order to discuss Bill C-78 and what it seeks to do in terms of updating family law and divorce legislation in this country, it would be helpful at the outset to provide some context to how divorce law in this country has evolved. Indeed, the Divorce Act is a relatively new piece of legislation. It was passed in 1968, only 50 years ago.

Prior to the passage of the Divorce Act in 1968, this country had a patchwork of laws with respect to divorce. In some provinces, there were no divorce laws. As a result, it was necessary for couples to seek a private act of this Parliament in order to obtain a divorce. In other provinces, divorce was possible if it could be established that there had been some wrongdoing in the relationship.

Fast forward to 1968 when Parliament did pass legislation to provide uniform laws with respect to divorce. The Divorce Act of 1968 remained in place until it was updated in 1985, which is when Parliament made some very significant reforms to divorce and family law. Among the changes made in the 1985 Divorce Act was to provide a single ground upon which divorce could be obtained, namely, when there was a breakdown in the relationship. A breakdown in the relationship could be established based upon a number of different criteria, including one year of separation of the couple, or if it were established that there was adultery in the relationship or physical or mental abuse.

Since Parliament took steps in 1985 to update divorce law in Canada, over the last 30-plus years there has been very little change that has been made to update family law in this country. I have to say, I was born in 1984, one year before the Divorce Act was updated, so 1985 was a long, long time ago. Canadian society has evolved considerably in these last 33 or 34 years, including the structure of families and, unfortunately, the increased prevalence of divorces and marital breakdown. It is about time that Parliament moved forward to consider a comprehensive update to the Divorce Act.

In terms of the substance of this bill, let me say that we are open to looking at it carefully. On the surface, it would seem that this bill contains a number of positive measures. Among the key substantive aspects of this bill is the updating of terminology, encouraging families to settle disputes outside of the court, improving child support enforcement, and preserving the well-being of impacted children. All of these measures, on the surface, appear to be a step in the right direction.

In terms of the road to reform, it has been, as I mentioned, a long time coming. We saw a very thorough review undertaken by Justice Cromwell, back in 2013. One of the key recommendations from the Cromwell committee was the need to update terminology. Right now, under the Divorce Act, the terminology is quite adversarial, and that is not helpful as families deal with what is often the most difficult and challenging time couples can face when they are in a situation of marital breakdown.

Among the changes Bill C-78 would make would be to change the language to make it less adversarial, in accordance with the recommendations of the Cromwell committee. In what ways would the bill make the language in the Divorce Act less adversarial? For example, it would replace the term “custody” with the term “contact” and the term “access” with the term “parenting”.

Another aspect of the bill is that it would encourage parties to try to settle disputes through mediation or alternative dispute resolution. Far too much money is spent in our courts, and to the degree that families can settle their marital matters outside of court, outside of what is, by definition, an adversarial system, is a step in the right direction. Of course, as I alluded to, it would codify what is at this time a wide body of case law and have regard for the best interests of the child.

I spoke to an acquaintance of mine, who is a judge, and he told me that upon being appointed, one of the challenges was to get up to speed on different aspects of the law that he had never practised. For example, he had never practised criminal law before, so he certainly had to spend a lot of time getting up to speed. He said that aside from the academic side and getting up to speed on different aspects of the law, what he found to be the most difficult was trying to settle disputes when children were involved in terms of making orders respecting parenting, for example, because so often, he is making a decision that is going to profoundly affect the parents, the family and the child. I tell that anecdote to underline the gravity, the importance and the impact these changes would have.

As I say, we will study the bill at committee. I look forward to hearing from a wide array of witnesses and to exploring possible amendments.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the member acknowledged some of the very strong provisions in the legislation with respect to putting children first and enforcing child support payments. I want to ask him about the bill's impact on women. The context of my question is a couple of statistics.

We know that 96% of all people in what are called registered maintenance enforcement agreements involve payments of men to women. We also know that 60% of all of those registered in these maintenance enforcement agreements are in default, and the default is in excess of $1 billion. While this bill would impact children in a positive way, I want to hear the member's comments on how it would impact women, because Liberals very much feel that this is at the heart of a feminist approach by government and putting women, including middle-class women, first.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his question and also congratulate him on his appointment as parliamentary secretary. I had an opportunity to get to know the hon. parliamentary secretary over the last three years. I know that with his background as a lawyer, he will be well suited to his new role. I look forward to working with him closely on the justice committee.

The member raises a valid point about the issues around collection and in respect of women who often are disadvantaged in a divorce or marital breakdown. There is no question that it really has a significant financial impact. Oftentimes, people are losing half of what they have when there is a divorce.

All I can say is that we will look very carefully at the bill and work with the government and the parliamentary secretary in a constructive manner to hopefully craft the best possible legislation for women, families and children in Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit awkward for me to stand to speak to a divorce bill, having enjoyed almost 40 years of a very happy marriage. Although we have had a very happy marriage, we also have a number of friends who have gone through uncomfortable divorces.

One thing that comes up, and has been mentioned as part of this bill, is child support payments. I would like to ask my colleague this. If this bill gets to committee, will he ensure that there are phrases and language in the bill to address some of the ways individuals are avoiding payments, such as by working for cash and not paying income tax so that none of it is reported to Revenue Canada? If it is under the table, it cannot be seen by the courts. I would like to ensure that he can look at wording to address that issue in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments of my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap. I certainly agree with him on the importance of the matter he has raised. However, seeing that my time is nearly expiring, on a slightly more partisan note, I want to say this. It is a bit ironic that paramount in Bill C-78 are the best interests of the child, among other things, and rightfully so. What a contrast to Bill C-75, which is currently before the justice committee, which would water down sentences for a whole host of serious offences that directly impact children, including kidnapping a minor and forced marriage under the age of 16, and I could go on. The government is downgrading those offences that directly impact children from serious indictable offences to hybrid offences that could be punishable with a mere fine. Therefore, while it is encouraging that we are focused on the best interests of the child in this bill, I only wish the government would have the best interests of the child in all bills, including Bill C-75.

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, both in his speech and in his most recent responses to the question. However, what I would say is that we see strong statements in Bill C-78 with respect to defining family violence for the first time in a much more expansive way. It would give judges tools to use in interpreting family violence. I find a strong thematic consistency in Bill C-75, which he just mentioned, with respect to intimate partner violence. I would also say that, thematically, what both bills are trying to do is reduce reliance upon lawyers like me, and many in this House, who are involved in part of the overly litigious nature of the family law system. By encouraging people and giving them the tools to remove themselves from the court system, we would be reducing some of the backlog that characterizes that system, which is a goal that I think the member opposite and those on this side of the House share. I would put to him that those two are in fact compatible goals and that the legislation is moving in the same direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-78 appears to contain a number of measures to, among other things, combat family violence, and we welcome improvements to address the very serious and systemic issue of family violence. We have always stood up for the safety and well-being of children and families as Conservatives. Again, I reiterate that I, along with all my colleagues, intend to work closely with the government to achieve some of those objectives, which are very important.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the government has also allotted, under this bill, approximately $77.2 million to be utilized in a program to help in situations like this. Often I get people calling my office, either one spouse or the other, who are in financial hardship, especially over these last three years of things happening in Alberta, and they do not have the funds to sit down and negotiate with a lawyer because of the cost.

I wonder if my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton could comment again on this alternate resolution process that might be started as a result of this program and whether it would be of benefit to couples and save them a lot of money. We used to have an old saying in Alberta that if people end up going through divorce, they take their estate and half goes to the legal firms, and they might end up with a quarter each if they end up going through a dispute.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yellowhead is absolutely right that the costs involved in litigating family disputes are extremely high. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars, often to do very little. By the time the matter is resolved, and it really is never resolved, because these things are ongoing when we are talking about children, who often are at the centre of these disputes, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended on lawyers. At the end of the day, no one benefits from that. Parents do not benefit, nor do children.

Of course, the obvious consequence when people are spending tens of thousands if not, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars is that a huge amount of resources that could otherwise go to support the children of the family are being expended on litigation. Lawyers, I guess, to some degree, benefit, although I do not think any lawyer takes comfort in seeing families in these disputes expending all kinds of money to no end.

As I mentioned, it is encouraging that this bill focuses on alternative dispute resolution. The faster these matters can be resolved outside of court, at as little cost as possible, stands to benefit everyone in the process. It is an encouraging sign.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

Since there are no more questions and comments. I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House that in the course of acknowledging the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, force of habit and information that I had in front of me conspired to the fact that I did not realize that he was actually accorded 20 minutes for his remarks and a following 10 minutes for questions and comments. Accordingly, I gave him the two-minute mark at eight minutes into his remarks. I did sense that he had probably gotten on the record all the things he wanted to say. Nonetheless, I did cut him off midway through the time that was originally allocated to him. Therefore, I will open it up. If there are any more questions and comments, we can continue for a few minutes. We will take one more question.

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take my colleague back to his concerns about the government's efforts to protect the child.

In a former committee, we had testimony for youth unemployment. It was actually called youth employment. In the testimony of one group, it said that it had found that those who finished grade 12, got married, stayed married, did not do drugs and alcohol had a greater chance. In fact, they probably would not experience poverty. Much of the talk today surrounds those issues and problems in our divorce courts today.

I am curious if the member might take us in another direction. What could governments do to help strengthen the institution of marriage? I know this is not part of the bill, but on the member's comments about the government's lack of enforcing proper punishment on crimes perpetrated against children, are there things the government could do to help propagate and build up marriages? We certainly know that would certainly help our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill C-78, one of the criticisms that has been raised is that the bill would not provide for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. It is true that shared parenting is not always in the best interest of the child in every situation. However, I think most hon. members would agree that to the degree that it is possible for both parents to be involved in the raising of the child, in many circumstances, in the normal course of things, it would be in the best interest of the child, hence the basis for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting.

That is one of the many issues that we will look at carefully when we study the bill in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the history lesson from my colleague across the way with respect to divorce acts and how they came into being. I appreciate the fact that he was born in 1984. The member talked about the patchwork in Canada at that time. To me, it emphasizes the importance of recognizing that, yes, it is good that we have this legislation and that it will move forward to committee. However, it is also important to recognize that other jurisdictions also have an important role to play in the area of divorce, maintenance and so forth.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of having other stakeholders come to the plate as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is absolutely right. When we are talking about family law, we are talking about shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. Subsection 91.26 of the Constitution Act provides that it is within Parliament's jurisdiction to legislate with respect to marriage and divorce. Everything outside of that falls within the provinces. Issues around separation, separation agreements, etc. would fall within provincial jurisdiction.

Beyond the issue of jurisdiction, he is also right that it is not just a matter between parents and children who are involved in these disputes. There are a number of stakeholders, whether they be social workers, or law enforcement, and I could go on. It is very important to get their perspective on the bill.

I trust we will be hearing from a cross section of stakeholders who can provide their feedback and perhaps critique or identify some shortcomings or gaps within the bill which could be closed. I trust we will do that at the justice committee.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in one of his answers just a few minutes ago, the member mentioned Bill C-75. I am still concerned about Bill C-75. It would reduce sentences for very serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of criminal organizations, forced marriages, marriages under the age of 16 and concealing the body of a child. These policies are very alarming to me. Would he like to comment on them?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that question is out of order. We are debating Bill C-78. The matter of Bill C-75 was raised in a response made by my friend opposite in the context of the back-and-forth interplay on the dialogue. However, this question is only referencing Bill C-75, not Bill C-78.

I would ask for a ruling as to whether that question is in order when we are discussing at second reading Bill C-78.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his comment on this. This does occasionally happen when other references are made in the context of responses given in the House. It therefore sometimes opens the door to questions perhaps indirectly related to the matter before the House. Frankly, I must admit I did not specifically hear the reference in the question that was made by the hon. member for Yellowhead.

I will remind hon. members that even when we are in questions and comments, they can certainly address aspects of the debate they have heard, either in questions or in comments in this sense. However, I would ask them to keep their comments and inquiries pertaining to the matter before the House.

I will go to the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his response on this and then we will resume debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a connection between Bill C-78 and Bill C-75 with respect to the hybridization of offences to the degree that we are talking about the best interests of the child in Bill C-78. Bill C-75 would be a step in exactly the wrong direction from that standpoint. when we talk about potentially reducing sentences from a maximum of 10 years to two years less a day.

In the case of Bill C-75, the reclassification of those offences would not only not put the best interests of the child first, it would not achieve the government's objective of trying to deal with the backlog in our courts. Indeed, 99.6% of criminal cases in Canada are before provincial courts. The reclassification of offences would simply download more cases onto our already overburdened and overstretched provincial courts.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78 and the significant contribution it would make to addressing family violence.

The Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has identified family violence as an important public health issue, recognizing that the effects of family violence go well beyond physical injury and can have long-lasting impacts on mental health.

In 2014, 13% of individuals who were separated or divorced and who had been in contact with their former partners within the last five years reported being victims of spousal violence. While we have no solid statistics on the number of family law cases where family violence is a factor, estimates from court file reviews and surveys of lawyers and judges range anywhere from 8% to 25%, yet, the Divorce Act currently makes no mention of family violence or how it is relevant to parenting matters. Bill C-78 would take concrete steps to address this gap.

There are marked differences in the severity and the violence that men and women experience. In 2014, women were twice as likely as men to report being sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a gun or knife. In contrast, men were three and a half times more likely to report being kicked, bitten or hit.

We also cannot forget that children can be directly and indirectly affected by family violence and that the exposure to family violence often comes with direct abuse against the child. In 2014, 70% of adults who reported having witnessed parental violence as children also reported being victims of childhood physical and/or sexual abuse. Children who witnessed that violence were also more than twice as likely to experience the most severe forms of physical abuse compared to those who had not witnessed violence.

Children can be negatively and deeply harmed emotionally when they are exposed to family violence, whether it is from seeing the violence take place or bruises on a parent. Emotional and behavioural problems and even post-traumatic stress disorder can be a serious effect.

Despite all we know about family violence, myths about it remain. There are two myths that I would like to highlight today.

The first myth about family violence, particularly intimate partner violence, is that if a survivor has not reported to the police, then the violence did not happen or it was not serious. Statistics Canada tells us that only 19% of survivors report violence to police. Some do not report violence to police out of fear of not being believed and/or that calling the police may escalate the violence. Certain vulnerable communities also have mistrust for the police.

Despite these fears, survivors may choose to start family law proceedings in order to protect their children, whether they reported violence to the police or not. In some cases, starting a family law proceeding can increase the risk of violence. Leading family violence researcher Linda Neilson notes, “Family law cases involving domestic violence are not necessarily less serious or less dangerous than criminal cases. Indeed some are more dangerous.”

The other myth is that intimate partner violence ends after separation. In fact, separation can actually increase the risk of family violence, and it often persists long after the relationship has ended.

In 2014, 41% of those who experienced family violence by an ex-spouse reported that it occurred after the break-up. In just under half of those cases, about 48%, the violence took place at least six months after the separation. Very worrying is the fact that in almost half of those cases where violence occurred after the separation, it increased in severity.

Bill C-78 includes a number of measures to strengthen the family justice system's response to the unfortunate case of family violence.

First, we must realize that when a family is in crisis, it is possible that various aspects of the justice system may be involved, such as the criminal, civil protection or child protection proceedings, in addition to divorce proceedings. Unfortunately, however, the divorce courts are often not aware of other proceedings or orders that may have been made. This lack of information about other proceedings can lead to conflicting orders, such as where a criminal order prohibits contact between a parent and other family members, but a family order provides that same parent with access to a child.

This is why Bill C-78 would amend the Divorce Act so that courts would have evidence of other pending proceedings or orders in effect. This would help improve the administration of justice.

Where parenting is specifically at issue, courts are required to consider only the best interests of the child. New criteria listed in Bill C-78 would require consolidation of any civil or criminal proceedings or order relevant to the well-being of a child, even if no longer in effect. This is to help ensure that the court has all relevant information when deciding on the best interests of the child. It is critical that family violence be taken into account when deciding on parenting arrangements for children.

As we learn more about family violence, in particular intimate partner violence, we have come to understand that not all family violence is the same. Depending on the nature of the violence, it can have very different implications on the parenting of the child and the ability of former spouses to co-parent successfully.

At least four different types of violence have been identified, but given my short time today I will only mention two. The first is separation-instigated violence. It generally involves a small number of incidents around the separation, although these can range from very minor to more serious. While no violence is ever acceptable, this type of violence may, over the long term, be less likely to negatively affect the ability of the parents to work together or care for the child.

In contrast, the second type is coercive and controlling family violence. As the name suggests, this violence involves a pattern of control based on intimidation, emotional abuse and physical violence. Coercive and controlling violence is most often perpetrated by men against women. It generally occurs over a prolonged period, has the highest risk of lethality and is most associated with compromised parenting skills. The perpetrator often attempts to control his former partner long after separation. As a result, in these situations, joint decision-making can be challenging and contact between the parents during the exchange of the child can create opportunities for further abuse.

To address the range of family violence, Bill C-78 includes an evidence-based definition of family violence. It identifies that family violence can include a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. It provides examples of specific behaviours that constitute family violence, such as physical and sexual abuse and psychological violence and harassment, including stalking.

Finally, Bill C-78 specifically highlights family violence as relevant to the best interests of the child when making parenting arrangements. The proposed amendments will direct consideration of any impact of the family violence, but in particular how it might affect the ability of the parents to co-operate with one another, or how it might affect the ability of an abusive parent to care for the child. The bill also provides a list of specific criteria for the court to consider that will determine the severity of the violence, the impact that it has had or may have, and whether and how this should inform the parenting arrangement.

These criteria would help put focus on the particular dynamics of family violence in each individual case. Importantly, both the definition of family violence and the best interests criteria recognize that even when children are not directly subjected to violence, they can be harmed by it. Through Bill C-78, we are taking concrete action to promote children's best interests in situations where they are most vulnerable.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be able to clarify something under clause 54, the increased term of services binding by Her Majesty for five years to 12 years. Could he explain to me why it was raised?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not privy to that. I will look into that and will get back to the member opposite in due course.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey Centre for the work he is doing on behalf of his constituents. As a lawyer, I also take a lot of solace in the insight he has provided in terms of what the bill would do to address the litigious area that represents family law.

He focused a lot of his comments on family violence. I put to him that there are specific provisions in the bill that would require under the Divorce Act that there must be evidence before the courts about any criminal proceedings or orders against any person seeking a parenting order or a contact order. That is intended to avoid inconsistent orders where, for example, a criminal court might have said no contact to a certain parent, but the family court might be making a different order not knowing about the criminal order.

Could the member please elaborate on that kind of change and what it means for addressing the very important family violence objectives we are trying to achieve in reducing family violence in Canada?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to help a lot. Litigation can be long and cumbersome. It can also involve different departments. There can be child protection arrangements that have certain contact orders. There can be criminal proceedings. Sometimes other family members are also involved where others have no-contact orders or stay-away orders or restrictive contact orders. Previously, the two did not marry in court and the family judge would not necessarily know of the other arrangements. With this legislation, the judge would have access to those.

They would not have to make special applications to have them heard or brought into court. A judge would have all the data available, all the orders available, regardless of the level of court or the jurisdiction of the court or the type of proceeding that it was made in. That facilitates the best interests of the child, the safety and security of the parent, and gives clarity so that judges do not make contradictory orders not knowing other aspects of the arrangement.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the child-focused approach of this legislation. It is really important that we acknowledge that during these difficult times children need to be at the centre of the conversation.

This legislation also includes a lot of discussion around reducing child poverty but no resources have been set aside for this. Could the member tell me a bit about how the government will provide the means to get to that ambition?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would reduce poverty by simplifying and streamlining processes related to family support. It would allow for the release of CRA information to help enforce family support, i.e., income information from T1s, which otherwise would have to be voluntary or a court order would be made for it.

The bill would allow for the implementation of the 2007 Hague child support convention, which provides a low-cost and efficient way for people to get family services across international borders.

The combination of those four would have a great impact on making the process more efficient and more cost-preventive for families.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will first thank the hon. member for Surrey Centre for focusing on the question of violence and how this bill would allow us to address that. I, on the other hand, will be taking a more general overview of this legislation, which I am incredibly proud of.

As we know, the first substantial update to Canadian family law in 20 years is occurring. Bill C-78 represents a landmark in strengthening and enshrining the best interests of the child and would make federal family law more responsive to the modern-day needs of Canadian families. Family law, as has been noted by all of the speakers today, is both complex and broad and as a result, there are significant gaps and inefficiencies, which existing laws have not adequately addressed. Bill C-78 seeks to remedy these gaps through a wide-ranging series of common-sense adjustments.

Today I will focus on six key elements of Bill C-78: strengthening the best interests of the child provisions, enshrining primary consideration into family law, important changes to terminology, modernizing the Divorce Act, creating contact orders and setting new relocation guidelines.

Allow me to start with the best interests of the child test. The best interests of the child test has been a fundamental part of family law in Canada and in many other countries for decades. Under the Divorce Act, courts must consider only a child's best interests when making decisions about who may care for or make decisions about a child. The Divorce Act, however, gives surprisingly little guidance regarding this test.

In 1998, the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access called for the Divorce Act to include a list of criteria considered to be in the best interests of the child. Many others have added to this call, including academics, child advocates and the Canadian Bar Association. With Bill C-78, our government is answering their calls and taking important steps to address existing gaps and inefficiencies in the family law system.

The proposed criteria for the best interests of the child would emphasize critical elements of a child's life. They include a child's stage of development, ties to loved ones, cultural identity, and personal views and preferences. However, the list is not closed or exhaustive. If a particular factor in a child's life is especially relevant—for example, if the child has medical needs or participates in competitive sporting events—courts could consider these factors where appropriate and relevant.

Adding definitional certainty to the best interests of the child test in the Divorce Act promotes children's interests. It also promotes another one of the bill's key goals: improving access to justice. In some Canadian jurisdictions, over three-quarters of family law litigants are self-represented. Also, a list of best interests of the child criteria in the Divorce Act would help parents better understand their legal responsibilities. It would assist them to better frame their negotiations on arrangements for their children and more often come to agreements outside the court system. Alternatively, if parents cannot agree on their own, this clarity would help self-represented litigants to better frame their arguments in legal proceedings.

Allow me now to move to the second point, which is primary consideration. The reference to “primary consideration” is crucial to the values embodied in Bill C-78. Emphasizing primary consideration would ensure that courts prioritize a child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. Courts would weigh all other criteria in regard to this primary consideration. Doing so would ensure that the best interests of the child remain paramount in protecting families from the negative outcomes often related to separation and divorce.

I will move to the third point, updates to terminology. Bill C-78 would make important and, frankly, long-overdue changes in family law terminology. “Custody” and “access” are now archaic legal terms.

The term “custody” traces its origins to property law, which for hundreds of years has essentially treated children as possessions. The term “access”, meanwhile, refers to a right to use or pass over property. This is not how we should describe responsibilities for children in 2018. In addition, litigation over “custody” and “access” has created additional labels whereby custodial parents are viewed as winners of parenting disputes and access parents the losers. Bill C-78 would move away from such confrontational language, as Alberta, B.C. and several international jurisdictions have done.

Going to the issue of modernizing the Divorce Act, Bill C-78 would replace orders for custody and access in the Divorce Act with parenting orders. A parenting order addresses parenting time and decision-making responsibility for each parent. Specifically, “parenting time” refers to the time a child spends in a parent's care. This includes all time when a parent is responsible for a child, even when the child is at school. Each parent would have as much parenting time as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

On the other hand, “decision-making responsibility” refers to making important decisions on issues such as health, education, language, religion and significant extracurricular activities. BillC-78 would allow the courts to allocate this responsibility to one or both parents, or, alternatively, to divide elements between the parents.

Furthering the goal of improving access to justice, the bill includes a parenting plan provision, referring to agreements between parents that sets out a road map for the care of the child moving forward. The bill encourages courts to incorporate a parenting plan that is in the child's best interest. This provision recognizes that parents are generally best placed to make decisions about their child.

Moving to the fifth element, Bill C-78 also proposes a contact order, in keeping with the best practices already established by several provincial courts. Contact orders carve out time in a child's schedule with a person other than a parent, such as a grandparent. I would like to clarify that a contact order would not usually be necessary in order for grandparents and other loved ones to spend time with a child. It would only be necessary where, because of conflict, parents do not agree to let grandparents or other loved ones spend time with the child. In such cases, Bill C-78 would allow courts to make contact orders. These orders could help preserve a child's relationship with his or her loved ones, where appropriate. As with parenting orders, courts would make a contact order if it is in the best interest of the child.

Finally, the issue of relocation has challenged parents, lawyers, and courts for many years. Relocation involves moving a child after separation and divorce. It is one of the most litigated family law issues in existence. In a 2016 survey of lawyers and judges, for example, over 98% of respondents indicated that disputes are harder to settle when relocation is involved. Bill C-78 creates relocation guidelines to address this conflict. Parents would now be required to give notice if they want to relocate either themselves or their children. An assessment would be conducted using best interest criteria when considering such a request. These would include factors such as the reasons for relocation, the impacts of relocation on the child, and how reasonable the relocation request is.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Willowdale, who happens to be an old high school classmate, gave us a very comprehensive overview of Bill C-78. He touched on many different facets, so I would ask if he could zoom out a bit and provide us with his insight on how the bill fits in with some of the broader initiatives our government is pursuing. There are two I would ask him about.

We heard about how the bill impacts on child poverty. How does that fit with some of the government's broader objectives of addressing child poverty in Canada? We heard about how the bill would address family violence in a more direct way. How does that work with Bill C-75, which is before the justice committee, which my colleague is a member of, and the provisions that are being put in place in that bill to deal with intimate partner violence in the context of things such as bail conditions? Perhaps he could elaborate on the broader impact of what we are doing as a government.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am much obliged to the parliamentary secretary for bringing to the fore two significant issues that are very much at the heart of this bill.

The first issue is on reducing poverty. As was noted, I think this is a huge step in the right direction. First of all, it should be noted that this particular bill simplifies and streamlines processes that relate to family support. Second, it will allow for the release of CRA information which can be critical in these types of disputes. Last, insofar as the issue of poverty is concerned, it is important that we are implementing the 2007 Hague child support convention.

The second issue the parliamentary secretary has raised is that of family violence. I think we can all agree that we should be very much concerned about the high incidence of violence. This bill does an incredible job of addressing this priority.

Looking at the bill, one of the things to note is that there is a definition for family violence in the Divorce Act, which for the first time would include any conduct that is violent, threatening, a pattern of coercive behaviour or behaviour which causes a family member to fear for his or her safety. In addition, it requires courts to consider family violence in determining the best interests of the children. I would like to highlight the fact that improving safeguards to account for family violence is very much a part of this bill.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody here in this House who can deny that Bill C-78 is well overdue and is needed.

I listened in depth to the conversation about separation, families relocating, the court sitting down and evaluating a mechanism to look at both sides, and that body deciding if it is appropriate for the parties to move from one location to another.

I was reading through the bill and I am wondering if there is a mechanism of repeal if the court were to say that one party could not move. Is there an appeal mechanism built into this bill that would allow people to appeal that decision?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member kindly noted, this is a huge step because this is 20 years overdue. It is great to see that the members are focused on this significant priority.

Insofar as relocation provisions are concerned, I think the emphasis here is to make sure that when a court is considering such a significant issue that it actually consider the best interests of the child. The court considers it and hears from both parties. This is not an issue that is brushed aside. It is something that is at the centre of it. That is precisely why this bill provides guidelines for judges to consider such a significant issue.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Banff—Airdrie.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78. I do not come at this from a legal perspective—I am not a lawyer—and I do not come at it from the perspective of actually having experienced this directly. I was raised in a home with six children, a very happy, very busy home, and then when my parents were much older in life and I was a grown woman myself, they faced a difficult time when they came very close to divorcing. I have to say that even then, as an adult and with my own children, it was extremely unnerving and disturbing to me, which just raises the realization of how important it is that we have systems in place to assist children. I cannot imagine what it would have been like to actually be dealing with those circumstances as a young child in my home. Fortunately, things worked out well.

That being said, in regard to Bill C-78, I appreciate the four key objectives that are listed: to promote the best interests of the child; to address family violence; to help reduce child poverty; and to streamline various definitions and processes but, more important, to require legal professionals to encourage clients to use alternative ways to resolve disputes.

The Conservative Party has always had this perspective that we believe that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody and/or shared parenting, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. In every case where it is possible, the influence of both parents, and grandparents as well and siblings, is so key to making sure that the family unit is able to survive as best as it can through these difficult circumstances. We understand very well how traumatic divorces are on families.

We are overall pleased with the intentions of Bill C-78, especially the promotion of child welfare and the measures to combat family violence. We have always stood up for and believed in the safety and well-being of children and of families.

However, where this goes off the tracks for me is in the fact that the counterintuitive implementation of Bill C-75 is here as well. I know that Canadians' heads are spinning quite often when trying to determine, if this is a whole-of-government approach to things, how it is on the one hand we can be saying we are so concerned about children and then on the other hand be bringing in Bill C-75, which would reduce sentences for very serious crimes, including abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of a criminal organization, forced marriages, marriage under the age of 16, and concealing the body of a child. These are very serious crimes and impact children, yet the government seems prepared to bring in something that seems so contrary to me.

I want to quote something from the Lawyer's Daily, written by David Frenkel:

The impetus in the fights between parents does not begin when spouses read the terms “custody” and “access” in the Divorce Act. Therefore, unless there are additional provisions added to the proposed amendments, the family conflicts will likely continue even with the replacement of the terms “custody and access” with “parenting” as introduced by Bill C-78.

I appreciate what is being attempted there with the terminology being changed, but at the same time that is a good point, that simply changing the terminology will not in the end make a huge difference. Mr. Frenkel continues:

[A] “parenting order” will replace the traditionally named “custody and access” order.

That needs to be done, but actually it has already been taking place. He says:

The significant change in wording likely arose to answer the concerns from the courts over the years that awarding one parent the status of “custody” and the other “access” created unnecessary winners and losers.... [A]s early as 1975 Justice Robert Furlong...wrote as follows: “The time is long past when the Courts disposed of the custody of a child as a reward to a well-behaved parent or as a punishment to one who misbehaved. The custody of their children is not a prize to be contended for by parents as an award for their good behaviour.”

He continues:

In 1986, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a decision to refrain from using the words “custody” and “access” because the trial judge thought “those are destructive to a child”.

He also states that perhaps the more important focus of this discussion should be the issue of “control”, as that, unfortunately, quite often is what the fights are about in these circumstances.

He continues:

Litigants, in time, will become sophisticated in understanding the effect of a future “parenting order” and couples that previously fought incessantly over the term custody will now fight over who will have “decision-making responsibility.”

In other words, although that is part of it, how can we come to a point where the extreme difficulties in making these decisions are not fought out in such a confrontational way?

He goes on to say:

Therapy and assessment orders for litigants will not solve all the problems in custody battles, but they may expose the underlying factors contributing to unreasonable positions taken by them. Therefore, in addition to a change in language to the Divorce Act, it may be necessary for a court to have the jurisdiction to order trained professionals to determine and opine whether a parent's desire for custody or a ”parenting” order is based on healthy motives or not. And if such information cannot be readily available when needed, then simply repealing the terms “custody” and “access” may not achieve the intended consequences we all have been waiting for with Bill C-78's introduction.

In other words, efforts need to be made to ensure that the individuals who are involved in these circumstances have the necessary tools at their disposal to assist them in the process more effectively. There is no question that this is probably one of the most trying and difficult circumstances to be in for a couple who at one point married because of their desire to see their life as a long-term commitment and to have children. Yes, sometimes there are very violent circumstances. Other times there is an inability to communicate. However, there needs to be a process in place to assist them.

Further to that, I read an article by Robert Harvie, a family lawyer, mediator and arbitrator with Huckvale LLP, an advisory board member for the national self-represented litigants project, and a past Law Society of Alberta bencher. Harvie comes at this from a very well-rounded perspective. He states:

The unveiling of Bill C-78 received almost uniform praise from the media and legal profession as the “first major amendment of the Divorce Act in 20 years.”

Indeed, it is.

He continues:

My opinion is less effusive. Perhaps it's the cynicism of a lawyer who has been working in family law for 32 years. Having sat as a bencher with the Law Society of Alberta, and in fact, chaired their Access to Justice Committee for two years, I have seen much promise and very little delivery in improving access to justice. As a result, I opened up the 190 pages of Bill C-78 with less optimism than many of my colleagues.

He says it is “similar to the excitement over the maiden voyage of the Titanic”, which piqued my interest. With respect to the Titanic, he talked about all of its amazing additions to improve its amenities and necessities, such as squash racquets courts, baths, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, electric passenger lifts, all these of different services, including more deck chairs, to make the trip better. However, the reality was that they did not have what they truly needed.

He indicates that, at its core, Bill C-78 is devoid of change to the overall resolution process, that lawyers charge too much money, that law societies appear focused on reducing complaints rather than caring for them, that litigation is antiquated and cumbersome, and that we need to fund and support more alternative forms of resolution.

I have a good friend who settled many divorce and custody cases for his law firm out of court and without expensive litigation. However, he lost his job. Why? It was because he did not have enough billables and was not productive enough for the firm. In other words, he did not make enough money for the firm. He was encouraged to work for legal aid, because that was where he belonged.

Our legal system needs to change so that firms invest in litigating these cases through mediation and arbitration. Yes, we can tell people that they should go and do this, that they should make this choice, but they usually first find themselves at a law firm. I would like to see this concern addressed within the legal profession in Canada, where we make this a priority and prepare our lawyers, who are clearly willing to take on this type of roll to serve Canada, and especially to serve children.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I confess I find the member's comments quite puzzling. To draw an analogy between this legislation and the Titanic is preposterous, because we had widespread consultations and have since received vociferous support from coast to coast to coast for this legislation. The Conservative government in Alberta is the very government that initiated the concept of changing the terminology from “custody and access” to “contact and parenting” orders.

The member raised Bill C-75 and some of the provisions in it that she finds logically inconsistent with what we are doing in Bill C-78. It is quite the contrary. In Bill C-75, we are doing exactly the same as we are doing in Bill C-78 in two important respects. One, intimate partner violence is at the heart of what we are doing in Bill C-75. We are addressing it and would make it a prerequisite to deal with that as a condition on bail. What we are doing here is making family violence something that a judge would have to consider, including criminal orders or proceedings, in determining the best interests of the child.

The other conceptual component that is exactly the same between the two pieces of legislation is that in each instance we are trying to reduce the very backlog in our court system that my friend opposite laments, our over-reliance on the court system, the over-litigiousness of Canadian society. We would be reducing that with Bill C-75, and exactly what we would be doing here with this provision. Two cases in point are the ADR mechanisms for calculating support.

Could I have the member opposite's comments on how improving ADR mechanisms addresses the very problem she has identified?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly hit a nerve. I have indicated already that there are many circumstances where the legal system needs to do what it needs to do to deal with very violent circumstances within families. That is important. I am not denying it.

It was not I who compared the legislation to the Titanic, but Robert Harvie, a family lawyer, mediator and arbitrator. He is also the advisory board member for the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, and past law society of Alberta bencher. This is a man who knows his stuff. He indicated:

While we uniformly acknowledge how damaging and inappropriate litigation is to resolve family disputes, at the same time, at the same time, funding and support for alternate forms of resolution is so scant as to be almost nonexistent, while the funding for the litigation machine only grows.

I personally know of scenarios where couples find themselves in an overwhelmingly difficult circumstance, where both individuals realize they are facing divorce and know that they have to get through that process and are very concerned for their children. I am talking about scenarios where we could do a great deal more to help couples deal with the circumstances they are facing through other methods than having to go through the legal system, where lawyers charge huge amounts of money and litigation is the natural path for them to take.

This is unlike what my friend did, an amazing lawyer who solved most of the issues that came to his desk through arbitration and mediation without going to court and without expensive litigation. That is the point I am trying to make. That is not a priority of the legal system when people within it are told to go work at legal aid, rather than the government investing within Canada in these types of services in our legal system to see healthy families continue to thrive.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-78, I would like to start with a personal story, one that will probably surprise many in the House and even many back home in my community.

I spent a number of years as a very young man as a single father. I raised by son, Quinn, who is now 22 years old. I was working two jobs while going to school full time and trying to raise him. It was a difficult time for me financially for sure, but we got through and did well. My son often tells me that some of the best memories of his life were from that time, even though I could not afford to put a lot on the table. It was Kraft Dinners, hot dogs and Hamburger Helper at best. We did without a lot of things. We lived in basement suite apartments for a few years while I went to school. However, I was able to raise him, and I think I raised him into a fine young man, one I am very proud of.

At that time, I did have some experience with family law, albeit not related specifically to the Divorce Act, which now speaks to some of the concerns this proposed legislation tries address today. It is for that reason, and from some stories I have heard from others whom I have spoken to during and since that time and during my time as a member of Parliament, that I do find the objectives and goals of the proposed legislation laudable.

Certainly, in some of the things it addresses, the bill tries to ensure that the best interests of the child are always promoted. It reinforces and emphasizes the importance of keeping a child's best interests as the absolute top priority in family law when making decisions about parenting in these cases. That is a critical principle. I also think it is important that more be done to require legal professionals to encourage clients to use alternative ways of resolving disputes, which is always something we should seek to achieve. The proposed legislation certainly has those things among its objectives. Although I do not often have occasion to do this, I do laud the government for its efforts in trying to achieve those goals.

However, I am still not certain that the proposed legislation would achieve the goals it sets out. There are some questions that I and others on this side of the House have that need to be addressed. Therefore, I want the bill to go to committee so we have an opportunity to address those concerns, issues and questions. I am hopeful they can be addressed.

I will point to a few articles about the bill. My colleague who spoke before read from one of them, but there are a few others I have noted that somewhat pan the bill. I will read very brief passages from them.

First is an article entitled “How the new Bill C-78 affects custody and access rulings”. It says that “On its face, this bill is an expression by the federal government that progress was needed in the way that separated families were treated under the law”. I would certainly agree with that. It goes on to say that “However, much of what is being proposed has been already implemented in out-of-court settlements, as well as in decisions made by judges.”

The second article is entitled “What’s in a name? Divorce Act amendment not enough to reduce parental conflict”. I will not read any passages from it, because I think the title speaks for itself.

The third is the article my colleague read from, but I want to read from some different parts of it. It is entitled “Bill C-78 amendments to the Divorce Act: ‘Rearranging the deck chairs’”.

I would like to read a little from that article. First, the author, someone who has vast experience in family law in my province of Alberta, says:

I would go further and suggest most of Bill C-78 is an expression of “good intention” without sufficient substance to accomplish real change.

That is quite a typical statement that could be made about many of the initiatives of the government. Often it tends to focus on symbolism, talking points and these kinds of things, rather than on really accomplishing anything that would achieve the kinds of objectives it often speaks about. I am not going to say that this is necessarily the case. The author of this article is certainly positing that, though.

The author goes on to say:

Also noted is that Bill C-78 is 190 pages long. The current Divorce Act is only 41 pages long. As self-represented litigants now comprise 80 per cent of the parties before many courts, one might reasonably ask how they will navigate through legislation that is over four times longer than the previous version—which was already difficult for a nonlawyer to digest.

So. My take?

Bill C-78 is a huge new ship, with some very nice looking aesthetic additions—but, with too few lifeboats.

And the iceberg is still coming.

Those are comments of the author of that article.

Obviously there may be some things we need to look at that may need to be addressed with this piece of legislation. However, as I have already stated, I believe that the objectives that are trying to be achieved here are laudable. I certainly hope that this bill will actually be found to address those or can be amended or changed in ways that would make sure that it would do just that. It is something that does need to be done. It is important.

I certainly discovered, during my time both as a member of Parliament and, as I mentioned, in my experience with family law, with my son, which ultimately worked out positively, that there were far too many parents, mainly fathers, and grandparents whose children and grandchildren were being deprived of time with them. That needs to be fixed.

That is part of the reason I am so proud to be part of the Conservative Party of Canada, which has the following policy regarding shared parenting. I will read the policy into the record:

The Conservative Party believes that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody and/or shared parenting, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interest of the child.

That is a very important principle and one that I fully support and believe in. It is one we should be seeking to achieve here.

I will just tell a brief personal story. I was a child of divorce as well. My parents divorced when I was about 12 years old. I have two brothers. After my parents divorced, I spent some time living with each of my parents, and actually both of my brothers did the same, at different times.

My parents, as in most divorces, I suppose, certainly did not get along very well. To this day, I would say that they probably do not get along very well. The key point, however, is that they were able to put aside those differences when it came to their children and tried to do what was right to make sure that their children were able to maintain a strong, positive relationship with both parents. Even though, at times, my brothers and I did not live in the same house, and, in fact, lived in cities that were an hour apart, they made sure that we had the opportunity to continue to have a very strong relationship as siblings. I would say today that I have maintained that with my brothers and with both my parents. That was important, but it is not a common enough story.

That is why these changes are so important and why it is important that this bill is done in the right way and is not just about symbolism, that it is actually going to accomplish the objectives.

I certainly hope that after examination in committee, and after any amendments that might be required, it will be possible, through this piece of legislation, for more children and more families to achieve that goal of ensuring that the relationship remains with both parents and with all the children of the relationship.

If that is, in fact, the case following the completion of that examination, I would certainly be happy to support this piece of legislation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member's candour and his honesty with the chamber in terms of sharing his own personal background and experience. I also applaud him for having raised a very fine son in what were likely difficult circumstances when he was younger.

With all due respect, I find that there is a bit of inconsistency in his remarks. He commented that this is a symbolic piece of legislation with not enough policy substance to it, but at the same time, he also said that it is an overly dense piece of legislation that is four times longer than the current act. The member cannot have it both ways. It is either one or the other. It is either too dense because it is too policy rich, or it is not dense enough and is only symbolic. The bill is dense in terms of policies, and I would point out a few, because they highlight exactly what he is driving at.

There are measures in this legislation that would address keeping people out of court in terms of calculating income support and also recalculating income support. There are measures in the bill that would specifically deal with information sharing between different government departments, particularly the CRA, that would allow people to calculate benefits better, more quickly and with more open disclosure. There are substantive aspects of the bill that would define family violence and force judges to take that into consideration when they are making determinations.

I would put it to the member opposite: Are those not the very type of substantive policy changes that he and many parliamentarians and many Canadians would like to see to advance the issue of family law and address the best interests of the child as the bottom line?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the statement made by the member that something cannot be lengthy and wordy yet not have a great deal of substance. That would be a typical comment a person in the legal profession would make. Something can be wordy and complicated without accomplishing significant objectives. I am not saying that this is the case in this situation. I was simply reiterating the comments of a number of individuals who were commenting on this piece of legislation.

I will admit that this is a lengthy piece of legislation. I have not had the chance to fully review it myself at this point. I have looked at it briefly. I have read summaries and commentary on it. I hope to have a chance to review it, but as members know, we all have different responsibilities in the House. One of the pieces of legislation the government brought forward around the same time was one that, in my critic role, I was dealing with quite substantially. I have therefore not had the chance to review this lengthy piece of legislation in great detail.

I am hopeful that through the process in committee, some of the concerns I have read and that others have shared will be addressed and that it finds either that the bill will accomplish some of the things it claims to want to achieve or that it can be amended in such a way that it will achieve those things. They are important goals, and I hope that the government is as sincere as I am about wanting to see that happen.

If it is found that the legislation would fail to accomplish what it seeks to achieve, I hope the government will be open to the necessary amendments and that it will try to make sure that this goes beyond the idea of symbolism and beyond superficially addressing something to concretely achieve the objectives it is setting out to achieve.

That is my hope, and I hope that is the hope of all members of Parliament in this place. I hope it can be done.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House share a common interest in protecting children, particularly children who are exposed to domestic violence, children born into families, through no fault of their own, who experience things that can have a generational impact. Succeeding generations feel those effects.

We broadly support Bill C-78. If it is able to take into account the effects of domestic violence on children during divorce proceedings, if it can more clearly define the varying degrees of domestic violence to ascertain what the ruling should be in the end in custody and other decisions the court makes, would it not be a step forward in battling what I am sure we all agree is entirely one of the most difficult and reprehensible things that still exist far too much in our society?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say very clearly that domestic violence is one of the most hideous forms of violence we see in society. If a piece of legislation seeks to address that and tries to deal with that in a way that ensures the safety of all involved, particularly children, that is important. It is important to try to make sure that the opportunity is given for children to maintain a relationship with the parents, grandparents and others, but certainly, it needs to address the issue of domestic violence. I would agree that it is an important principle that needs to be considered in anything done here in this regard.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

I have been divorced for 27 years and am the proud single mother of two daughters who are now 30 and 29. I know how outdated the Divorce Act is. No changes have been made to it in many years.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-78, which seeks to modernize divorce laws. The Conservative Party is and always will be the party that wants to improve every aspect of our justice system and do what we can to put those who might suffer first, adults and children alike, in an effort to improve their situation.

Bill C-78, which seeks to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act—this one deals with child support—and to make consequential amendments to another act, is very important.

As a member from Quebec, I know that the number of cases of separation and divorce has continued to climb in my province over the past 40 years, and it is essential that our laws be appropriately reformed in order not to make it more difficult for parents, who already must deal with significant disputes that are usually very emotional.

The reforms included in Bill C-78 would replace the terminology related to custody and access with terminology related to parenting, establish a non-exhaustive list of criteria with respect to the best interests of the child, create duties for parties and legal advisers to encourage the use of family dispute resolution processes, introduce measures to assist the courts in addressing family violence, establish a framework for the relocation of a child, and simplify certain processes, including those related to family support obligations.

When looking to improve a bill, it is essential that we have objectives. In this case, we must first and foremost promote the best interests of the child. We must reinforce and focus on the crucial principle of maintaining the best interests of the child as the absolute priority of family law when it comes to parental decisions. Unfortunately, all too often children are used as pawns in separations, causing them to suffer even more, often scarring them for life.

This bill must also help address family violence by requiring the courts to consider parental violence, the seriousness and impact of the violence on the child, and future parenting arrangements. At present these situations are treated separately in cases of separation before the court, which means that the issues are dealt with separately instead of at the same time.

This bill must provide more tools to help restore child support and enforce child support agreements in order to the help reduce child poverty. Currently, when the paying parent does not pay, the parents must once again clog up the justice system and its related services. Parents must return to court to address the violation. In the end, the children do not benefit from the money and courtrooms are overloaded. That is wrong.

If we want this bill to be successful, we must make Canada's family justice system more accessible and efficient. We must simplify the various definitions and processes, offer more flexibility to provincial child support recalculation services, alleviate the courts' workloads by allowing provincial administrative child support services to carry out some tasks for which the courts are currently responsible, and require that legal professionals encourage their clients to use means other than the courts to resolve disputes.

The Conservative Party is working and will always work in the interests of victims and their families, and we believe that, in cases of divorce, the Divorce Act should allow for shared custody or shared parenting responsibilities unless it is clearly demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should maintain close, meaningful relationships with their children and grandchildren—unless it is shown that this is not in the bests interests of the child, of course.

All of this will have financial implications. To expand unified family courts, the government is planning to spend $77.2 million over four years beginning in 2019-20, plus another $20 million per year to create 39 new judicial positions in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Federal family laws have not been updated significantly in 20 years. According to the 2016 census, there were over 2 million children whose parents were separated or divorced, which is a huge number. Between 1991 and 2011, 5 million Canadians separated or divorced, which is also a huge number. Of those 5 million people, 38% had a child with their ex-spouse at the time they separated or divorced. Some 1.16 million children of separated or divorced parents lived in single-parent households, and 1.2 million children lived with a step-parent.

Single-parent families, especially those headed by women, which was my case for a very long time, are more likely to be poor than two-parent families. That is so true. Studies have shown that child support is a key factor in lifting families out of poverty following separation or divorce.

It is hard for single mothers or single fathers—let us not forget about them—to feed their children properly if they are earning $12, $13, $14, or $15 an hour and not getting support payments. We know that young children need a lot of protein. As they grow they eat a lot. Apparently boys eat more than girls do. I have daughters only so I cannot speak to that, but we do have to take that into consideration. We have to focus on single-parent families, but we must put the child first in a bill such as this. The child's well-being is essential. We see more and more people ending up poor following a separation or divorce.

In budget 2018, the Liberals announced that they would work on expanding the unified family court program. They need to keep that promise and avoid playing politics with such sad, heart-wrenching, and pivotal cases that have an impact on a child or children, whether we are talking about separation or divorce.

That is why I support the intention and objectives of the bill to protect the best interests of the child and fight against family violence.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix and I appreciate that she was so candid with the House about her own life and personal experience.

I would like to talk about three other figures that worry me a lot about poverty among women and children, an issue raised by the member opposite. In most cases, about 96% of the cases enrolled in a maintenance enforcement program, men are the ones who are paying child support.

A year ago, approximately 60% of the cases registered in a maintenance enforcement program were in arrears. We are talking about more than $1 billion. This is the problem this bill is trying to fix.

I would like to know what the member opposite has to say about these figures. How do we improve this situation to ensure that Canadian women and children no longer live in poverty?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

A lot of numbers have been thrown around. I agree that people who owe payments must make them, but incentives are needed. Personally, I think Bill C-78 is a pretty good bill. However, it does have two points that contradict one another, and I wonder whether my colleague is aware of this.

Bill C-78 is really about children. It puts them first. However, Bill C-75 flies in the face of Bill C-78.

That bill proposes reducing sentences in cases of very serious crimes, such as kidnapping a child under the age of 16 and concealing the body of a child.

When proposing a bill pertaining to divorce, it is important to remember that, in some cases, parents commit serious acts of violence. That is a fact, and it happens everywhere. There was Dr. Turcotte's case in Quebec, for example.

How can we have both Bill C-78, which puts children first, and Bill C-75, which reduces sentences for people who use violence against those same children?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague's question.

I have two beautiful boys myself, and it is true that boys probably eat more than girls. Perhaps we could work together to corroborate that information. However, all kidding aside, we are talking about an important issue here.

Although my two children were born into a common-law relationship, I am concerned about this issue.

If I understand correctly, this bill pertains to married couples. Does my colleague think that, when this bill is sent to committee, protections should be added for children born into common-law relationships? More and more children in Canada are being born to parents who are not married but who are in common-law relationships.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is a fact. My daughter had a baby while in a common-law relationship and not married.

The bill needs to properly reflect the reality of Canadian couples. More and more couples in Quebec are living in common-law relationships, but that is not the case in every province. Some couples in Quebec do get married, but that is far less common than in other provinces.

We need to protect those children. Often they are not as well protected. The purpose of Bill C-78 is to protect children.

In my opinion, if we want to protect children, we also need to protect children born to parents in common-law relationships. They are children, they are Canadians, and we need to protect them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for sharing her time with me today to speak to this very important topic. I will be taking a different perspective.

I have no legal training or background. I have been happily married for 29 years now to my beautiful wife, Liane. However, having worked in the emergency services as a firefighter in my previous life, I have certainly witnessed a high propensity of divorce situations within the emergency services, and there are a lot of reasons why that happens. However, I saw first-hand the effects of divorce on many of my colleagues and friends, not only in the fire services, but the police services and all emergency services as well.

Bill C-78 is a very timely bill in the sense that it would bring into line and modernize, in fact, codify a lot of case law that has gone on, the many divorce cases that have been dealt with over the course of the last several decades. Therefore, there is a lot of which to be supportive.

Let us look at divorce in our country and see the extent of it. The 2016 census shows that over two million children were living in separated or divorced families. Five million Canadians separated or divorced between 1991 and 2011. Of those, 38% had a child together at the time of their separation or divorce. This affects over one-third of the Canadian population, children of those who are part of a divorce situation. In addition, 1.16 million children of separated or divorced parents were living in a lone parent family. Another 1.02 million children were living in step families.

I will also be taking another perspective. I have had meetings with several of my constituents on the implications and impact of Bill C-78, and of course I am here to represent my constituents. Later on, because I received several letters, I will be reading one letter in particular into the record. The hope is that when the bill does go to committee, there will be reflection on what people across the country would like to see as changes to this legislation.

There is a lot to support in Bill C-78. It is rather robust legislation, 190 pages. When we contrast that to the Divorce Act, at 41 pages, there is a lot to consider and reflect on within the bill. There are some things to support and some things that need to be changed when we get to committee.

The reduction in delays of the justice system would save costs. Another thing I have witnessed over my years in the emergency services is the devastating impact divorce can have on families. There is a cost not just to fathers but to mothers as well, and that impacts the family.

What does Bill C-78 attempt to do? The bill was tabled on May 22. The proposed bill amends the Divorce Act to, among other things, replace terminology related to custody and access with terminology related to parenting. This is a simple modification, but it reflects modern times. It establishes non-exhaustive list criteria with respect to the best interest of the child. All of us in the House, and quite frankly across the country, are interested in the best interest of the child. It creates duties for parties and legal advisers to encourage the use of family dispute resolution processes. As I said before, the cost associated with divorce is debilitating for many. Some parents simply cannot recover from those costs.

There are things to like about the legislation. It would modernize the Divorce Act, but, more important, as we get it to committee, we will get to hear from stakeholders.

As I said earlier, I want to read into the record a letter that I received from Mr. Andrew Corbett, a constituent of mine. He is part of a Simcoe County support group called “Fathers Equal Parenting”. This is a letter that was subsequent to a meeting we had in my constituency office in Barrie—Innisfil and it provides a different perspective, a different context.

Today we are debating Bill C-78, which the government has proposed, but it is also important, I believe, and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, to find those contrasting views, those things that can help parents across the country. The letter states:

As one of your constituents I am writing to express my concerns about Child Custody legislation and the recent Bill C-78. Bill C-78 fails to give sufficient credence to the views of the vast majority of Canadians who support a Rebuttable Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting when it comes to Child Custody law.

Although there may be some plausible, positive measures in the new government initiative, Bill C-78, there are a number of serious deficits in this proposed reform of child custody legislation. Notwithstanding, I believe that there are tenable solutions to significantly improve Bill C-78.

Andrew further wrote:

Canadians overwhelmingly support Equal Shared Parenting. In recent polls, nearly 80% support Equal Shared Parenting, country-wide. Moreover, many countries have adopted shared parenting, or have endorsed shared parenting, and are proposing legislative changes. Furthermore, social science research and literature has strongly came in favour of shared parenting, concluding that children in these relationships have superior academic, emotional, social and economic futures with drastically lower incidence of substance abuse, crime, and incarceration.

In view of the changes in social norms and family structures in the intervening 33 years since the current Divorce Act was passed, our child custody legal system requires fundamental structural changes. While the government initiative with bill C-78 should be commended for its housekeeping changes, we really need to make lives better for children and their parents, with reform of a more fundamental nature. I ask you to advocate a number of amendments to Bill C-78. I ask that you advocate for legislative change that incorporates accepted social science research findings and the consistently expressed views of the Canadian public. A rebuttable presumption in favour of Equal Shared Parenting is the appropriate course of action in light of the research and the consistent polling data over many years (ie. about 80% in favour). Interests groups, including Bar Associations and other interest groups, will surely oppose. In summary, the following points need to be incorporated into Bill C-78.

Canada needs a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting. This principle should be the starting point for “best interests of the child” deliberations.

Adopt continuity of family relationships as the definitional basis for the “best interests of the child” standard.

Amend proposed relocation clauses to place the onus on the relocating parent for changes in parenting responsibilities and arrangements.

Include arbitration as an explicit component of dispute resolution options.

Include provision for a “Parental Coordinator” to mediate and, if necessary, to break deadlock situations in day-to-day implementation of the Parenting Order.

Andrew goes on to say:

On paper the proposed Bill C-78 seems to support some admirable measures but I ask that you advocate for a less adversarial family justice system with implementation of the following:

Further implementation of the Unified Family Court;

Support for alternative and non-adversarial dispute resolution (e.g. expansion of such programs as “393 Mediate” where free, low cost mediation is provided in courts.);

Increased legal Aid Funding (wider access to justice in the family system is essential);

In conclusion, a Rebuttable Presumption in favour of Equal Shared Parenting will set the stage for equality and serve to reduce conflict stemming from unwarranted senses of entitlement; reduce excess legal expense, thus allocating family finances for the needs of the family and children; and promote the “best interest” of Canadian children to enjoy a decent relationship with both parents. Many like-minded Canadians support these changes. Now please propose these changes.

He thanks me for reading the letter. I will submit this into the record.

I have asked Mr. Corbett to come to committee once this bill passes through the House of Commons so that he can testify and submit his own view on where Bill C-78 needs to be approved. Many people believe that Bill C-78 is a good piece of legislation, but there are some amendments that could provide a better, solid piece of legislation that is in the best interests of Canadian children and their families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada over the last few years has taken a different, very progressive approach at trying to provide support for children in Canada. One of those would have been, for example, the Canada benefit program, lifting thousands of children out of poverty.

This legislation will assist children by seeing the parent who has custody have a greater likelihood of success in terms of receiving the monies necessary to help bring up that child. That is one of the reasons why, I believe, that as a government we have taken a holistic approach at lifting children in particular out of poverty. I have mentioned a budgetary measure. Today, we are debating a legislative measure.

I would ask my colleague from across the way this. Would he agree that governments through their legislation and policies can produce a positive outcome for our children and that is one of the reasons why it is important that we proceed with this legislation?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no argument to a question like that. I think throughout the history of our country it has been the responsibility of all governments to look after our children to make sure that we have a safe and secure environment for not only them but families, understanding that we need to make sure that there is a responsibility on the part of parents to be looking after their children. Not all of that responsibility lies on the part of the government. At least that is a fundamental belief that I have. We need to encourage parents to accept the responsibility of parenthood.

I will say in contrast to that that there are some difficulties and some hypocrisy on the part of the government, specifically as it relates to Bill C-75 where it has made some changes that directly impact crimes against children. However, I do not want to get into the weeds on Bill C-75.

Absolutely governments across this country, and throughout the history of this country, have always believed in the rights of children while making sure that we have a safe and secure environment for children and families as well.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Barrie—Innisfil has stated, we generally support the bill and will see what happens at committee during the hearings and the reading of the different articles.

However, I noticed while reading the bill that there is an amendment to the Divorce Act that proposes an obligation on the two spouses who go through a divorce to consult a lawyer. I know some friends who have been divorced and it was perfectly positive. There was no huge discussion, no fears of fighting whatsoever about any of the things that could go badly during a divorce.

Is it really necessary to have this amendment that would force the parties to consult a lawyer and spend money when it is not required?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think when looking at a situation of divorce, it is a traumatic enough experience for parents and children, or the whole family unit for that matter when they go through this situation. I can speak to this directly based again, as I said earlier, on my experience in emergency services and seeing parents go through this, as well as colleagues and friends.

The financial implications of this are sometimes so onerous that it is difficult for individuals to recover, both the husband and the wife, if it should include lawyers and not have a potential dispute mechanism as people go through divorce to ease that financial burden. Especially in situations where a couple is having an amicable divorce and they agree to not remain married, rather deciding in the best interests of the child that they are going to go through this amicably, obviously involving a lawyer could potentially set that couple down a path, first and foremost, of financial difficulty. However, it could also stir up some other emotions because divorce is a very emotive thing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the debate on 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. Quite a title for the bill. For the purposes of this discussion, I will simply refer to the bill as Bill C-78.

In essence, what are we talking about? We are talking about a situation where there is a family breakdown. That is what it is and under no circumstances can we imagine that could ever be a positive thing for anyone, for any of the parties involved. However, sometimes making that hard decision, going down that difficult path may very well be the best thing. Sometimes in those circumstances it may well be the best thing and in the best interests of the child as well.

That said, when people have a disagreement, when they have a breakdown, often people's emotions understandably are very high. Marriage generally happens with people declaring their love for each other. Imagine for a moment when that breaks down, what that means. The anger, the hurt, all of those emotions come flooding back and the sadness that goes with it. It is very difficult in the best of circumstances, but sometimes that is a process that adults have to embark on.

There are members in the House who talked about their own personal experiences. Sadly, for me and for many people, I am one of those statistics as well. I, too, am a single mom with two children. It is not an easy path, but sometimes it is the path that we have to take. With that said, I applaud this piece of legislation. I welcome this piece of legislation. Why? Because it attempts to make the process a little easier, a little better, and most important of all, with the best interests of the child at heart.

That is not to say that Bill C-78 would do all of it and will fix everything and that there are not issues with it. I assume when it gets to committee stage there will be opportunities for witnesses to come before the committee and offer their thoughts. Then amendments, if required, would be tabled and hopefully those changes could be made in a non-partisan way with the best interests of the child at heart.

I would like to focus on a couple of aspects of the bill that are important and worthy of support. I come from the community of Vancouver East, where generally speaking, we are not affluent people. People in my community tend to be lower-income, middle-income and when they have to get a divorce, a lot of the time, particularly women, often do not have the necessary resources to fight that fight, to get to court to have custody battles dealt with. The bill attempts to bring forward a more amicable way, a less onerous way in achieving the same results that one would want to see and that is to ensure that the caring of the child, the spending of time with the child, would be divided between both parents. That is of paramount importance.

The bill proposes that whoever wants to initiate this process would be required to get a certification agreement with the other individual that they have attempted and exhausted all the other avenues in resolution of that dispute before it goes to court. That is to say, if people can get resolution, then they do not have to go to court. That is not only in the best interests of the child, it is also in the best interests of the two adults involved in that situation.

Dispute resolution at all times is a good thing, whether it be in other circumstances or in different arenas. Rather than going to court, fighting a battle, being angry and pessimistic about the litigious procedure, dispute resolution is a way to try and resolve things in a more amicable way. That would be in the best interests of everyone involved.

Of course, from the government side, from the taxpayer side, this would be important as well, because it would actually reduce the costs to the courts and the court system. That, too, is a positive outcome. From that perspective, that element of the bill, which is to move toward an alternative dispute resolution process, is absolutely worthy of support.

Of significant importance as well is the situation where domestic violence is involved. In those instances, the bill would require the court to take that issue into consideration, especially with respect to the interest of the child, which is to say that when it comes to the custody of the child, there might be situations where it is in the best interest of the child to be under the guardianship of one parent. It might be a requirement, but that is for the courts to decide. However, making it explicit that it needs to be dealt with in the best interest of the child is an important component as well.

So often we see these situations where there is a marriage breakdown and the children get caught in the crossfire. I have met family lawyers who have told me that the most heartbreaking and difficult part of their job is to have to see the sadness and tragedy because of the tension and animosity that exist. They say that often it is the child who ends up getting hurt, and the adults may not even be thinking about the fact that they are hurting their children. Sometimes they are so caught up in the situation that they are blinded by it and cannot see it, which is a tragedy.

Therefore, the bill would allow for a provision for the courts to ensure that actions taken would be in the best interests of the child, which is absolutely worthy of support.

The bill would also give a tool to the parties to ensure that child maintenance is calculated and provided accurately. I would assume that in the event of the breakdown of a marriage where children are involved, one would want to ensure that the children are supported and have the best opportunities to succeed, and that their needs are met.

It does not always happen that way, and I would say for sad reasons really. There are cases where the child support and maintenance are not there, even when one partner could afford to do so. I do not know why people do that, but sometimes that is what happens. However, the bill would provide the tools to ensure accurate calculations of maintenance contributions for the child and in the best interests of the child, which is also a positive outcome.

In British Columbia, where I come from, for a very long time, people on income assistance as single parents, usually single moms, would have a really difficult time getting maintenance payments. Trying to get that would just be so awful for them. The income assistance system requires them to report the possible access to maintenance.

For a long time in British Columbia we actually had a situation where it was incumbent on the parent, usually a single mom, to pursue that maintenance payment. Then, when she got it, that maintenance payment was actually clawed back from the income assistance payment. It was as though that money received from the ex-spouse or ex-partner would be contributed towards the support of the children, but in reality at the end of the day it was not because that money was clawed back by the government. I am glad to say that law has now been changed, and that is a positive thing.

It is of paramount importance that in the process, we ensure that the maintenance component is achieved in a fair way, and that those dollars go to support the child or children. This bill aims to do that. It gives the tools to achieve that outcome. That is a laudable goal and something I would absolutely support.

There are some gaps within the bill. Those are the areas that concern me. It has already been brought forward by other members in their debate that this bill would not apply to people who are in a common-law situation, particularly in Quebec.

I wonder how we could ensure that this bill and the intention of this bill, which is to act in the best interests of the child or children in the event of a divorce or marital breakdown, would apply to all children in Canada, including in Quebec.

That is worth looking into. I understand and fully accept that Quebec has a different system than the rest of the provinces and territories. That being said, there is a gap. That gap is worth looking into, to see if there is a way to address that.

The government says the bill provides for reducing child poverty. On the face of it, reducing the cost of these kinds of court proceedings is in the best interests of everyone. When we ensure that accurate and fair maintenance is determined in the case of a marriage breakdown or divorce, that supports families, particularly low-income families who sometimes have a tough time ensuring that fair maintenance is provided. I suppose that contributes to it.

I hope, though, that this is not the only thing we will rely on to reduce child poverty. I am a new MP, a first-time MP in this chamber, but I can look back at the history. Back in the day when Ed Broadbent was an MP, many years ago, he actually proposed a motion in this House. It was unanimously passed, by every single member of this House. It said we needed to end child poverty.

However, to this day, we still do not have a national strategy to get there. Why is that? We have one piece here. I am sure government members will get up and say the government is doing this and that, and it is all fantastic and wonderful. However, it is not really. Those are all little patchwork pieces coming into play. Bill C-78 will contribute to that, but it is also just a patchwork piece.

What if we actually brought forward a national strategy to end child poverty, a comprehensive approach that would look at all the different approaches to achieving that goal? Would that not be in the best interests of a child? We would actually be able to realize the words and the intention of this very chamber, when Ed Broadbent brought forward his motion that received unanimous consent so many years ago.

That would be a positive way forward. I hope we can achieve that. It would be a significant piece toward ending child poverty.

The other thing that would be a significant piece toward ending child poverty would be the provision of affordable housing. Many people have a tough time accessing affordable housing. Where I come from in Vancouver it is almost impossible to get access to safe, secure, affordable housing.

The government will say it has put forward a national affordable housing strategy, which was introduced two years ago. The problem with that is that 90% of that money will not flow until after the next election. It is not as if people who are homeless today can say they will sleep under an alcove and feel really good about it until two years from now when the money flows.

Also, when the money actually does flow, having come from the non-profit sector I know it often takes, at minimum, three to four years to get a project built. That means it is another five, six or seven years before someone actually gets access to housing.

Access to housing would be a significant component to the fight against poverty. Would it not be great if in budget 2019 the government said it would flow the money right now, because the crisis is before us right now?

All of that would contribute to this equation.

I have met some women in my community of Vancouver East who are faced with domestic dispute violence but do not feel they have the option to walk away from the relationship, because they cannot access housing and have no other means of supporting themselves. This is heartbreaking.

Therefore, while the bill aims to provide some support for that, we have to look deeper than that. We need to make sure that women and families also have the option of walking away from a relationship by ensuring they have some resources and support with respect to securing housing. That is an absolutely vital component to the equation.

I have met women who have told me they could not secure affordable housing and had to go back to an abusive relationship. That cannot be the way forward, and it is definitely not in the best interests of a child. Therefore, I would like for us to look at this issue in a more comprehensive way.

I absolutely support this bill. I expect that at committee there will be further discussion about it, and that witnesses will provide testimony and comments with respect to it. If there are amendments that come forward, I hope that all parties will work together to bring forward these amendments in the best interests of the child.

Beyond that, I hope the government will bring forward other components to make a difference in the lives of children, especially those who are struggling today. They should always be in the eyes of parliamentarians when we take action in their best interests.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what the hon. member for Vancouver East identified as a couple of gaps in the bill, through you, I would inform the House that unmarried couples are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, including common-law couples. That is a provincial and territorial matter.

During debate earlier today the member raised the issue of enforcement. The enforcement tools are indeed strengthened through this legislation. One principal and critical way is through the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, which will enable the government to do exactly what many members opposite have called on it to do. It will ensure that the departments are collaborating and sharing information, including sensitive Canada Revenue Agency information under certain parameters and with certain conditions, to ensure the enforcement of support orders.

I know from her work over the past three years that the member is a passionate advocate of two issues: multiculturalism and indigenous reconciliation. I would point out that for the first time, this legislation is entrenching an explicit requirement for courts to consider a child's linguistic, cultural and spiritual heritage and upbringing, including his or her indigenous heritage, when making decisions about parenting arrangements for the child. That is explicitly part of the best interests analysis that must now be undertaken.

Could the member for Vancouver East offer her comments on what that will do to advance cultural identity, including multiculturalism, and indigenous reconciliation?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the parliamentary secretary in different capacities, when he was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, then multiculturalism, and now in his current capacity. I look forward to continuing to work with him to advance different causes that are important for all of our communities.

On the question around linguistic and cultural recognition particularly for indigenous children and families, absolutely I would support that. This is Canada's shame in history, with the residential school history, with the sixties scoop, where the interests of the child and the interests of indigenous peoples, the Inuit and Métis were not taken into consideration at all. In fact, if anything, Canada's history has been to try to decimate, really to exercise genocide toward those communities. In this bill, there is one small piece and it is a welcome component, but I hope we do not stop there because there is much work to be done to walk the path of reconciliation, given the impact of colonialism and the intergenerational impacts.

I just want to make a quick comment with respect to the issue around child poverty. Ed Broadbent brought forward his motion back in 1989 and this House was supposed to have acted on that by the year 2000. It is now 18 years later since that goal and we still do not have a national strategy against child poverty. It is time for us to act.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while reading the proposed bill, I noticed there is a clause that proposes to make an obligation for spouses going through divorce to consult a lawyer. Even some of my friends whom I know closely have gone through divorce in an amicable way, and sometimes it is possible to do so. Is it really necessary to put forward an obligation to consult a lawyer? I believe this is one of the amendments proposed to the Divorce Act. I wonder what the hon. member thinks about that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member asked a different member a similar question earlier.

What the bill would require is to ensure that the process of alternative dispute resolution is embarked on. That is the intent of the bill. Of course, in the best circumstances, the best case scenario would be for it to be amicable for both parties to come to an agreement on how they can proceed. If both parties say they do not need to go to court and they agree that this is a fair way, that maintenance is being provided and they agree on how they will split the time of caring for a child and so on and so forth, of course that would be the best option.

Let us just be clear that what this bill would do is require that the process be undertaken, and that the individuals involved embark on that dispute resolution process. That is paramount, and that is the way in which we will ultimately reduce legal fees as well as expenses for the courts.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her long advocacy particularly on the eradication of child poverty. She is right that it was Ed Broadbent who in 1989 stood just a few seats down from where I am standing here today and moved a motion to eradicate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. It was adopted unanimously by the House.

In fact, the most recent report from Statistics Canada shows that from 1989 to now, child poverty has actually gone up. Rather than being eradicated, the problem has become worse. The Liberals have claimed that they are interested in this issue, yet as my friend has pointed out, they do not actually have a plan to get there. We all know how things change without plans: They simply do not.

I have a very specific question about Bill C-78. As this pertains to divorces in Canada and there are some new amendments, which we appreciate, there is not a lot of language in the legislation around common-law couples. We know that particularly in Quebec and some of the northern territories a large number of couples now live in common-law relationships. They are not seeking to go through any kind of a procedure in a faith community or a civic arrangement, but are married by every intent under the law. This legislation is not, to my reading of it, sufficiently exuberant about describing the situation for common-law couples who then seek to separate, particularly if they have children.

I wonder if my friend can tell us what needs to be done to include common-law couples in this conversation, as that is not only a large percentage but is a growing percentage of the arrangements that many families have in Canada now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue my colleague raised is a valid one. It is one I touched on in my speech and is one which the committee needs to look at.

He is absolutely correct that more and more people are in common-law relationships. When that relationship breaks down, what is the recourse? How do we ensure, in circumstances where children are involved, that the best interests of the children are considered? How will this bill apply to them? Those are valid questions.

I am very hopeful the committee will engage in a process to try to address some of the concerns that I have, which I share with the member, and ultimately bring forward a system that is applicable to everyone, with the central goal of the child's best interests at its heart.

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's comments on child poverty, I will put to her a few important statistics that I have unearthed.

Two million Canadian children live in separated or divorced families. Sixty per cent of all cases where there is a maintenance enforcement program involved are in arrears. Those arrears of unpaid support total over $1 billion in Canada right now. By facilitating the payment of child support and putting in place better tools for garnishment and information sharing would help to address getting those payments flowing and would help to address the child poverty that my friend opposite has underscored as being an important imperative. Could she offer her comments on the impact this would have on child poverty?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the importance of ensuring that we have a comprehensive strategy for child poverty, such as the one in Ed Broadbent's motion which this House endorsed back in 1989. It was supposed to be in place in the year 2000 and it still is not. If we want to address child poverty in a comprehensive way, we need a national strategy.

A component piece of that is this bill. Yes, it does help to a degree in ensuring that maintenance is paid, that there is a fair calculation of the maintenance and all information is provided to come up with a figure. That is a positive thing, but I hope the member does not think that is the only thing, the be-all and end-all of child poverty.

The ad hoc approach the government has adopted to address the issue of child poverty is deficient. That is my point. We need to come together to honour the words of Ed Broadbent and the intent of the House back in 1989 when a motion was unanimously passed to bring an end to child poverty with a national child poverty strategy.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more thrilled to rise today on behalf of the 93,000 citizens of Beauport—Limoilou, to whom I send warm, sincere greetings. This is my first time speaking since we came back from the summer break.

Today, I will be speaking to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou about 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. Marriage has always been extremely important to me. From a tender age, I yearned to be married someday. I have always believed that the bond between a married couple is something infinitely precious. Marriage is also a cherished tradition, and as a Conservative, I like keeping up traditions.

I say this without prejudice, but unfortunately, I grew up in the social context of Quebec, which no longer values the institution of marriage as it should. I am referring to official marriage, either civil or religious. Marriage, as an institution, is no longer held in respect. Most of my constituents are in civil unions, which is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, marriage is still dear to my heart. As a Conservative, I wanted to perpetuate the tradition of marriage. I have been with my wife, Pascale Laneuville, for 14 years. After living together for seven years, I wanted her to experience a proper marriage proposal. I was happy to do it, and I am delighted to still be married today. I hope my marriage will last until I die, hopefully in the House. I want to be an MP for 40 years. That is my most fervent wish.

That said, I would like to talk a bit about the summer I had in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Over the three-month summer break, I met with many of my constituents, who are watching us right now on CPAC. I said “summer break” because Parliament was on a break, but we were not on a break from work. Journalists often like to confuse Canadians about this. I was in my office the whole time, except for my two-week vacation to the Le Genévrier campground in Baie-Saint-Paul. That is a little promo. It is a beautiful campground in the Charlevoix region, in my colleague's riding.

I celebrated July 1 at Maison Girardin, in Beauport. One thousand people joined me to celebrate Confederation. I hosted my third annual summer party at Domaine Maizerets park. More than 3,500 residents came to my meeting to tell me about their concerns, and I let them know what I can do for them as their MP. There was complimentary corn and hot dogs, generously donated by Provigo on 1st Avenue in Limoilou. I want to thank the owner, Mr. Bourboin, was is very generous to the people of Beauport—Limoilou.

I continued to go door to door in my riding two evenings a week, as I do every month. I noticed that my constituents want to learn more about our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. People are quite impressed by the Conservative Party's openness to Quebec as a distinct society. I was pleased to discover this when chatting with my constituents.

I also organized two meetings with Beauport's network of business people. These business luncheons are attended by more than 60 Beauport entrepreneurs every two or three weeks. The next one is scheduled on Wednesday, October 10, at 7 a.m., at the Ambassador Hotel. There will be an economic round table with Mr. Barrucco, executive director of the Association des économistes québécois, who will answer all questions from small and medium-sized business owners from Beauport—Limoilou.

I attended almost every event held in my riding this summer. I also held my second “Alupa à l'écoute” public consultation. The third will happen in November. I will then be introducing a bill to address an ever-present concern of my constituents. Naturally, there is also the day-to-day work at my office, with citizens' files and all the rest.

Finally, two weeks ago, together with the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, and André Drolet, who was then the Liberal candidate for Jean-Lesage, I participated, with great fanfare, in the sod turning for the Medicago production facility. This is going to create more than 400 well-paid, quality jobs in vaccine research. It will also contribute to the revitalization of the Estimauville sector, which is very much needed because since the 1970s and 1980s, it is a sector of Quebec City that has been neglected.

Now back to the subject at hand, Bill C-78. Let me start by saying that the Conservatives plan to support this bill at second reading on some conditions. We are eager to hear from the witnesses at committee and to see how the Liberals react to our concerns and our vision for this bill because, as I will explain in a moment, some of the things in this bill make very little sense to us.

I would like to explain the gist of this bill to the people of Beauport—Limoilou. The main goal is to act in children's best interest. My constituents should know that the Divorce Act has not been amended in 20 years, or two decades. In that time, we have seen generation X, generation Y, and the millennials. They have had a major impact on Quebec elections. As the years go by, things change, social mores change, and culture evolves. Two decades, 20 years, is a long time.

I might go so far as to compliment the Liberal government on its decision to review this legislation and amend it to better reflect everything children go through when their parents divorce and take into account the situations they find themselves in. The Liberals are absolutely right about the importance of putting children first during the divorce process, just as patients should be at the centre of conversations about health care. The Conservatives agree 100% that this should be the focus of the bill. Yes, children should be central to discussions during the divorce process to keep their suffering to a minimum regardless of what goes on between their parents.

As a brief aside, I would like to tell a joke that I always tell my friends and even my family. My parents are divorced, and so are my wife's parents. Quite frankly, it was pretty common for their generation. As I often say jokingly, divorce is not an option for me and my wife, even if we wanted one, because my daughter and son already have four grandfathers and four grandmothers. The situation is already so ridiculous that I would not want to add another four grandfathers and four grandmothers. As members can see, divorce is not an option for me. However, for individuals who need to divorce for unavoidable reasons, it is important that the legislation reflect the mores, customs and conventions of the present day.

In addition, the bill brought another thought to mind, and I think members will see its relevance. The United States-Mexico-Canada agreement was reached this week, so I drew a parallel. Since we are talking about marriage, agreements and concerns, we could look at the USMCA as an economic marriage, of sorts, between two countries. In this economic marriage, which has been arranged for sound and objective reasons based on a win-win logic, the aim is to protect the children, which, in this case, are the Canadian economy and our sovereignty.

The USMCA is an important agreement between two countries that have decided to open their borders and create a relationship and ties in order to move forward together toward shared growth and an economy that works for both sides. However, we see two big problems with this marriage. First of all, it simply does not cut it economically speaking, because the Prime Minister and member for Papineau failed to ensure its fairness.

For example, the softwood lumber dispute has not been resolved. This is the third or fourth softwood lumber crisis. I visited Rimouski in the Gaspé region. Actually, I know the people who live there would not be happy to hear me say that Rimouski is in the Gaspé, so I will say that I visited Rimouski, which is in the Lower St. Lawrence region, where there are a number of lumber mills. Obviously, they are tired of dealing with one softwood lumber crisis after another. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to strengthen Canada's relationship with the United States and resolve the softwood lumber dispute.

Let us think too of all of the other regions of Quebec that will be negatively impacted by the imminent breach in supply management on dairy products. Once again, Canada is giving without getting anything in return. I realized that this marriage is not at all fair. When we officially entered into a relationship with the United States in 1989—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on a point of order.

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member for Beauport—Limoilou in the middle of his speech, but I have to say that it is one thing to discuss Bill C-78, which is now before us, and quite another to give a long speech on NAFTA and the new agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico and bring supply management into it. I do not believe that is relevant.

lt is not relevant at all. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you make a ruling as to whether that is in order and ask the member opposite if he could direct his comments to this legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In many of the speeches I have heard in the House, I have seen members get so off topic it was hard to know where they were headed. Sometimes the discussion seems to veer off in a totally different direction, on a tangent that makes no sense, but members are entitled to do that. However, I am sure that the member in question will get things under control and bring the discussion back to today's topic. I am going to trust the member, and I am sure that the discussion will be relevant to today's topic.

I will give the floor back to the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague's concern. I did have a point I was getting at. I want to talk about clauses 54 and 101 of Bill C-78 and how they contradict Bill C-75.

However, I was talking about something that is very important to me. I will use a different analogy. Let us leave NAFTA behind for a different analogy.

We have a Prime Minister who introduced Bill C-78, telling Canadians that after 20 years, he is proposing important amendments, some fundamental and others more technical, that will strengthen the legislation and the institution of marriage in Canada.

Notwithstanding the fact that we Conservative members plan to support this bill, following the committee studies, we feel it is hard to trust the Prime Minister when he says he wants to strengthen marriage, considering his behaviour as the head of government.

For example, when Mr. Trudeau was elected in 2015, we might say that it was a marriage between him and the people of Canada. However, after everything that the Prime Minister has done in the past three years, a marriage would not have lasted a year since he broke three major promises. I would even say that these are promises that break up the very core of his marriage with Canada. I will get to the clauses in this bill that have me concerned, but I want to draw a parallel. How can we trust the Prime Minister when it comes to this divorce bill, when he himself does not keep his promises to Canadians?

He made three fundamental promises. The first was to run deficits of only $10 billion for the first three years and then cut back on that. He broke that promise. The deficits have been $30 billion every year.

The second fundamental broken promise of his marriage with the people of Canada was to achieve a balanced budget by 2020-21. Now we are talking about 2045, my goodness. Is there anything more important than finances in a marriage? Yes, there is love. I get it.

However, budgets are essential in a home. Finances are essential for a couple to remain together. I can attest to that. Love has its limits in a home. Bills have to get paid and children have to eat. Budgets need to be balanced, something that Canadian families do all the time. Our Prime Minister is unable to keep that promise.

The other promise has to do with our voting system, how we are going to run our home, our political system. Just before they got married, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would reform the voting system. That was a key promise and he broke it. In fact it was one of the first promises he broke and it is a serious broken promise in his marriage with Canadians in my opinion. It is a broken promise to every young person who trusted him.

Personally, I completely disagree with reforming the voting system because I believe that the first past the post system is the best guarantee for a parliamentary democracy. That said, it was a key promise that he made to youth and the leftists of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, who view proportional representation as being better for them, their future and their concerns. However, he broke his promise. The marriage has been on the verge of breaking up for a long time now. I predict that it will only last one more year.

I have one last point to make in my analogy and then I will discuss the bill. I want to talk about his infrastructure promise. The Prime Minister said that he would invest $183 billion in infrastructure over the next 14 years. It was the largest program in the history of Canada because, according to the Liberals, their programs are always the largest in the history of Canada. I would remind members that ours was incredible as well, with $80 billion invested between 2008 and 2015.

I will ask my colleagues a question they are sure to know the answer to. How many billions of the $183 billion have been spent after four years? The answer is $7 billion, if I am not mistaken. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned it in one of his reports.

Therefore, how can we have confidence in the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, who is introducing a bill to strengthen the institution of marriage and the protection of children in extremely contentious divorces when he himself, in his solemn marriage with the Canadian people, has broken the major promises of his 2015 election platform?

The bond of trust has been broken and divorce between the Liberals and the people of Canada is imminent. It is set to happen on October 19, 2019.

Bill C-78 seeks to address some rather astonishing statistics. According to the 2016 census, more than two million children were living in a separated or divorced family. Five million Canadians separated or divorced between 1991 and 2011. Of that number, 38% had a child at the time of their separation or divorce. I imagine that is why the focus of Bill C-78 is protection of the child.

However, we have some concerns. Clause 101 introduces the idea that Her Majesty ranks in priority over the party that instituted the garnishment proceedings if the debtor is indebted or has any moneys to pay. That has us concerned. We will certainly call witnesses to our parliamentary committee to find out what they think and to see if we can amend this.

We also believe that clause 54 is flawed. It extends Her Majesty's binding period from five to 12 years. That is another aspect of the bill that could be problematic in our view.

I do not like to end on a negative note, but I absolutely have to mention a major contradiction pertaining to Bill C-78. Today, the Liberals enthusiastically shared with us, through this bill, their desire to make the protection of children, rather than parents, a priority in cases of divorce. However, when we look closely at Bill C-75, which, with its 300 pages, is a mammoth bill if ever there was one, we see that it seeks to rescind all of the great measures to strengthen crime legislation that our dear prime minister, Mr. Harper, implemented during his 10 years in office, a fantastic decade in Canada.

We are distressed to see that this bill lessens sentences for crimes committed against children. The Liberals are not content with just saying that they are good and the Conservatives are bad. They, who profess to believe in universal love, want to lessen the sentences for criminals who committed terrible, deplorable crimes against children. Then they tell us that the purpose of their bill is to help children.

We see these contradictions and we are concerned. I do not think that my constituents would let their spouses break promises as important as the ones the Prime Minister has broken since 2015. They would not want to stay in a relationship like that.

Canadians need to realize that their divorce from the Liberal government is imminent.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I also appreciate the fact that towards the end of his speech, he finally decided to talk about the bill before us, instead of talking about various other topics or concerns.

I myself will continue to talk about this bill. Maybe we could find an aspect of this bill that both our parties agree on. I am sure that the revenue gap is one of the Conservative Party's concerns.

That is what we sometimes call a “revenue gap” in English. I would point out to the member that revenue gaps in terms of income support payments, parental support and child support payments have been identified, to the tune of over $1 billion in arrears in Canada right now. That has a disproportionate impact on women, who are largely the people to whom the payments are made by debtors, who are largely men.

Given that context, would the member opposite agree to discuss this bill and the impact it would have in alleviating women and child poverty that has been identified right across the country, including in Beauport—Limoilou by his constituents?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member opposite. He is perfectly right that this is one of the excellent amendments to be brought about by Bill C-78. It would enhance the power of the Canada Revenue Agency to verify the financial information of either spouse in order to ensure equity, not for the spouses but for the children. We all agree with that. Of course, it would be a good thing for my constituents of Beauport—Limoilou. There is no doubt about that.

However, I have two concerns, one regarding this and the other regarding the bill. The bill does not anticipate or propose enhancing the budget of the CRA to do what he is talking about, which would allow it to have more power in verifying the information. The CRA does not operate with free-paying jobs or written words on a blank piece of paper. It has paid employees with pensions, so one would need to inject more money into it to increase its power. I hope that actions will follow the words of the government in the budget.

Unfortunately, the member will not be able to answer my question, unless no one else stands. I do not understand why the government wants to obligate both spouses to meet and consult with a lawyer. In many instances, people go through a divorce in an amicable way. I know friends who went through a divorce for the well-being and good of their children, and it was done in an amicable and appropriate way. Why does the government want to impose the obligation to consult with a lawyer, which would necessitate spending? I would like the Liberals to address this concern.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who spoke about the child's best interests. He made children's needs the focus of his speech.

I think this bill actually has the same intention, although there are some amendments we could make to improve certain aspects. For example, children should be entitled to be represented by a third party at all times, and they should have access to more psychological resources, for example, to help them navigate difficult experiences like a separation or divorce. There is also the whole issue of child support, and so on.

Since we are talking about putting the child's best interests first in this bill, does the member think that the bill should at least be sent to committee so that we can consult experts and make amendments to strengthen it, as long as our discussions focus on the child's best interests?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course. I would like to salute my colleague, as I have not yet had a chance to say hello to her since we returned from the summer break. I think my colleague is doing a great job.

I can certainly imagine that, much like the Conservatives, New Democrats recognize the fact that the Liberals are putting child protection at the centre of their bill, along with the needs of the child and the repercussions children can suffer during a nasty divorce. The Liberals want to put the protection and well-being of children at the centre of their bill. That is great, and all members of the House of Commons agree on that.

We also look forward to seeing how this all unfolds at committee. As they say, the devil is in the details. I never thought I would say that here. This is a lengthy bill, which we will study in committee. I look forward to hearing what our expert witnesses have to say. This is a very important bill that amends the Civil Marriage Act, which has not been amended for 20 years.

We have some concerns regarding clauses 54 and 101. As I said, I am a little apprehensive. As I emphasized a few times during my speech, with all due respect, the Prime Minister has not honoured his commitment, his marriage to the people of Canada. He has broken most of the promises he made to Canadians when he married them, so to speak, in 2015, at the time of his election. There is a parallel here; it is a parable.

I agree with my colleague that the child must absolutely be front and centre. That is not what we see in Liberal Bill C-75, which seeks to reduce sentences for offences committed against children. We think that is unfortunate.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in respect of the debate we are having.

I would like to emphasize that, under the bill, no one is obligated to consult a lawyer.

In fact, through two very specific measures, the bill seeks to do just the opposite. It seeks to ensure that no one is obligated to consult a lawyer. First of all, it states that child support can be calculated as part of the administrative process—in other words, outside the courts and without having to consult any lawyers. Second, if child support needs to be recalculated because some adjustments are needed, that can also be done without consulting a lawyer.

Our ultimate goal is to make the family justice system less contentious than it is now.

That is why we have already listened to stakeholders from across the country. They see this bill as a good reform of the family justice system, which has not been updated in 20 years.

I am wondering if the member across the aisle could be more specific regarding his concerns. I do not believe that the bill will have quite that effect.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's straightforward answer to my question.

My understanding was that a divorce had to involve a meeting with lawyers. Apparently that is not the case. However, what he said touched on other things I was wondering about.

He said that the Liberals wanted to simplify the process and keep matters out of the courts. He also said they wanted a way to review each parent's financial information.

Of course, in many cases, it is the father who handles the finances and the mother who looks after the children. My understanding is that the bill will enable the Canada Revenue Agency to systematically update or review both the father's and the mother's files if necessary.

This bill does not provide additional funding for the Canada Revenue Agency. If there is going to be more work, more paperwork, more investigations and more data, the Canada Revenue Agency should have a bigger budget.

If the Liberals are serious about this bill and if they want issues related to divorce to be resolved outside of the courts, then they are going to have to allocate more money to the Canada Revenue Agency in their 2019 budget.

However, I have my doubts. This summer I heard an incredible number of horror stories from my constituents about the CRA. It is incredible to see everything that goes on at that institution. The minister absolutely must go see what is going on in the CRA buildings.

This summer, all my constituents told me their stories and I am happy to share those. They told me that when they call the CRA, no one answers or the lines are always busy. They told me that when they email the CRA, they never get a response. That is unacceptable.

When a member of the public tries to contact a member of the public service, at the very least they should get a response.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I want to inform the hon. member that she will have approximately six minutes, and then we will break. Upon resuming debate, she will have four minutes coming to her to resume, and then have the questions asked.

The hon. member.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-78. I am not approaching this as a lawyer, as many of the others have done today. I am approaching this as a woman who has been divorced as well as a woman who has worked in a constituency office, dealing with people who have come from divorce and with different government departments.

I am going to begin with some of my experiences as a constituency assistant and how the Canada child benefit divvies out the money. The Canada Revenue Agency, under the leadership of the Conservative government, did an excellent job when it came to shared custody and shared parenting. That has become a nuance for many new families. If I was asked 20 years ago, when I look at that, shared parenting was not really an option. Now many families are looking at this. When the Canada Revenue Agency gave people the opportunity to divide their benefits, it became very beneficial for many of those families.

The only question I will have for the government with respect to this, what does 40% mean? A lot of times when we look at those numbers, it can be very difficult. We have to recognize that when someone has custody of his or her child, is that child in school? Is that parent picking the child up from school? Is the child sleeping in that parent's home? So many factors have to be looked at. I want to ensure that when we talk about the 40% for parenting, that it is looked at with a microscope.

As a person who has had a divorce, I understands what it is like to raise children who have come from that situation. It has been very difficult. If we talk about child support, I am pleased to see in the bill that child support does not have to go in front of a judge or to a court and that it can be done at an administrative level. For many families, this is a huge barrier, whether it is having to pay the legal fees or having to go through the entire process. Making it easier for families is very important.

We have to understand that there are barriers to that as well. My colleagues have raised question on how we addressed some of those, such as when people are being paid under the table. Many parents, both fathers and mothers, across the country do not pay their child support. They and are trying to rip off their children. At the end of the day, the children are the ones who are most affected. Anything we can do to ensure we always put the best interests of our children forward is very important.

Let us talk about the psychology and the emotional issues that occur around a divorce. I fully support what is in the bill on child welfare. Children have to come first during a divorce. When I look at myself, I think of divorce as 20-20 hindsight. If I could have done things differently, I would have. However, at that time, the emotions, the anger, wanting revenge, all of those horrible things people feel during separation and divorce occur. We have to recognize that it is such an emotional issue. I apologize to all of the lawyers in the room, but sometimes it gets worse when people go to lawyers and they put themselves $20,000 behind the eight ball because of it.

Brian Galbraith, a lawyer in Barrie, wrote this on his website:

Depression can often follow separation and divorce. According to the National Population Health Survey, the two-year period after a divorce has high rate of serious psychological problems for the couple. This is not a surprising effect given the anxieties about children and the drastic life and income changes people experience during this time.

In an issue of Psychology Today, it states:

Divorce introduces a massive change into the life of a boy or girl no matter what the age. Witnessing loss of love between parents, having parents break their marriage commitment, adjusting to going back and forth between two different households, and the daily absence of one parent while living with the other, all create a challenging new family circumstance in which to live. In the personal history of the boy or girl, parental divorce is a watershed event. Life that follows is significantly changed from how life was before....The dependent child's short term reaction to divorce can be an anxious one.

The government talks about child welfare, mediation and about the opportunities to have a lawyer assist children. If we to look at this, we have to ensure we have those resources for them.

When I went through my divorce 18 years ago, the opportunities for low-income women, as I was at that time, were not available. An appointment for my son to sit down and talk about it was not available to him. It took eight months.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London will have 15 minutes coming to her when we resume debate plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had the chance to respond to Canadians, do the right thing, and move Tori Stafford's killer back behind bars. He had a chance to speak out against this terrible decision and act to reverse it. Instead, he did what he always does when he is challenged. He acted like a bully and called us names, but in doing so, he rejected the calls from Canadians, and indeed from Tori's family, to correct this injustice. When will the Prime Minister stop acting like a bully, stop calling names, do his job and reverse this terrible decision?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the family of Tori Stafford for the loss they have endured and lived with for the last nine years.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act makes individual placement decisions on inmates the responsibility of corrections staff, not politicians. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has asked the new commissioner of corrections to fully review the placement decision in order to ensure that it was compliant with all correctional service policies and to make sure that these policies are adequate.

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

Mr. Speaker, Tori's dad could not have been clearer. He wants the Prime Minister to reverse this decision. We all want action.

The Prime Minister could immediately implement a broad policy, which would make sure that no child killer is placed in a healing lodge. That would include McClintic and anyone like her. It would be a broad policy. It would be very simple. It would satisfy the concerns the government has.

Again, will the government do its job, will it act and will it reverse this decision with a broad policy?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, our thoughts are with Tori Stafford's family, and we sympathize with the grief and suffering they must have endured over the past nine years. Under the corrections act, decisions on inmate management are the responsibility of professional corrections staff, not politicians. The minister has asked the commissioner to review the decision made by her predecessor in order to ensure that it was compliant with existing policies and to determine whether those policies could be improved.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion to put eight-year-old Tori Stafford's killer, Terri-Lynne McClintic, back behind bars. Also yesterday, Tori's father, Rodney Stafford, visited Ottawa and gave several media interviews in which he asked the Prime Minister to reverse the transfer of his daughter's killer.

Will the public safety minister and the Prime Minister listen to Tori's father and the outrage of Canadians and put McClintic back behind bars?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the loss and pain that the family of Tori Stafford has suffered is heartbreaking. Section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act says that inmate placement decisions must be made by the Correctional Service of Canada. Parliament decided that this power does not belong to a minister. However, the Minister of Public Safety asked the corrections commissioner to do a review, ensure that policies and procedures were followed and that those procedures remain appropriate.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has actually opined under section 6 of the act that the corrections Canada officials have to listen to the minister. Before, under the Conservatives, Tori Stafford's killer was behind bars. Under the Liberals, she was moved to a healing lodge, and yesterday, Rodney Stafford, the father of Tori, made an impassioned plea to the Prime Minister to put his daughter's killer back behind bars. He said, “I wanted to see if I could kind of touch him a little. It's not about politics.”

Will the hon. members listen to Tori's father immediately and put Terri-Lynne McClintic back behind bars?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we do understand the loss and pain that Tori Stafford's family has gone through all these years, but it is important to understand the powers that have been vested in this Parliament by Parliament.

Former Harper PMO lawyer Benjamin Perrin said, “This may be unpopular to voice but I’m concerned with politicians being the ones who decide how any particular individual offender is treated.”

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday, the Prime Minister asked us to listen to Tori Stafford's family. That is what we have been doing since this debate began.

We are listening to the family, and we are their voice in the House. Tori's father wants to see the criminal who heinously took his daughter's life back behind bars.

Why do the Liberals insist on defending the indefensible, when they should be defending and listening to the victims of this awful crime?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act says that inmate placement decisions must be made by Correctional Service Canada. This act was created in 1992 by a Conservative government. As much as he might like to, the Minister of Public Safety cannot simply overrule laws, including the ones created by Conservative governments.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that we should not try to guess what Tori Stafford's family wanted when it came to putting her killer back behind bars, but we do not have to. Tori's father said yesterday, “Somebody clearly messed up, made a mistake and I'm just trying to get this mistake reversed.”

Tori Stafford's killer was moved from a prison to a healing lodge under the Prime Minister's watch. The Prime Minister can run, but he cannot hide from his responsibility, so why does he not finally do the right thing today and fix this mistake?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, that particular inmate was reclassified from maximum security to medium security under the previous government. We believe that we have the correctional services in place. They are the professionals and the ones who know these cases, and to discuss this on an individual basis in this place is not appropriate.