Evidence of meeting #117 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-78.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tony Clement  Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Ms. Sansoucy is replacing Mr. Rankin. I am very pleased that she is joining us for the consideration of Bill C-78.

It is a great pleasure to commence our study of this very important bill with the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is testifying.

She is joined by two distinguished representatives of the Department of Justice, Madame Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, and—this time we have only one Laurie—Laurie Wright, senior assistant deputy minister.

Madam Minister, the floor is yours.

November 5th, 2018 / 3:30 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, thank you to all of the members of this committee for the opportunity to present on an incredibly important bill, 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.

I am incredibly proud of the work our government has done to improve the lives of Canadians experiencing separation and divorce, particularly children. Bill C-78 is the cornerstone of this work.

Federal family laws have not been substantially updated in over 20 years. Over the past two decades, families have changed considerably, and so has our justice system. Our government understands that there is much to be done in order to improve federal family laws and family justice systems so that they better meet the needs of Canadians.

Separation and divorce can be incredibly difficult for families, especially children. For most Canadians, their only interaction with the justice system will be through the experience of family breakdown. Two million children in this country are impacted by separation and divorce. With this bill, we are taking concrete steps to help parents come to a timely and lasting resolution of their disputes, with the primary focus of what is best for their children.

Bill C-78 advances four important goals: promoting the best interests of the child, addressing family violence, reducing child poverty, and improving efficiencies and accessibility to the family justice system.

I will briefly address each of these in turn.

Promoting the best interests of the child is a common theme, tying together all policy initiatives reflected in this bill. The primacy of the best interests of the child is a fundamental principle of Canadian family law. Bill C-78 will further entrench and bolster this principle.

The bill includes a non-exhaustive list of criteria for a court to consider in determining the best interests of the child, including elements such as the child's needs, given the age and stage of development; the child's relationship with people in his or her life, especially parents, but also others such as grandparents; and the child's culture and heritage, including indigenous heritage.

The bill also proposes a primary consideration. Any plans for the child's care, any allocation of time or responsibilities, and any imposition of terms or conditions in a parenting order would have to be made on the basis that the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being must be considered above any other matter.

The bill also removes the archaic language of custody and access that the Divorce Act currently applies to parents' relationships with their children. The Ontario Court of Appeal and several associations of family justice professionals have highlighted that these labels focus more on parents winning and losing rather than on what is best for the child.

Instead, Bill C-78 embraces the principle that children are individuals who have their own needs and rights, and therefore, it proposes clear definitions of “parenting time” and “decision-making responsibility”. Children's rights organizations have been particularly supportive of this proposed change.

The bill does not contain any parenting presumptions, such as equal shared parenting. Rather, it focuses on what is best for each child. A presumption would force courts to impose one particular parenting arrangement on every family unless a party could convince the court otherwise. This would mean that judges would have to be actively involved in more cases to hear evidence to displace the presumption, which could increase conflict between parties and place additional and unnecessary pressure on already overloaded family courts.

Moreover, in cases that involve family violence, abused spouses may not have the financial or emotional resources to prove to a judge that the presumption would not be in the child's best interests. Fundamentally, a presumption would detract from the focus on the best interests of each individual child, which the bill aims to promote.

We know that each child and each family is different, and children deserve to have their own unique needs and situations considered. That is why we have taken this approach.

Bill C-78 will still preserve the maximum-contact principle that a child should spend as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of that child. This would not be a parenting presumption, however, and it would be subject to the primary consideration of the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

For the first time ever, we are defining family violence in the Divorce Act. In Bill C-78, we have introduced an evidence-based definition of family violence that provides a non-exhaustive list of different forms of family violence and is designed to evolve over time to capture additional behaviours and patterns as our understanding of family violence expands.

This definition explicitly mentions “coercive and controlling” violence, which social scientists believe to be the most dangerous form of family violence. Again, this definition is designed to evolve over time to capture additional behaviours and patterns as our understanding of family violence expands.

The bill also proposes best interests of the child criteria to help courts draft a parenting order where there has been family violence. These criteria will also be subject to the primary consideration that the child's safety, security and well-being would be considered above all else.

The bill introduces other measures to keep family members—especially children—safe. The non-removal provisions will help prevent child abduction in appropriate cases. Another provision will remind courts of the option to order supervised parenting time to promote safety and reduce children's exposure to conflict.

Our government has committed to lifting Canadians out of poverty. In addition to initiatives like the Canada child benefit, we are supporting middle-class families by helping to ensure families facing separation and divorce have the support payments to which they are entitled. We know that families are especially financially vulnerable in these circumstances.

Single-parent families have a significantly lower median net worth than do couples with children and tend to have lower levels of employment. We also know that single-parent families are disproportionately led by women, so these financial pressures contribute to the feminization of poverty. Receiving a fair and accurate amount of child and spousal support can help prevent these families from experiencing poverty. Addressing family poverty helps to target child poverty, which we know can have long-lasting impacts. Bill C-78 therefore proposes several important changes to make it easier for families to receive the support to which they are entitled.

A significant impediment to families receiving the child support they need is parties' failure to disclose incomes, despite their obligation to do so. The bill will amend the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to allow the federal government to provide information from a party's tax returns to a court as well as other provincial services such as maintenance enforcement services and provincial child support services.

There are currently billions of dollars in unpaid child support payments in Canada, the vast majority of which are owed to women. With this bill, we are giving provinces, territories and individuals more tools to ensure that those obligations are being paid. The bill includes rigorous privacy protections to support this change. If this information were released to a court, it would have to be sealed and kept inaccessible to the public.

The bill's fourth priority is increasing access to justice and improving efficiency. Bill C-78 will provide parents with more options to resolve family law disputes. While the courts may be the best route for some families, others may benefit from out-of-court dispute resolution processes as a lower-conflict, more expeditious and lower-cost option. These processes enable parents to play an active role in crafting their own agreements, which increases compliance and makes for better agreements that are uniquely adapted to each family's situation.

However, Bill C-78 does not make family dispute resolution mandatory. Situations of family violence or power imbalance can make some mediation or dispute resolution processes inappropriate. What Bill C-78 does is require that lawyers must now inform their clients of all their options, both in and out of court, so that families are sufficiently informed of all available options.

In conclusion, Bill C-78 includes a number of other important changes that I'm happy to discuss further, but for now I would like to thank all the members of the committee for the meaningful work that you will undertake in studying this bill and for the ongoing dedication to making Canada's laws as strong as they can be.

Through Bill C-78, we have an important opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of Canadian children and families. Separation and divorce are among life's most challenging events, and I am proud that Bill C-78 proposes significant ways to make these processes a bit easier for all involved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much, Minister. We really appreciate that.

We will now go to Mr. Clement.

3:35 p.m.

Tony Clement Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being available for this important bill.

I want to convey to committee members that I have two notices of motion, and I will read them now. We won't debate them now, as I understand it. I don't want to cut into the minister's time, but I did want members to be aware of these notices of motion.

The first one says:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to appear to answer questions with respect to any rules, precedents, or procedures related to the invocation of cabinet confidence to prevent the disclosure of information as requested by counsel in a trial process.

This, obviously, relates to the Norman issue.

My second notice of motion is:

That, pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 24, 2018, the Committee consider the Supplementary Estimates (A) before the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 81(5); and that the Committee invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to appear in view of this study.

I want to get that on the record and proceed with a few questions and answers, if you don't mind, Minister.

First of all, I note that there's quite an increase in the judicial system when it comes to self-represented litigants. That's true of many courts, not just the family court, of course. Bill C-78 is now four times longer than the previous act, so non-lawyers are going to have difficulty, I would say, digesting all of that and making sense of it.

I wanted to get your thoughts, Minister, on how this will impact case management and not lead to a further bogging down of the family court system, which, I think you will agree, is somewhat overburdened right now.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you for the question. It's a pleasure to have you at this committee.

As to the further bogging down of the family justice system, I will answer that by reference to a number of tools we're working on to provide information and resources not only to self-represented litigants but also to individuals, legal agents and lawyers involved in the family justice system.

Of course, our department is going to work very diligently to provide information and materials to the public on the various aspects of Bill C-78. We are in the process of working on that and will do so in conjunction with our colleagues in the provinces and territories, who are also responsible for the shared administration of justice in the family courts.

Beyond that, I'm pleased that in the previous budget we were able to receive endorsements for 39 new judges, who will comprise an expansion of the unified family courts in four jurisdictions, which will help to streamline the process. By introducing changes to the Divorce Act and the other acts, we are updating and modernizing the acts. We have been doing so in concert with my colleagues in the provinces and territories. I look forward in the next week to sitting down with my colleagues to discuss Bill C-78 and the tools we are going to be making available.

3:40 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC

Tony Clement

Given the, I must say, poor track record on judicial appointments of this government to date, how can Canadians be sure that these promises will be fulfilled?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I would say that I'm incredibly pleased with the track record of our judicial appointments. Since I became minister, we have made over 235 appointments or elevations of extremely meritorious individuals, who now sit in the superior courts across the country and reflect the diversity of Canada.

We are continuing to work very diligently with the judicial advisory committees to process applications. I would urge you, my colleague, and all of the other members around this table to encourage individuals who would qualify as judges to put their applications forward.

3:40 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC

Tony Clement

The issue is not the applications, it's the actual process by which you decide and determine....

However, let's leave that and go on to the children, Minister, because you did highlight the importance of protecting children and their well-being and how that is obviously of primary importance.

I do want to comment, though, that this committee has just been through Bill C-75. Of course, that bill proposes summary conviction options for very serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of a criminal organization, forced marriage, and marriage under the age of 16. These are all hybridized offences now.

How do you square what we saw in Bill C-75 with your rhetoric today about children's protection?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I appreciate the question. I completely disagree with the characterization of rhetoric.

Bill C-78 is a very substantial, significant piece of legislation. It seeks to update the Divorce Act, which hasn't been updated in two decades, as well as to ensure that we are putting in place factors that will enable and assist a judge to determine the best interests of the child, and factors around domestic violence and relocation, all of which are to protect and put a child first.

In terms of Bill C-75, which is our criminal justice reform bill, I am very familiar with the 136 offences that we're seeking to hybridize in that piece of legislation. I will say, as I've said many times before this committee, but particularly in the House, nothing in terms of the hybridization of offences changes the fundamental principles of sentencing. Serious offences will still be prosecuted in a serious manner, due to and having regard to the proportion of the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

We are not reducing sentences. We're providing prosecutors with the necessary tools and discretion that they need to proceed in the manner that is most appropriate in the individual circumstances of a particular case.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Sorry, you're over the seven minutes now.

3:45 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC

Tony Clement

Okay. Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Mr. Ehsassi.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

It's great to have you back. Thank you so much for this incredible bill.

As you rightly noted, this is the first substantial update of the family law regime that we've had in over two decades. It was incredible to see all the changes that are being made.

My first question has to do with the fact that this proposed bill will incorporate the Hague conventions, more specifically the 1996 Hague convention, and the 2007 one. In addition, finally, we will come into full conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Would you mind sharing with us how significant this is?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you for the question.

In terms of the last convention you mentioned, the rights of the child, we're pleased, in terms of being able to assess the best interests of the child. One of the factors for a court to consider or individuals to consider in terms of the best interests of the child is the child's interests and the child's views, in appropriate circumstances. That brings us into compliance with what has been asked for in that particular convention.

In terms of the other two conventions, Bill C-78 provides us with the steps to be able to accede to those other two conventions, as you say the 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children, and the 2007 convention on child support. As you probably know, these are significant conventions, and we will be able to move forward with signing on to these conventions.

Briefly, the 1996 convention sets out rules to clarify issues, such as what country's courts can make decisions about parenting arrangements for a child, and what law should apply when a child lives in one country but also has close connections to one or another country. The 2007 convention is an international agreement that provides a low-cost and efficient way for people to get family support across international borders.

This enables us to move forward with respect to these two conventions.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you very much for that.

A second really important aspect of this bill is promoting access to justice and, to the best of our abilities, ensuring that we're alleviating pressure on the family court system. One thing this bill does is encourage Canadians to resolve divorces and divorce-related issues by way of alternative dispute resolution. One of the concerns is that the mechanism for ADR isn't necessarily readily available all across the country.

What would you say to that particular concern?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I would say, first of all, that I'm really encouraged by the member having obviously reviewed our bill very closely.

In terms of alternative dispute resolution, of course, this is something we're encouraging. We're also putting a positive obligation on lawyers and other individuals to recommend alternative dispute resolution processes where appropriate. We have, in working with the provinces and territories, made financial commitments to the provinces and territories. In budget 2017, we committed $16 million per year for family justice services on an ongoing basis. Of those dollars, $15 million goes to provinces and territories for their family justice activities and $1 million, yearly, goes to support innovative programming in the provinces and territories.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Excellent. Thank you so much for that.

The last question I have is this. Some people are quite concerned that this particular bill does not incorporate the equal parenting presumption. Could you kindly inform us why you decided not to do so?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Sure. That's a great question and one that we've had many times.

The central premise of Bill C-78 is to put the child first, and we purposely did not put any presumptions, in terms of equal parenting, in this legislation because of that very fact.

Children are different. Family situations are different. We wanted to ensure that the primary consideration was around the best interests of the child, and not the consideration of what's in the best interests of a particular parent. We provided many different factors around what could be determined and weighed, in terms of the best interests of the child. To have a presumption would put individuals in a place where they rebut that presumption in favour of one parent or the other. We want to ensure in every way possible that the focus is on the best interests of the child.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you very much. That was very helpful. That concludes my questions.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much, and you were perfect. You hit it right at six minutes.

Ms. Sansoucy, please go ahead.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, thank you for being here. Thank you also for introducing this bill, which the legal community and parents have been awaiting for a long time.

I have six questions for you. If I don't have time to ask you all of them, could I send you the questions through our clerk so your departmental officials can provide the answers in writing? I would appreciate that.

I would like to continue with my colleague's question about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention is mentioned in the preamble to the bill only. Would you agree to amendments so that it is included in the bill?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you for the questions, and yes, we are very happy to provide comprehensive answers to the six issues you put forward.

I would say at the outset that we are open to any proposed amendments that come from the committee, but I was just conferring with Laurie, my official, and it's not our practice to put the text or the substance of the convention within the body of the legislation. We put in place the principle of that convention, which we have done in the factors around the best interests of the child, to take into account the child's desires and the child's interests.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

I don't mean the entire text, just mentioning the convention within the body of the bill and not just in the preamble. That is what I was getting at.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children recommends that awareness and legal training about the process for determining the child's best interests should be based on the convention and on the general observations of the Committee on the Rights of Child, which provides additional guidelines on implementing this principle.

What does the government intend to do to increase awareness about this fundamental principle of children's rights?