Evidence of meeting #119 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 best.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Siham Haddadi  Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec
Valérie Laberge  Member, Family Law Committee, Barreau du Québec
Nicolas Le Grand Alary  Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec
Gillian Bourke  Lawyer, Family Law Association of Nunavut
Daniel Boivin  President, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.
Shalini Konanur  Executive Director and Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
Silmy Abdullah  Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
Arif Virani  Parkdale—High Park, Lib.
Valerie Irvine  Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Grant Wilson  President, Canadian Children's Rights Council
Alan Hamaliuk  Vice-President, Men's Educational Support Association
Gus Sleiman  President, Men's Educational Support Association
Lisa Wolff  Director, Policy and Research, UNICEF Canada
Edward Kruk  President, International Council on Shared Parenting
Rollie Thompson  Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Janice Christianson-Wood  President, Canadian Association of Social Workers
Glenn Cheriton  President, Canadian Equal Parenting Council
Leighann Burns  Executive Director, Family Law Lawyer, Harmony House
Rob Nicholson  Niagara Falls, CPC

6:50 p.m.

Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual

Rollie Thompson

The difficulty you bump into with that, if I can describe it this way.... The underlying concern that leads to that is the worry that you will default and say no to the move. That's the concern that underlies that, if the parent seeking to move says, “I won't move without my kids.” That's the concern that underpins the question. The difficulty is that, if you end up not knowing what someone might do—and let's face it, what they might do after the judgment—you may not know what the options realistically are. Someone may be prepared to move no matter what; other people might not.

If you want to resolve these cases, the one thing that we've learned is that the more you know what options are on the table, the more likely it is that you can find one that will avoid the conflict. My concern is that, when you take something off the table like that, because it's awkward.... There's a wonderful quote in my brief from a B.C. Court of Appeal judge. The reality is that it may provide important information in the best interests of the child. That's what we're after in trying to resolve these cases.

It's awkward, and it's difficult, but sometimes you need to know it.

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Thanks, that's helpful.

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Ms. Sansoucy, go ahead.

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question goes to Ms. Christianson-Wood.

Bill C-78 stresses the need for a dispute resolution mechanism, a process that would happen out of court.

That seems like a wise option to make the process of divorce easier. But does the bill contain the provisions needed to prevent the insistence on those mechanisms from creating disparities in access to justice as a result of a family’s social economic background? It is the poorest families who are directed to out-of-court processes because they do not have access to legal services.

6:50 p.m.

President, Canadian Association of Social Workers

Janice Christianson-Wood

In Manitoba, since before 1989, families access services of mediation, consultation and court-ordered assessments through a government-funded service. At different times, Manitoba has also put in services for teenagers, recognizing their special needs, or for children in a program called Caught in the Middle. I'm not sure that these are in effect at this time. My information suggests that they're not.

Extrajudicial processes are possible if governments are willing to support children. We know that divorce is hard on children. We know it's hard on everybody. Put the money where it will help children. Yes, we know that it's often difficult for one parent who is less financially advantaged to hang in to fight longer. We'd like to see money, time and effort put into reducing conflict and moving children through with as little harm as possible.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Thank you.

Ms. Burns, you said that, in addition to the act, it is important to conduct an awareness campaign. Could you tell me more about that?

6:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Family Law Lawyer, Harmony House

Leighann Burns

I think the conceptions of what violence is are not clear. With something like coercive control, which is an emerging understanding, I think the courts need assistance to figure out what that looks like.

The other thing is that courts tend to look at discrete acts of violence rather than the overall pattern of control and abuse. We've had legislation in Ontario since 2006, making violence and abuse mandatory considerations in custody and access, and it's not showing. It's not translating into big changes in terms of outcomes, so it's clear that we need more. We need to assist courts to understand what that looks like, what it means and what the implications are for children.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Thank you.

That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses. It was really appreciated to hear from you. You really helped us.

Thank you very much.

We have a five-minute in camera meeting, so unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask everyone if they could clear the room as quickly as possible. If you want to talk to us, feel free to wait outside. We'll be happy to talk to you. Thank you so much again. Your testimony was really helpful.

[Proceedings continue in camera]