Evidence of meeting #124 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 child.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I think Ms. May and I were cribbing from the same testimony. When I first saw this, I liked it, but I now see that it is not necessary and on that basis I will oppose this.
Liberal
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
I don't have a problem with the current language in the bill, because it states very clearly that it is “to the extent that it is appropriate to do so”, and clearly, in the case of family or domestic violence it wouldn't be appropriate to do so, and of course there could be other circumstances in which it's not appropriate to do so.
I think it's redundant and doesn't add.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
Hearing none, we will proceed to a vote on amendment PV-3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to amendment PV-4. If it is adopted, amendment LIB-2 cannot be moved.
Mr. McKinnon, are you withdrawing amendment LIB-2 also?
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is to the same concern—ensuring that people involved with the family law system have a duty to prevent violence against women and children. It also extends to advice that is given.
Having an accredited family violence screening tool to assess the extent to which family violence may adversely affect the safety of the person of a family member and the ability of a person to negotiate a fair agreement, to have full information—those provisions—will be included, as you can see, following the existing requirements of the “Duty to discuss and inform”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Let me ask the department for their feedback on this one. We all, I think, believe in family violence screening. There is a question, though, whether there are tools available now in every province.
Could you let us know?
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Certainly the issue of family violence screening is an important one and it was raised by witnesses. The important issue to underline is that there's a jurisdictional issue here in terms of the implementation of any screening approach. Family violence screening requires training of those who would use any screening tool. The training for family law practitioners falls within the mandate of provincial law societies, so it's not something that can be done by the federal government on its own in federal legislation.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I actually like this amendment better than mine, so I would have withdrawn mine anyway.
Certainly based on what the officials have said, I don't believe there is an accredited family violence screening tool at this point in any event. I shall oppose this amendment.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would think the common-sense understanding of “accredited family violence screening tool” is the work of those who are court appointed to assess the suitability of family arrangements.
There are a lot of screening tools used in the courts to determine whether there's a risk, particularly when assessing custody. While we haven't defined that term, there's a common-sense understanding of what it is. That's why I used it in this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, that's understood.
Are there any other interventions?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
LIB-2 has been withdrawn, so we'll now move to LIB-3. Who is going to put that forward?
Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm sorry. It's the art of multi-tasking at this point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I totally understand.
While she's finding her place, I'll just say LIB-3 is basically to clarify “to inform the person of the parties' duties under this Act.” People were confused that it might be the lawyers' duties as opposed to the parties', so some witnesses had asked us to clarify that. That's why LIB-3 was drafted.
Ms. Khalid, I'll turn it back to you now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Does anyone want to speak to LIB-3? If no one wants to comment, we will call the question.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
There are no amendments to clauses 9, 10 or 11. May I group them?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We are now on clause 12 and we will start with amendment NDP-2.
Ms. Sansoucy, the floor is yours.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A number of witnesses have told us that it would be in all our interests to include, in a clause of Bill C-78, a reference to the preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, passed by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989. That is why I am asking that we add a reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to clause 12 of the bill.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have an amendment similar to this later on.
It is my understanding that the treaties and commitments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child are already fundamentally incorporated into Canadian law, so the judges are expected and required to follow them anyway. In that case, it's not needed and it's not good practice to incorporate references of that kind.
On that basis, I will oppose this amendment, just as I will withdraw my later amendment that references the same thing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I would like to ask for a clarification from the officials from the department. Is there not a convention that we do not name international treaties in our legislation? At least, that's what I thought I understood. Is that the case?