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
You just said if that “were” to happen, which is my point. This is a conditional query, basically, instead of a definite past tense, as this is currently written.
Let's say I moved an amendment to change “was” to “were”. Would that be a problem in terms of the law in any way? It would make me happy, but I'm just wondering about the law.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
I would say that the language contained here is standard drafting language. It's a difference in tenses.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I will move an amendment to change the word “was” to “were” and see if I can sell it here.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Is there any discussion on Mr. McKinnon's subamendment to change “was” to “were”?
Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I have nothing but the greatest of respect for my colleague and friend, but I think we should probably stick with the standard drafting language as alluded to by the officials.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Is anyone else wishing to speak to Mr. McKinnon's subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
Is there any further discussion on LIB-25?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now proceed to CPC-8.
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'll try to get this as clear as I can from the proposer of the amendment. Basically it is to put the responsibility on the person who wishes to make the amendment. The burden is on them to prove that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child. It's all about what's in the best interests of the child, and the person who wants to make the relocation is going to have to make that case to the court that it's in the best interests of the child.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
That's correct, and maybe just to elaborate on the intent of the amendment, it's intended to simplify the process with respect to relocation. Under the bill as it is currently drafted, there would be a three-way test. Where there is a shared-parenting relationship, the burden would fall on the parent proposing the move. Where there is an unequal relationship and the child spends very little time with one parent, the burden would fall on the parent who does not spend time with the child to justify why the move should not occur. Then there would be the case of both parties having the burden if there is some sort of arrangement in between, something between a shared-parenting relationship and something on the upper end of the spectrum. It's really intended simply to simplify that, as a general rule, the burden should fall on the parent who is proposing the move except where that parent does not have a real relationship or a significant relationship with the child.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak to that?
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
It can get a little bit complicated. I know we heard from witnesses on the burden of proof. Could you just help clarify the burden of proof as it is currently in the bill and what the effect of this amendment would be, please?
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
The burdens as laid out in the bill, the framework, are very similar to what is in the legislation in Nova Scotia. There are three different situations. There's a situation where there's substantially equal time, and in that case the burden is on the person proposing to move. There's the situation where one parent has the vast majority of the time, so there's a clear primary caregiver. In that case the person who is opposing the move has the burden of proof. In those cases in between that are not the clear cases on either end of the spectrum, both parents have the burden to show what's in the best interests of the child.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
Is this alluded to in the Gordon v. Goertz case as far as burden goes, or is that totally separate and apart? I'm just wondering, because I know the bill is legislating or codifying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz, but does it talk to burden at all?
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
No, the legislative approach in the bill actually is not consistent with the approach in Gordon v. Goertz. It actually legislates more guidelines than there are in Gordon v. Goertz.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Thank you.
I should note that if amendment CPC-8 is adopted, amendment LIB-26 by Mr. McKinnon could not be moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment LIB-26.
Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
This amendment is intended to provide for a prescribed form for notice in the case where a person with contact is proposing a move that would have a significant impact on the child's relationship with that person. Requiring a use of a form prescribed by the regulations would promote clarity by prompting individuals to provide all necessary information in a consistent manner. This is identical to the amendments that were previously made with respect to notice requirements regarding change of residence and location. It would expressly provide that applications for modifications of or exemption from the notice requirements may be made on an ex parte basis.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.
Does any other member wish to speak?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(On clause 14)
We'll move now to Liberal amendment 28 on clause 14.
Madame Fortier.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
This is just to correctly spell the word “reside” in the English version.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 15 to 21 inclusive agreed to)
Clause 22 and Liberal-28.1 has already been adopted, moved by Mr. Housefather.
(Clauses 23 to 30 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 31)
We move to clause 31 and we have Liberal amendment 29.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is merely a housekeeping matter. It's not a substantive change. Anyone who reads the previous version will note that it was missing a verb, so I think it would do us good to support this.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Thank you, Mr. Ehsassi.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 32 to 45 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 46)
There is Liberal amendment 30.
Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is basically a technical amendment that would ensure that the correct word is used by changing “subparagraph” to “paragraph”, just for the sake of clarity.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])