Okay.
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.
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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Colin Carrie Oshawa, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to applaud you for making this proposed amendment. I've been working with stakeholders who are working towards having more recognition of equal parenting. I think everyone around the table realizes that it's in the best interests of a child to have a good relationship with both parents. This is a great starting point, and I believe it's consistent with the Senate report of 1998. I hope, therefore, that colleagues around the table will be supportive of this amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I'd like to hear from the officials on this one in particular and then make comment.
My understanding is that this is going some way towards adding a presumption. It appears as though it's making a preference over some of the factors and considerations that go into the overall paramountcy of the best interests of the child by adding certain elements and ranking them as to how these things are balanced and factored.
I'd like to hear the officials' thoughts on whether or not that is an accurate assessment of this amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I'm not sure I understand specifically what your question is. I can just comment on what the minister has indicated as the focus in this bill. First of all, she said when she appeared before this committee that there are no presumptions being presented in this legislation and that the focus is on the best interests of the child, so that the parties who are involved with each other in looking to make a decision, arrangement or agreement—or family justice professionals, service providers or judges—would be looking at each case individually, without starting on the basis of a presumption, to see what is in the best interests of a particular child in particular circumstances.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
My point was, from looking at this amendment, that it would appear as though it creates a presumption, or goes some way towards creating a presumption, of equal parenting time. If that's the case, it detracts from the overall purpose of not having presumptions and leaving the best interests of the child as the overall consideration.
Is that fair?
5:10 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Yes.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
Based on that—and I know we heard testimony from individuals who wanted to say that the best interests of the child is a wonderful thing, but that we should identify certain factors, such as equal parenting time, as primary considerations that go into the factor—I think this erodes the basic premise, about which we heard from many witnesses, that the only consideration should be the best interests of the child.
Since this amendment erodes that overall paramountcy of best interests of the child, I can't support the amendment.
5:15 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-8 has not been withdrawn.
Ms. Fortier.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is a motion that would improve consistency between the wording of this provision and similar provisions in provincial and territorial laws. It's to remove the word “by”. It doesn't change the meaning of the provision.
5:15 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
I should note, before we proceed to further discussion on this amendment, that if amendment LIB-8 is adopted, amendment NDP-3, Madame Sansoucy, cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
Does any member wish to speak?
Madame Sansoucy.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I want to make sure I fully understand. Does that mean we are not changing anything in the French version?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
No, the amendment is just to the English version. I spoke in English, I am sorry.
5:15 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Seeing no one else waiting to speak, I'll proceed to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-3 now cannot be moved, in light of the passage of amendment LIB-8.
We will now move to amendment NDP-4.
Madame Sansoucy.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is basically the same argument I made earlier.
Training on the way to consider the interest of the child in family court proceedings must be based on the 2007 Convention and on current best practices in Canada and other countries. It would therefore be worthwhile to add: “based on the 2007 Convention, the 1996 Convention, and current best practices in Canada and other countries.”
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The courts already have to interpret family law statutes in a manner consistent with relevant international statutes and treaties that are in force in Canada. This amendment is unnecessary.
5:15 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Does any other member wish to speak?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move on to amendment NDP-5.
Madame Sansoucy.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
It is important for the rights, culture, religion, and language of indigenous children to be recognized. Representatives of UNICEF Canada recommended that our committee amend paragraph 12(3)(f) to more closely resemble article 30 of the convention, which recognizes the right of an indigenous child, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language. That emphasizes the importance of cultural continuity and identity preservation, which are also recognized in the convention. We therefore propose the addition of the words “the child's rights” at the start of paragraph 12(3)(f).
December 5th, 2018 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would submit that this particular change would be unnecessary, and I would say so given what we heard from the officials earlier today, as well as the fact that courts are supposed to interpret provisions in a manner that is consistent with international statutes and international treaties. It would appear to me that this wouldn't make much of a difference.