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.
5:30 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
If there's a technical issue as to why notice is 60 days long...?
5:30 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Certainly it's intended to provide sufficient time for someone to consider whether there's a need to provide objections to the notice and to allow for enough time for negotiations in order to prevent, if not necessary, a court application.
5:30 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Yes. I raised the question because there had been some testimony before the committee about whether that was sufficient time. I just wanted to get clarification as to whether there was a specific basis for that number, or whether that number was arrived at on a policy basis as opposed to some other technical case.
5:30 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Thank you.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
As a result, CPC-4 cannot be moved, as well as PV-15 and LIB-21, and that leaves us with CPC-5.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, I think this is somewhat self-explanatory. If someone doesn't receive any written notice, it would deem to be that notice had been given and that consent was then deemed for the relocation.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I would like to ask the officials if on application a person could ask the court for an extension of the time period in order to have an opportunity to respond to the request to move. Is that something that is possible? If there were a situation where there was a time problem or a delay in getting into court, could they ask a judge to extend the time in those appropriate cases?
5:30 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Certainly because this relates to the best interests of the child, if the court is concerned that sufficient time has not elapsed for the application to be brought, they would certainly have discretion in a particular case to nonetheless hear an application with respect to an objection to notice.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
If I may, Mr. Chair, on the 60-day time frame, that notice period, it's my understanding that it's consistent with the notice period in existing provincial schemes that deal with relocation issues for the children. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
That's correct. In B.C. and Nova Scotia, there are 60 days to provide notice and 30 days to provide an objection by way of application.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Based on what the officials have said, knowing that it's always a balancing act between a parent wanting to move and having the ability to have that adjudicated in a reasonable time frame, knowing that in provinces it's well established that it's a 60-day notice period, and also knowing that there would be an opportunity in those appropriate cases for a judge to extend the time, I think there are enough factors there to persuade me that the 60-day notice period is probably sufficient. Therefore, I'd be voting against the amendment.
5:30 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Is there any other member wishing to speak?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, we've dealt with PV-13 as well as LIB-21. We'll now move to amendment LIB-22. If it's adopted, CPC-6 and CPC-7 cannot be moved.
Does any member wish to speak on LIB-22?
December 5th, 2018 / 5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is a very good amendment in the sense that this will permit non-relocating parents the option of responding. It certainly saves them the trouble and expense of having to go to court. Again, this would be by a prescribed form, which I'm very much in favour of, as you know.
I think this is the type of amendment that promotes fairness and access to justice. For that reason, I think it should be supported.
5:35 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Is any other member wishing to speak on LIB-22?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
As a result of the passage of LIB-22, CPC-6 and CPC-7 cannot be moved.
That brings us to LIB-23.
Mr. McKinnon.
5:35 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Now we'll move to PV-16.
Is anyone wishing to speak to PV-16?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It should be noted that LIB-24 is substantively similar to PV-16.
Is anyone wishing to speak to LIB-24?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment deals with the issue of the double-bind question we heard about from a couple of different witnesses. When a parent is looking to relocate, the act prohibits asking whether or not the person who intends to relocate with the child would relocate without the child. This would make it so that both sides of that question are covered. It appears as though the legislation now is not entirely clear that it would not be barred from asking if the person would either relocate or not relocate without the child.
To cover both sides of that question, this amendment is put forward.
5:35 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
Thank you.
Is any other member wishing to speak?
Mr. McKinnon.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have a bit of concern about the wording here. The phrase “if the child's relocation was prohibited” seems a little bit incoherent to me. I'm wondering whether we should change “was” to “were” or else “were to be”. To me, that would clarify the meaning.
I guess I'm asking for any comments on that suggestion.
5:35 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
I would say it's an issue of tenses. “Was” assumes that the move has been prohibited, and then the court can't ask, if that were to happen, whether the person would move or not move. “Were to be” is just more forward-looking. It's a tense issue.