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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Elissa Lieff  Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Michael Cooper  St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Claire Farid  Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Colin Carrie  Oshawa, CPC
Arif Virani  Parkdale—High Park, Lib.

5:15 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Thank you, Mr. Ehsassi.

Does any other member wish to speak?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now proceed to amendment LIB-9.

Mr. McKinnon.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

That is withdrawn.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Moving along, we have amendment LIB-10, Mr. McKinnon.

I should note that if it is adopted, then amendment PV-9 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

That is also withdrawn.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Okay. We will now proceed to amendment PV-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move now to amendment PV-10. It should be noted that if PV-10 is adopted, amendment LIB-11 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Does anyone wishing to speak on PV-10?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now move to amendment LIB-11.

Mr. McKinnon.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

This is also withdrawn.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

On amendment LIB-12, go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

I'm on a roll, so I'll withdraw this one as well.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

On amendment PV-11, does any member wish to speak?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move to amendment LIB-13.

Mr. Fraser.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The effect of this amendment is in changing clause 12. It would be moving proposed subsection 16.2(1) of the bill, the provision for maximum parenting time, into another part of section 16 that deals with the best interests of the child. This amendment clarifies, somewhat related to what I was speaking to earlier about another amendment, both that a child's relationship with each parent is important and that considering the best interests of the child is the only test to be applied in making parenting arrangements, while having regard for the fact that having both parents as part of a child's life is important to the child.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Does any member wish to speak to this?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move to amendment CPC-3. I should note that if CPC-3 is adopted then amendment LIB-14 cannot be voted on.

Although, Mr. McKinnon, did you withdraw LIB-14 officially?

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Yes.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Sorry, that's my mistake. You did. That takes care of that. We'll now go to discussion on amendment CPC-3.

Mr. Carrie.

5:20 p.m.

Oshawa, CPC

Colin Carrie

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again I think this is a great amendment to consider, and I ask my colleagues to think about how important it is for kids. Really it is in the best interests of kids to have a good relationship with both parents. If you look at proposed subsection (8) it says:

The presumptions set out in subsection (7) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or decision-making responsibility other than equally.

I think it would take into account my other Liberal colleagues' challenge with the other amendment. I think this is consistent with the Senate report of 1998 and it is a great starting point during these situations.

5:20 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Thank you.

Does any member wish to speak?

Mr. Fraser.

December 5th, 2018 / 5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

I understand where this is coming from; however, I go back to the point about the fact that adding presumptions into what is a wholesome view of what is in the best interests of the child can be dangerous.

I note that the courts already take into account the fact that a shared parenting arrangement or maximum parenting time—all of these things—are often weighed already in determining what is in the best interests of the child.

Putting parenting presumptions in the Divorce Act would likely detract from courts focusing on the specific needs of each individual child. I think we've heard plenty of testimony to indicate that these should be considered case by case, and adding presumptions detracts from the overall best interests of the child test.

Therefore, I won't be supporting this amendment.

5:25 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Is there any other member wishing to speak?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Liberal-14, as I indicated, is withdrawn.

We'll now move to Liberal-15. It should be noted that if Liberal-15 is adopted, Green Party-12, Liberal-16 and Liberal-17 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Ms. Khalid.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair. It's great to see you in that chair.

This is basically a technical amendment. It simply renumbers the proposed subsections of proposed new section 16.2, which is required as a result of the removal of the maximum parenting time provision from this section.

5:25 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Are there any other members wishing to speak?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

PV-12 cannot be moved. The same goes for Liberal-16 as well as Liberal-17.

We'll now move to PV-13.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move to Liberal-18.

Mr. McKinnon.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

That is withdrawn.

5:25 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Okay, now we'll move to PV-14.

Is there any member wishing to speak?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move to Liberal-19.

Mr. McKinnon.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

This is a technical amendment.

There are circumstances in which requiring notice of an application for exemption from notice requirements would not be appropriate. For example, where a change in residence is sought by someone fleeing family violence, providing notice to other parties, including a perpetrator of family violence, may create a serious risk.

Therefore, explicitly providing that applications for exemptions from notice requirements may be made without notice to other parties is an amendment worthy of support in my view.

5:25 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Thank you for that.

Is there any other member wishing to speak?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Michael Cooper) We'll move to Liberal amendment 20. It should be noted that if this amendment is adopted, CPC-4 and Green Party-15 cannot be moved, as well as Liberal-21.

Is there any member wishing to speak?

Mr. Ehsassi.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

I think this is a welcomed amendment. I think the use of prescribed forms is something that we should all welcome, in the sense that it brings clarity and consistency for people who are involved in these types of cases. That would also make it consistent with the manner in which we deal with a change in residence.

I think this is a very positive amendment.

5:30 p.m.

The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper

Does any other member wish to speak to LIB-20?

I want to ask the officials if there is any basis for the 60-day timeline. Is there a technical issue as to why it's 60 days?

Perhaps, Mr. Ehsassi...?