Ms. May.
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.
5:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
When you look at these things in the abstract as the leader of the Green Party and you think that the Liberals are moving this anyway, you don't think it's Ron by himself and that he's about to withdraw it. I was sure these were all going in.
In any case, I accept that you've been dissuaded from this. I still think it's the right way to go. It makes for happier families.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm going to play the “I'm not a lawyer” card. When I hear this stuff.... I wanted to submit it, but I certainly take very well the advice of more scholarly legal opinions.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-6?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. McKinnon, are you withdrawing amendment LIB-5?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Then what I'm going to do is ask Mr. Cooper to move to the chair, and we'll start amendment PV-7.
Then, Ms. May, I think that gives you a gap after you finish amendment PV-8 to run over to the event too.
5:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's sweet of you. Thank you.
Happy Hanukkah. I'll be there soon.
5:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, new Chair.
You'll remember the testimony around this. The existing legislative language speaks to the “nature and strength of the child's relationship” with each parent, or in its language, “with each spouse”, with “the child's siblings” and so on.
The question was whether “nature and strength” is the right language. What if there's a very strong and controlling parent—a situation that does not actually represent a healthy relationship—but the relationship is very strong; in other words, the child is scared to death of one of the parents?
I know what they're trying to get at with “nature and strength” in that legislative language. I'm suggesting that the “quality” of the child's relationship is more neutral language and more encompassing of what's healthy, in distinction from the use of the word “strength”.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'd like to ask the officials a question. There's a difference here between using the words “nature and strength” versus using “quality”. Could you tell me what the significance of it is? My understanding is that “nature and strength” is consistent with usage elsewhere in the act, and “quality” is perhaps not as well defined.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
The terminology “nature and strength” is used in other family law legislation. For example, it's used in the B.C. Family Law Act, and no concerns have been raised with respect to the use of that terminology in that legislation.
The term “quality” is much broader than the concept of “nature”, which has you look at different aspects of the relationship, and “strength”, which asks about whether there is a close relationship, a good relationship—those types of issues.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to ask the officials a question.
How long has the B.C. Family Law Act been in effect with the language “nature and strength”? When you say there's been no difficulty with it, I assume you mean in case law or in any litigation surrounding that terminology. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes. I'm not going to say that I know the exact date when it came into force, but it has been in force—
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
It's been in force for several years now, and we're not aware of any case law that has identified any problems with the use of the term “nature and strength”.
5:05 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
I think we're ready to proceed to a vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now moving to amendment LIB-6.
Mr. McKinnon.
5:10 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
We move on to amendment PV-8. If this amendment is adopted, amendments LIB-7 and LIB-9 cannot be moved.
Ms. May.
5:10 p.m.
A voice
She's not here.
5:10 p.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. Michael Cooper
I'm going to give Ms. May the benefit of....
We will open debate and we'll proceed with the vote.
Seeing that no one wishes to speak, we'll move to a vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Moving on to amendment LIB-7, Mr. McKinnon, it should be noted that it's identical to part (a) of amendment PV-8, which was defeated.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'll withdraw this amendment, as well as amendment LIB-8.