Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome everyone to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' clause-by-clause review of Bill C-78.

We are very pleased to welcome our witnesses from the Department of Justice. We have Ms. Elissa Lieff, senior general counsel.

I totally apologize for your missing the menorah lighting.

[Elissa Lieff, Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We have Ms. Claire Farid, who is senior counsel. We also have Ms. Andina van Isschot, acting senior counsel.

Welcome.

For all of the committee members present, let me say that as people know, I have to leave for about a half-hour or 40 minutes between 5:05 and 5:45. Mr. Cooper will be chairing during that time, but we're in sync.

Because I have to walk out and I have one amendment that I am proposing with Madame Fortier, everyone has agreed to do amendment LIB-28.1 first. If that's okay, it will be the only one. Then we'll go back right to the beginning and will go as normal.

I'll turn to Madame Fortier.

(On clause 22)

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, my dear colleagues.

As you know, the Fédération des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario and the Canadian Bar Association have both said that there are no provisions under which Canadians can obtain a divorce in the official language of their choice, either English or French.

This new provision is intended to make sure that Canadians from one end of the country to the other can obtain a divorce in the language of their choice. I doubt if you want me to read the provision.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you can help me with the next part. There is a provision that requires discussion with the provinces to make sure that those that do not have a provision of that kind, British Columbia, for example, do adopt one.

I hope that all the members of the committee will support this change.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

I must say that I was a little shocked to learn that people in Newfoundland and Labrador and in British Columbia have no right to ask for their divorce proceeding to be heard in French.

As Canadians, we believe that justice and access to justice should be available at the federal level in both official languages, especially when it is something as painful for people to go through and as traumatic as a divorce and the idea of who would parent children. It seems really unfair that there are some Canadians who are not able to do this in their own language, at one of the most painful times in their lives.

This amendment, for which I am hopeful to have support from all parties, is one that will enshrine for Canadians the right of access to divorce in both languages. You can testify in both languages. You can plead in both languages. You can receive translation, if somebody is testifying in the other language. You can also get the judgment in your language of choice, and you have a right to a judge who speaks one or both of the official languages of the parties. This is similar to what we have in the Criminal Code for criminal trials.

There will be another proposed section that says it will go into effect in various provinces on the date when the province is ready. This is a separate amendment, put into effect by cabinet.

I appreciate everyone's forbearance in doing this amendment first. For me as an English-speaking Quebecker, this is incredibly important.

It is also extremely important for French Canadians outside Quebec.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this really important amendment. We as a committee are doing something very important for Canadians who speak the minority official language in their province today.

I will turn it over to anyone else who wants to comment.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I might just want to add that, being known to be the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier, I have received many calls and much advocacy from different organizations saying, “This is not possible in my province and I would like you to bring it up, now that the act is being revised”. You can acknowledge that there is a need to give access to French Canadians but also know that in Quebec right now you can divorce in both official languages, but that some don't have that possibility. This is why I am advocating today for their being able to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Ms. Sansoucy, do you want to comment?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. We'll proceed to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 1)

Thank you so much. Now we'll go back to the beginning, to clause 1 and amendment CPC-1.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC]

Mr. Chair, I wish to withdraw that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. It's much appreciated.

Then we come to PV-1.

Ms. May, I sent you an email about that one. I hope you saw it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. I understand that you think it might be inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

It's only because...unless you can provide a reference to gender-based violence somewhere in the bill or in one of the amendments you proposed, which I couldn't find.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

First, I'm only here because of the motion that was passed by this committee. I still object to the motion. I object to it restricting my rights at report stage by insisting I be at clause-by-clause. It's often very difficult for a sole member of a party to be at everything.

This evening, I'm sure you share that concern. We have the lighting of the menorah. I will be disappearing for a brief amount of time to be present at that.

I can't refer you to where it's present in the act, but we do need a definition of “gender-based violence”. Amending this was a recommendation from a number of witnesses before the committee, including the National Association of Women and the Law. The only thing I could suggest is that the definition of “family violence” within this bill opens up the possibility for a definition of “gender-based violence”. I submit that and hope that others will agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I appreciate that. However, since there is no reference in the bill to “gender-based violence” and there's no amendment that proposes to include those words, you can't create a definition with no purpose. At that point, I have to rule that this amendment is out of order.

I would suggest that perhaps you could look at Madame Sansoucy's amendment on the next page, which introduces something similar in the realm of “family violence”, which would have been admissible.

Unfortunately, I have to rule the amendment out of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Of course, I accept your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

We now move to amendment NDP-1.

Ms. Sansoucy, the floor is yours.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I feel that it is important for any form of violence against women to be included in the notion of family violence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Just for everybody, because I should be keeping everybody on track, we're on NDP-1, on page 3, or line 20 on page 4, whichever anybody prefers.

Does anyone else wish to comment on this amendment?

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

While I appreciate the intent to clearly specify that, this bill is gender-neutral in all respects. That adds gender non-neutrality to this, so I'm going to vote against the amendment on that basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The amendment that the NDP has put forward at this point is quite similar to my second amendment. The chair hasn't decided that there's any reason the passage or defeat of Madame Sansoucy's amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Since you're adding it after line 20, it doesn't impact PV-2, or I would have said so.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That's right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No problem.

I have a question for the department. Amendment NDP-1 says:

(1.1) For greater certainty, the definition family violence in subsection (1) includes all forms of violence perpetrated against women.

That's understandable. Could that create any confusion that it would not then include all forms of violence perpetrated against men or others?