Evidence of meeting #39 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Can you just read it again without the extra explanation? Interpretation is putting all of it through as the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Read very clearly just what the amendment is—it will become 1(a).
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Here it is:
[...] “any amount owing by the offender pursuant to a common-law partner, spousal or child support order made by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We're supposed to be getting interpretation. I'm not getting any interpretation here.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Okay. I'll just say it like this. Instead of just having children or spouse I will put.... I don't know the term in English, but in French it is
common-law partner.
when you're not married to somebody.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
It will be an addition at the end.
I think it's a reality everywhere, and it's fair to add that to the bill.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I will acquiesce to the legal judgment of my friend at the end of the table, but I have dealt with some family law issues in Ontario. Each living arrangement is viewed differently by the courts; however, I think the usual interpretation is that after about six weeks of two people living together, they are considered spouses, and there is no differentiation in the family court as to whether you're—
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm not a civil lawyer in Quebec, so I'm a little out of my league here, but I'm curious as to why Ms. Doré Lefebvre is proposing to add extra words.
It appears to me that if a court of competent jurisdiction makes an award for spousal support or child support, it is captured by proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(a), full stop, end of story. She's attempting to specify, and she should think very carefully about this. When she's talking about married couples or common-law couples, and
in French, conjoint...
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
She might actually be excluding same-sex couples. So if I were her, I would let the wording remain as is. If there's a court order for spousal or child support, it's covered, end of story. It doesn't attempt to define the relationship.
Conservative
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Rathgeber. As soon as you start specifying, even in terms of “child”.... A child may not even be the biological child of an individual. He might an adopted child. There are so many variations with “child” that I don't think we should start defining it.
If a competent jurisdiction has awarded spousal or child support, it's not up to us to define what that entails. If a court has awarded “spousal or child support”, I think we have it here. I agree with Mr. Rathgeber that rather than starting to define and differentiate it, which might cause more problems, we should go with the court order. That is how the bill is written.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Sometimes I've seen court orders, having some experience with family law, and usually, as they say in French, a
quarrel
between the two—you know, “it's my weekend”. Having viewed many court orders, in my experience they try to steer away from the words “child”, “ward of”, etc.
I'm just wondering, Mr. Garrison or Madam Lefebvre, if you received this from a lawyer who practises family law in Quebec, how negatively would this impact...? My worry is exactly the same. Sometimes you make it worse by trying to be too specific.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you for your comments.
As you know, there are a few things which are different in Quebec, compared to the rest of Canada. A good example is the status of common-law partners and married people. According to Quebec's Code civil, common-law partners and married spouses do not have the same rights in several respects. Right now, there is a huge legal case about the rights of common-law partners and married spouses. It's an ongoing debate. I cannot reveal the name of the person, even though he is quite famous in Canada. It's happening right now in Quebec.
When I read this, I am concerned about the children of common-law partners. I am not qualified to speak about the rest of Canada, but it might be interpreted negatively in Quebec. That's why it should be added.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm sympathetic to Ms. Doré Lefebvre's predicament. I know the case she is talking about; that's a matrimonial property case, as opposed to a child support case, but that's neither here nor there.
I appreciate that Quebec courts have from time to time been less likely to make awards of child support when the parents of those children are not married. I understand that. That said, she can't get around that by proposing a change of definition in proposed paragraph 78.1(1)(a). This legislation will only apply to court orders.
If a court in Quebec is not inclined, for whatever reason, to grant child support when the parents are unmarried, I'm sympathetic to that. I would disagree with that Quebec court assessment. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this legislation, which will only apply, rightfully, to court-ordered maintenance and child support orders.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
