Arif Virani

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Mount Royal for his work as chair of the justice committee. He raised something that has not come up to a great extent in the debate thus far, which is the issue of the provision about parenting and presumptions. One or two points were raised earlier today by members of the opposition about their concern that equal parenting was no longer a presumption.

I know that the member for Mount Royal does a lot of research before he prepares for any speech or any committee hearing. I wanted to ask him about the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which noted in its 1998 report, called “For the sake of the children”, that a presumption in favour of a particular parenting arrangement would not likely be in the best interest of a particular child.

As the member knows, this bill looks squarely at the best interests of the child and not at parents. It looks at the best interest of the child and treating it on a case-by-case basis. Could he provide his view and perspective on how that assists addressing children and their plight in the context of divorce?

[Sex Education Curriculum, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this Thanksgiving, I give thanks for the incredible young people in Parkdale—High Park, students who had the courage to stand up and be heard on something that is vital: their education.

In 2015, Ontario revised its sexual education curriculum to bring it into the 21st century, to address things like same-sex families, gender identity, online bullying and consent, but the new Ontario government has seen fit to reverse that curriculum, to take it back to 1998 when things like the Internet and online sexual predatory activity were in their infancy. This reversion is not only unwelcome, it is unhelpful. It prevents our children from learning how to protect themselves.

However, it is not just me who disagrees with the reversion. It is also hundreds of my young constituents from Parkdale Collegiate, Western Tech, Ursula Franklin Academy, TheStudentSchool and Humberside Collegiate who walked out of class on September 21 to say, “We do not consent to taking education backward”.

Today, I lend my voice to theirs. Sex education must be modern and inclusive, and empower our young people about how to stay safe.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in respect of the debate we are having.

I would like to emphasize that, under the bill, no one is obligated to consult a lawyer.

In fact, through two very specific measures, the bill seeks to do just the opposite. It seeks to ensure that no one is obligated to consult a lawyer. First of all, it states that child support can be calculated as part of the administrative process—in other words, outside the courts and without having to consult any lawyers. Second, if child support needs to be recalculated because some adjustments are needed, that can also be done without consulting a lawyer.

Our ultimate goal is to make the family justice system less contentious than it is now.

That is why we have already listened to stakeholders from across the country. They see this bill as a good reform of the family justice system, which has not been updated in 20 years.

I am wondering if the member across the aisle could be more specific regarding his concerns. I do not believe that the bill will have quite that effect.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I also appreciate the fact that towards the end of his speech, he finally decided to talk about the bill before us, instead of talking about various other topics or concerns.

I myself will continue to talk about this bill. Maybe we could find an aspect of this bill that both our parties agree on. I am sure that the revenue gap is one of the Conservative Party's concerns.

That is what we sometimes call a “revenue gap” in English. I would point out to the member that revenue gaps in terms of income support payments, parental support and child support payments have been identified, to the tune of over $1 billion in arrears in Canada right now. That has a disproportionate impact on women, who are largely the people to whom the payments are made by debtors, who are largely men.

Given that context, would the member opposite agree to discuss this bill and the impact it would have in alleviating women and child poverty that has been identified right across the country, including in Beauport—Limoilou by his constituents?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member for Beauport—Limoilou in the middle of his speech, but I have to say that it is one thing to discuss Bill C-78, which is now before us, and quite another to give a long speech on NAFTA and the new agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico and bring supply management into it. I do not believe that is relevant.

lt is not relevant at all. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you make a ruling as to whether that is in order and ask the member opposite if he could direct his comments to this legislation.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's comments on child poverty, I will put to her a few important statistics that I have unearthed.

Two million Canadian children live in separated or divorced families. Sixty per cent of all cases where there is a maintenance enforcement program involved are in arrears. Those arrears of unpaid support total over $1 billion in Canada right now. By facilitating the payment of child support and putting in place better tools for garnishment and information sharing would help to address getting those payments flowing and would help to address the child poverty that my friend opposite has underscored as being an important imperative. Could she offer her comments on the impact this would have on child poverty?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what the hon. member for Vancouver East identified as a couple of gaps in the bill, through you, I would inform the House that unmarried couples are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, including common-law couples. That is a provincial and territorial matter.

During debate earlier today the member raised the issue of enforcement. The enforcement tools are indeed strengthened through this legislation. One principal and critical way is through the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, which will enable the government to do exactly what many members opposite have called on it to do. It will ensure that the departments are collaborating and sharing information, including sensitive Canada Revenue Agency information under certain parameters and with certain conditions, to ensure the enforcement of support orders.

I know from her work over the past three years that the member is a passionate advocate of two issues: multiculturalism and indigenous reconciliation. I would point out that for the first time, this legislation is entrenching an explicit requirement for courts to consider a child's linguistic, cultural and spiritual heritage and upbringing, including his or her indigenous heritage, when making decisions about parenting arrangements for the child. That is explicitly part of the best interests analysis that must now be undertaken.

Could the member for Vancouver East offer her comments on what that will do to advance cultural identity, including multiculturalism, and indigenous reconciliation?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix and I appreciate that she was so candid with the House about her own life and personal experience.

I would like to talk about three other figures that worry me a lot about poverty among women and children, an issue raised by the member opposite. In most cases, about 96% of the cases enrolled in a maintenance enforcement program, men are the ones who are paying child support.

A year ago, approximately 60% of the cases registered in a maintenance enforcement program were in arrears. We are talking about more than $1 billion. This is the problem this bill is trying to fix.

I would like to know what the member opposite has to say about these figures. How do we improve this situation to ensure that Canadian women and children no longer live in poverty?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member's candour and his honesty with the chamber in terms of sharing his own personal background and experience. I also applaud him for having raised a very fine son in what were likely difficult circumstances when he was younger.

With all due respect, I find that there is a bit of inconsistency in his remarks. He commented that this is a symbolic piece of legislation with not enough policy substance to it, but at the same time, he also said that it is an overly dense piece of legislation that is four times longer than the current act. The member cannot have it both ways. It is either one or the other. It is either too dense because it is too policy rich, or it is not dense enough and is only symbolic. The bill is dense in terms of policies, and I would point out a few, because they highlight exactly what he is driving at.

There are measures in this legislation that would address keeping people out of court in terms of calculating income support and also recalculating income support. There are measures in the bill that would specifically deal with information sharing between different government departments, particularly the CRA, that would allow people to calculate benefits better, more quickly and with more open disclosure. There are substantive aspects of the bill that would define family violence and force judges to take that into consideration when they are making determinations.

I would put it to the member opposite: Are those not the very type of substantive policy changes that he and many parliamentarians and many Canadians would like to see to advance the issue of family law and address the best interests of the child as the bottom line?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I confess I find the member's comments quite puzzling. To draw an analogy between this legislation and the Titanic is preposterous, because we had widespread consultations and have since received vociferous support from coast to coast to coast for this legislation. The Conservative government in Alberta is the very government that initiated the concept of changing the terminology from “custody and access” to “contact and parenting” orders.

The member raised Bill C-75 and some of the provisions in it that she finds logically inconsistent with what we are doing in Bill C-78. It is quite the contrary. In Bill C-75, we are doing exactly the same as we are doing in Bill C-78 in two important respects. One, intimate partner violence is at the heart of what we are doing in Bill C-75. We are addressing it and would make it a prerequisite to deal with that as a condition on bail. What we are doing here is making family violence something that a judge would have to consider, including criminal orders or proceedings, in determining the best interests of the child.

The other conceptual component that is exactly the same between the two pieces of legislation is that in each instance we are trying to reduce the very backlog in our court system that my friend opposite laments, our over-reliance on the court system, the over-litigiousness of Canadian society. We would be reducing that with Bill C-75, and exactly what we would be doing here with this provision. Two cases in point are the ADR mechanisms for calculating support.

Could I have the member opposite's comments on how improving ADR mechanisms addresses the very problem she has identified?