Bob Dechert

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that has been very important to my colleague. He has worked very significantly on it over the last several years.

There are a number of new offences under the bill. There will be a penalty for the first offence of up to six months in prison on summary conviction, or up to five years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. This is for both the transportation and sale and offer for sale of illegal tobacco products. For repeat offenders, those convicted on indictment could be sentenced to a mandatory minimum penalty of 90 days on a second conviction, 180 days on a third conviction, and two years less a day on subsequent convictions after that.

What we found in the past, under the Excise Tax Act, is that the trade in illicit tobacco products was simply an administrative statutory offence, and therefore the perpetrators received fines. They just made that the cost of doing business. They would pay the fine and continue to do it over and over again.

This is a very tailored set of penalties that increases with each subsequent offence. That will target the people who are involved in the continual trade in illicit tobacco products, and those would largely be criminal organizations from outside the native communities, not in the native communities.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that information was largely supplied at the justice and human rights committee during their study of this bill. It comes from various sources, the government as well as other NGO organizations.

I am sure the member has heard similar stories in his constituency. In my constituency, in Mississauga, there is a secondary school called Erindale Secondary School. There was an analysis done of the tobacco butts lying around the school yard and just off the school property where young people smoke. It was found that a significant percentage, more than 30% of those cigarette butts, came from illegal contraband tobacco.

That indicates that across Canada there is a problem with very cheap cigarettes being sold to young people in very small quantities that they can afford, maybe four or five cigarettes at a time. It gets them started down that road, which is a very serious health risk to young Canadians across Canada.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP justice critic's question. I do appreciate her hard work on the justice committee, and I enjoy working with her on that committee.

The member will remember that when we were at committee, there were a number of representatives of native communities from across Canada, especially those straddling the borders between Ontario, Quebec, and New York.

They told us about the illegal activity that is brought into their communities by organized crime groups that are largely not first nations-related groups. They take advantage of the people living there. They drag them down this road into illegal activity with the promise of easy money.

We were told by one chief that his Mohawk community had a very proud tradition of working in the construction industry, in high steel, in places like New York City and other places around the United States. Unfortunately, the lure of this easy money from smuggling illicit tobacco products across the St. Lawrence River was dragging his people away from that legitimate proud tradition and bringing them into areas of criminality.

We listened very closely to what the leaders had to say. This bill has been crafted largely in consideration of their views. We will always take the opportunity to listen to first nations communities about how this bill should be implemented.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco). This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide minimum penalties of imprisonment for persons who are convicted for a second or subsequent time of this offence.

To help reduce the problems of trafficking in contraband tobacco, the government committed, among other things, to establish mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco in its 2011 election policy platform. This bill would fulfill that commitment.

Indeed, the bill prohibits the possession for the purposes of sale, offer for sale, transportation, delivery, or distribution of a tobacco product or raw leaf tobacco that is not packaged unless it is stamped. The terms “tobacco product”, “raw leaf tobacco”, “packaged” and “stamped”, have the same meanings as in section 2 of the Excise Act.

The penalty for a first offence would be up to six months imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. Repeat offenders convicted of this new offence in cases involving 10,000 cigarettes or more, or 10 kilograms or more of any other tobacco product, or 10 kilograms or more of raw leaf tobacco would be sentenced to a minimum of 90 days on a second conviction, a minimum of 180 days on a third conviction, and a minimum of two years less a day on subsequent convictions. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious contraband tobacco activities. The bill proposes minimum penalties only in cases where there are certain aggravating factors present.

The contraband tobacco market first became a significant issue in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the taxes on cigarettes were increased sharply to raise government revenue and deter individuals from taking up or continuing smoking. During that period, more and more legally manufactured Canadian cigarettes destined for the duty-free market began to make their way back to the Canadian underground economy. The high retail price of legitimate cigarettes made the smuggling of cigarettes across the border a lucrative illicit business.

The RCMP and Canada Customs seized record quantities of contraband tobacco. The RCMP was also engaged in investigating this illegal activity at its source. These investigations eventually led to negotiated settlements involving certain tobacco companies, a landmark agreement signed in July 2008 that set a combined total of $1.15 billion in criminal fines and civil restitution, to be paid by the companies over 15 years. Also, two guilty pleas entered in April 2010 by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Northern Brands International resulted in $550 million in criminal fines and civil restitution.

By the mid-1990s, this type of smuggling activity largely came to an end, and there followed a period of relatively low levels of illegal activity related to contraband tobacco.

However, the illicit tobacco market in Canada has rebounded in recent years, rising rapidly since 2004 to become an acute problem once again. Today, the illicit manufacturing, distribution, and selling of contraband tobacco products is different from that of the 1980s and 1990s. Now illegal activity in Canada is primarily connected not to the diversion of legally manufactured products but to illegal manufacture, although it also includes to a lesser degree the illegal importation of counterfeit cigarettes and other forms of illicit tobacco from abroad.

Organized crime plays a central role in the contraband tobacco trade in Canada, and that means that this illegal activity is linked with other kinds of crime. Most of the organized crime groups across the country involved in the illicit tobacco market are also active in other forms of criminality. What we have in Canada is a situation where illegal contraband tobacco products are sold to children in schoolyards, because they are less expensive. It is a way of getting young people hooked on nicotine and tobacco, which is obviously very injurious to their health and contrary to Canada's long-standing commitment to reduce smoking in our society.

They also allow those people who sell cigarettes individually or in small quantities to students to get them onto other drugs as well. The organized crime groups such as the Hell's Angels and other motorcycle gangs will provide them with tobacco now, and then maybe in a few months' time, will slip in a marijuana cigarette, and then maybe sell them some more of that and perhaps other drugs too. The profits from contraband tobacco fuel all that other criminal activity. That is one of the reasons we need to be vigilant and we need to pass this bill to crack down on the trade in contraband tobacco.

The problem is further complicated by the international aspects of the illicit tobacco trade. For example, some of the illegal manufacturers that supply the Canadian market are on the U.S. side of the Akwesasne Mohawk territory, which spans the borders between Quebec, Ontario, and New York State. The contraband tobacco market is driven largely by illegal operations in both Canada and the United States. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the highest concentration of contraband tobacco manufacturing operations, the majority of the high-volume smuggling points, and the largest number of consumers of contraband tobacco.

There are approximately 50 contraband manufacturers operating on first nations territories in Kahnawake, Quebec, and the Six Nations reserve in Ontario. As I mentioned earlier, there are also manufacturers on the American side of the Akwesasne Mohawk territory, which is uniquely located at the confluence of borders between Ontario, Quebec, and New York State, giving rise to jurisdictional and legal challenges between federal, provincial, and state laws.

Organized crime networks are exploiting First Nations communities and taking advantage of the jurisdictional and politically sensitive relationships between those communities, governments and enforcement agencies.

The 2012 National Threat Assessment on Organized and Serious Crime prepared by the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada has identified 58 organized crime groups that are involved in the contraband tobacco trade throughout Canada, 35 of which are currently operating in Central Canada. These criminal networks re-invest profits from the manufacture and distribution of contraband tobacco in other forms of criminality, including the trafficking illicit drugs, firearms and human smuggling. Furthermore, the RCMP reports that violence and intimidation tactics continue to be associated with the contraband tobacco trade.

It is clear that the illicit tobacco market is dominated by criminal organizations motivated by the lure of significant profits and relatively low risks. Enforcement actions are therefore directed at increasing the risks associated with contraband tobacco activities: dismantling illegal manufacturing facilities, disrupting distribution supply lines, apprehending key figures, confiscating conveyances such as trucks and boats, and seizing the proceeds of crime. These actions have the dual goal of disrupting the illicit flow of tobacco and weakening the organized crime groups involved in the production, distribution, smuggling, and trafficking of contraband tobacco.

Contraband tobacco is a serious threat to our communities if left unchecked, and organized crime will continue to profit at the expense of the health and safety of Canadians and government tax revenues.

Recent intelligence indicates a rise in counterfeit tobacco products entering the Canadian market as well as the diversion of some raw leaf tobacco grown in southwestern Ontario to illegal manufacturers in and around first nation territories in Ontario and Quebec. These illegal products are then transported through nation-wide networks for sale to consumers as a cheaper alternative to legitimate tobacco products, thereby making them more accessible to youth.

The Government of Canada recognizes that contraband tobacco smuggling has become a serious problem in the last several years. Certainly, Canadians want to be protected from offenders involved in these contraband tobacco smuggling operations, which threaten their safety and that of their families as well as the health of our youth. They also want to be protected from organized crime associated with contraband tobacco activities...

Protecting society from criminals is a responsibility this government takes seriously. Accordingly, this bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer.

Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including illicit activities involving contraband tobacco. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes...

This bill, in my view, achieves that.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned child youth advocacy centres in his question, and I am really pleased he did that, in terms of child services for child victims of crime.

One of the most important things our government has done is support the creation of these child youth advocacy centres. There is a very important one in Toronto called the Boost child and youth advocacy centre. I hope our government will be able to support one in my Region of Peel, which is the cities of Mississauga and Brampton. A plan is being worked on to prepare one there very soon, and I hope it will be supported by the Department of Justice in the future.

On April 3, Karyn Kennedy, executive director of the Boost centre in Toronto, said the following about the bill of rights:

Boost supports the work of the Federal Government in creating the Victims Bill of Rights. This legislation will give victims a much stronger voice and a greater presence in the criminal justice system.

She further said:

We have been part of several consultations on the bill over the past year and are pleased to see the progress made.

I think that statement indicates that those who provide victim services to children see this as a big step forward in the services they provide.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you just pointed out, I am sure the hon. member knows I am not the Minister of Public Safety, but I thank her for the promotion, in any event.

She will probably know, if she read economic action plan 2014, that it commits to supporting the implementation of a Canadian victims bill of rights. She will remember that the victim surcharge was doubled. That goes to the provinces for the administration of justice, including supporting the victims bill of rights. I believe she and her colleagues voted against that, which is unfortunate.

In recent years, the federal government has created the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. It has created the federal victims strategy, providing more than $120 million for programs and services that help give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It has allocated more than $10 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres, since 2010, to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime. It has, as I mentioned earlier, doubled the victim surcharge, which provides funding for these services.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley West.

Every so often, members of Parliament see a bill that says to them, “This is why I was elected to Parliament. This is why I came to Ottawa on behalf of my constituents”. For me, the victims bill of rights act is one of those bills.

Victims have been calling for these protections and these rights for years. For far too long, our justice system has focused on the rights of the accused and ignored the victims. Their loved ones have been murdered, they have been assaulted and harassed, and their homes have been broken into, yet the justice system often just treats them like just another witness.

I am very pleased to speak on this important bill, which would enshrine certain rights for victims of crime into federal legislation. In so doing, it is expected that the reforms would significantly improve the way our criminal justice system responds to victims, while at the same time recognizing the important role that they can and should play in the criminal justice system.

In the brief time available to me, I would like to focus on the general provisions and definitions and the primacy clause included in this bill.

The first thing to note is that bill proposes a definition of “victim” that recognizes the physical and emotional harms suffered as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence. It also recognizes that crime results in property damage and economic loss to victims. This definition would further inform the proposed changes to the definition of victim in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I support this broad definition, as it accurately reflects the realities of victims of crime.

This bill, and the rights contained therein, would apply to victims of all offences under the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, as well as to several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and criminal offences in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In unfortunate cases where the victim is deceased or incapable of exercising his or her rights, another person would be able to act on his or her behalf. For example, in cases where the victims are children or have suffered so much trauma that they are incapable of exercising their rights, someone such as a parent or a spouse would be able to speak for them and ensure that the victim's voice is not lost.

Every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard. The bill would put these rights on paper and entrench them within the law.

However, this bill would not allow for the accused or an offender, including those persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial, to be considered a victim in the offence in question, or to act on behalf of a victim. This is an important safeguard against the potential misuse of this bill.

The rights proposed in this bill would apply to victims involved in the Canadian criminal justice system. This means that tourists, temporary and permanent residents, and Canadian citizens could invoke their rights while they are in Canada. The rights of permanent residents and citizens could also be invoked while they are abroad. For example, a retired couple who have been the victims of fraud in Canada but who live in Florida during the winter could rely upon the proposed rights to receive information about the status of any ongoing Canadian investigation.

This bill would make it clear that the victims of crime have rights at every stage of the criminal justice system, from the investigation of an offence right through to the conditional release process, including during proceedings before review boards for accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or those who are unfit to stand trial. This would ensure that victims have rights, even in cases that are unresolved or where no accused or offender has yet been identified, such as in the case of families of missing persons.

I had the opportunity to serve on the special committee for the study into violence against indigenous women, the report of which was just recently tabled in the House of Commons. In one of those meetings, we heard from the families of victims of some of these indigenous women who have disappeared. Many of these women, as we know from the RCMP report, have been murdered. The families told us that they need the rights that are enshrined in this victims bill of rights. They need to know what is happening at every step of the police investigation into the disappearance of their loved ones. This is something that they have not always experienced in the past, and these rights would now be enshrined in this law. That is one of the reasons I feel so passionately about this bill.

Even if some victims of crime choose not to interact with the criminal justice system and exercise their rights, this bill would ultimately be beneficial to all victims and all Canadians. This bill would increase victims' awareness of their rights and enhance awareness of victims' needs among criminal justice professionals and the general public through the online resources and training opportunities facilitated by the government. Right now, there is no document that victims can consult if they want to know all of their rights within the federal justice system.

This bill would ensure that victims' rights are applied in a reasonable manner and in a way that is not likely to interfere with the proper administration of justice or ministerial discretion; endanger the life or safety of any individual; or cause injury to international relations, national defence, or national security. As this bill makes clear, victims would be informed and involved at every stage of the criminal justice process. That is very important. I myself have been a victim of crime and I know that throughout the investigative and prosecutorial processes I had to learn about what was going on through the news media because I was not receiving that information directly from the justice system.

These rights would be implemented through mechanisms provided by law. Indeed, these technical changes would give life to the rights contained in the Canadian victims bill of rights in a manner that is consistent with the unique constitutional and operational realities of the criminal justice system. As we know, the criminal justice system is a shared responsibility, with the federal government having constitutional authority over the criminal law and criminal procedure, and the provinces being responsible for the administration of justice. Accordingly, many of the proposed amendments would be implemented through the actions of the provinces. This bill respects the constitutional division of powers. This government does not intend nor wish to encroach upon provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

This bill does not seek to impede efficiencies in the criminal justice system. Inefficiencies and undue delays in the system would not serve the best interests of the victims. For example, delays in the system could result in charges being dropped and proceedings being stayed. An accused person must be tried within a reasonable time and no victim of crime should ever be denied justice because of delays in the system.

This bill would also provide internal safeguards so that authorities could always act in the public interest when victims' rights are being exercised. Authorities must maintain the ability to protect both victims and the Canadian public at all times.

Thus, this bill would also provide transformational change for victims while upholding the rule of law and respecting principles such as police and prosecutorial discretion. For instance, it is a well-recognized constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to instigate, continue, or terminate prosecutions. This bill respects that independence, and at the same time grants victims a greater voice in the process.

Let me also elaborate on the primacy clause proposed in this bill, which signals that victims' rights are to be taken seriously and given meaningful effect by all in the criminal justice system. It proposes as a general rule that all federal legislation would be required to the extent possible to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Canadian victims bill of rights. In circumstances where there is clear and irreconcilable conflict between a federal law and the Canadian victims bill of rights, the provisions of this bill would prevail. Victims' rights would be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever conflicts arose between this bill and laws contained in other federal acts.

The Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act would be expressly exempt from the primacy clause because they are also quasi-constitutional. These acts protect the rights and interests of all Canadians, including victims of crime, and they also have a clear link to the fundamental rights and freedoms found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I firmly believe that this bill is the necessary catalyst for creating a culture of change in the criminal justice system so that the needs of victims of crime can be better met. Given the progressive and vital nature of this bill, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support it.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for her indication that she would be supporting the bill at second reading and allowing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which I sit on, to examine the bill in detail. I can assure her that the bill will be examined in detail by her colleagues and mine and by colleagues from the other parties at committee.

The member mentioned that we need to listen to the victims, and she quoted a few of them. She may know of Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son was tragically murdered by Clifford Olson many years ago. She has been a tireless advocate for victims of crime for many years and she started an organization called Victims of Violence.

After the introduction of this bill, she said:

Victims of Violence is very pleased that the government has indicated it's interest and intention to act in a variety of criminal justice and public security subject areas on behalf of victims of crime. In particular, we are pleased that the victims of crime now have a federal Victims Bill of Rights that is codified in law which is a major step for victims in Canada. The Bill contains worthwhile steps to confirm the importance of victims receiving information and having their voices heard. We are also pleased to see that the Bill contains a number of recommendations that have been put forward by victims over the past number of years.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that impassioned speech just proves to everyone what a great member of Parliament the member for Richmond Hill is and how passionately he feels about all this legislation before the House. He made a very good case for the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, showing why that is so important for the people of Canada and why we need to get that measure passed soon.

The member also mentioned Quanto's law, the justice for animals in service act that he was instrumental in bringing forward, and we all need to commend him for that.

I wonder if the member could tell us about some of the other important criminal justice legislation that is before this House today, such as Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, and Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which we hope to debate later this evening.

[Divorce Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-560, an act to amend the Divorce Act with regard to equal parenting and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The preamble to the bill states a number of objectives, including that of encouraging divorcing parents to take more responsibility for their disputes with less reliance on the adversarial processes.

I would like to focus my remarks on the stated objective of the bill in order to demonstrate how this concept is consistent with our government's current approach to divorce and matrimonial settlements.

We all know that divorce is often a messy and drawn-out process in which both sides have deeply rooted resentments toward one another.

Unfortunately, at times divorce is unavoidable and happens quite frequently in our society. However, rather than turning to the courts and other adversarial processes to find a neat and tidy solution to an otherwise complex and messy situation, our government has taken the approach of encouraging and supporting both sides to find a mutually agreed upon resolution themselves.

In the context of separation and divorce, when parents are able to work together and put their children's needs and interests first, they provide a supportive environment for their children during an often challenging time. This is an important step in allowing these kids to achieve their full potential.

Working together and minimizing conflict are important and necessary goals for the approximately 70,000 married couples who divorce in Canada each year.

While the government cannot support Bill C-560, as it moves away from a strong focus on the best interests of the child, I thought it would be helpful to outline for my colleagues some of the ways in which this government is already promoting the goal of encouraging parents to take more responsibility for the resolution of their disputes.

First, this government contributes funding to a wide range of family justice services that have been shown to support co-operation and minimize conflict.

Second, this government has developed various publications to help families deal with divorce, including a booklet for children to help them understand and cope with their parents' divorce as well as a parenting guide and tools that encourage parents to co-operate with each other and that help them prepare a parenting plan that would best suit the needs of their children.

The phrase “family justice services” refers to all programs and services that meaningfully contribute to the resolution of family law issues. Those to which this government contributes funding include information and resource centres, alternative dispute resolution services, parent and child education programs, and services directed at high-conflict situations.

Here is a brief description of each type.

Information and resource centres offer free information on family law and court procedures. As a general rule, these centres do not give legal advice. However, they give out necessary information and documents, such as court forms, and provide some guidance on the steps in legal proceedings. They also refer families to legal and community resources to help meet their needs.

An alternative dispute resolution process that is widely funded by governments is mediation. A mediator is a neutral third party who helps the parents discuss issues on which they disagree. The mediator does not take sides, but may make suggestions to help the parents communicate better and reach an agreement. The mediator does not replace a lawyer.

Parent education and information programs are usually run by lawyers and social workers. They often work together to help parents understand and cope with the emotional effects of separation and divorce on themselves and their children, deal with some of the challenges of parenting after separation, and learn techniques for communicating better with each other, resolving disputes, and co-parenting. Some of these programs are also available on government websites and in other formats. This helps to make them more accessible to those living in remote areas.

Some provinces and territories have developed special education and counselling programs for children that help them cope emotionally with the breakdown of their family and understand that their parents' divorce is not their fault.

Finally, there are family justice services designed to help in situations in which there are concerns about the safety of children and the other parent. As a key example, service providers, generally with social work experience, supervise visits between a parent and a child, or they may supervise the transfer of a child from one parent to another when there is a high degree of conflict between the parents.

I would like to emphasize that these programs and services are developed and administered by the provinces and territories. As many members are aware, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments share constitutional responsibility for family law, and the administration of justice is a provincial/territorial responsibility. The federal government is responsible for divorce, including custody and support when dealt with as part of the divorce. In all other situations, the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for custody and support.

Since 1985, the federal government has provided funds to provinces and territories to develop and improve services and programs that assist separating and divorcing families. The current funding program entitled the “supporting families fund” has two objectives: one, to contribute to the continued improvement to access to the family justice system; and two, to encourage greater parental compliance with family obligations, notably support and parenting arrangements.

To fulfill these objectives, the fund was recently renewed for three years, until 2017, to provide $15.5 million per year to the provinces and territories for the delivery of family justice services to help parents resolve their issues and comply with their family obligations for the benefit of their children. The fund also provides $500,000 per year to non-governmental organizations to develop targeted family justice information and training resources. By helping to reduce conflict and increase co-operation between parents, these family justice services promote better outcomes for children.

The second way in which this government supports the goals of co-operation and minimizing conflict is to make available on the government website information and other tools that can help children cope with divorce and help parents develop parenting arrangements that respond to the needs of their children.

The government recognizes that children need information as well as adults and has developed What happens next?, a booklet for children between the ages of nine and twelve whose parents are separating or divorcing. It gives them basic explanations of key legal terms and also discusses the emotions they may be feeling. The children's calendar helps children keep track of their schedule and important dates as they move between houses.

The guide entitled Making plans gives parents information about issues they need to address when developing parenting arrangements, including a schedule for the time children will be under the care of each parent. It also suggests processes parents can use to agree on a plan, such as mediation, negotiation, and collaborative law, and provides tips on how to include their child's perspective. This guide promotes agreement between parents by emphasizing the importance of communicating, reducing conflict, and building a co-parenting relationship that focuses on the best interests of the child.

The parenting plan tool is a companion to Making plans. It is a practical guide with sample clauses to help parents develop a written parenting plan setting out their parenting arrangement.

Finally, the federal government worked with our colleagues in the provinces and territories to develop a parenting plan checklist to help parents identify issues to consider when developing a parenting plan.

The need for public legal education and information materials such as these, as well as for family justice services, is widely recognized. Recently, the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, a group broadly representative of leaders across Canada in the field of civil and family justice, and chaired by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Thomas Cromwell, emphasized the value of front-end services, such as those family justice services funded by this government, especially those that include “live” help. It noted that:

It is widely recognized that the provision of services early in a dispute helps to minimize both the cost and duration of the dispute and thus to mitigate the possibility of protracted conflict and the corresponding harm to family relationships.

The committee was equally adamant that:

The more that families can effectively take responsibility for the resolution of their own disputes, the better.... This push towards family autonomy...[must be] balanced by a corresponding public obligation to ensure that these families are given appropriate help in doing so.

I want to reassure the House that we take that public obligation seriously. That is why I have taken the time to explain today some of the ways in which we are contributing to high-quality front-end services that support the many Canadian families experiencing family breakdown.

I have highlighted the supporting families fund and the development of public legal education and information materials. Further, the government will review the custody and access provisions of the Divorce Act and, in so doing, will consider how it can further encourage parents to rely less on adversarial processes and focus on the needs of their children.