Françoise Boivin

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a time allocation motion. We have 30 minutes to try to learn why the government is shoving a time allocation motion down our throats for the 58th time, and the parliamentary secretary is asking the minister to talk about his bill, which he wants to prevent us from doing in the next few days. Since we are debating the time allocation motion, we should be focusing on that.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not get the response from the Minister of Justice about this very undemocratic way of bringing in a 58th time allocation motion.

I find this all the more outrageous because on March 6 or thereabouts, if I am not mistaken, I asked the minister a specific question when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My question was about Bill C-13 because we were hearing all kinds of rumours from the Conservative benches about how the official opposition was preventing the government from putting Bill C-13 on the agenda. Only 17 people were given the chance to debate the bill over a period of just three days. I asked him if he supported giving all members of the House, no matter their party, ample time for debate so that we could study it responsibly, according to our principles. The minister replied:

We want to give not only the House [so he was including the House] but this committee in particular ample opportunity to hear from witnesses and to give it proper examination.

I would like the minister to explain the contradiction between what he told us on March 6 and what is happening now. We were supposed to continue the debate today, but here they are with their time allocation motion.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, I appreciate the work he has done and his persistence, because this is not the first incarnation of Bill C-560. It came up as Bill C-422 in the previous Parliament.

Clearly, it is a hot topic. I must say that, since my election in May 2011, it has probably been one of the bills on which I have received the most correspondence and heard the most opinions, all of them varied. I received even more for some other bills.

First of all, I would like to thank all those who have written to me, especially those in my riding with an interest in the matter. I think that everyone is interested in it. Everyone in the House shares the concern about providing our children with the best environment possible. There is no doubt about that. I have felt that from both sides, both from those who supported Bill C-560 and from those who expressed major reservations.

I have also had the privilege of listening to many groups on both sides. I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with Brian Ludmer, one of the people who worked on this bill, one of its architects, one might say, in terms of its terminology.

What fascinates me about the debate on Bill C-560 is that, for the most part, everyone is saying much the same thing. Views begin to diverge when it comes to the solution or to what has to be done. That is not so clear.

I have analyzed Bill C-560. I would never claim to be an expert in matrimonial law. That is why, before making any recommendations to the NDP caucus, I spent a lot of time talking with people with much more expertise than I have. I met with people from the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, among others.

Make no mistake, I have already heard the arguments of those who support Bill C-560. They will say that lawyers just want to protect their turf, but that is not so. I have also spoken with lawyers who have dealt with complex cases that were not always resolved the way they would have hoped. My impression is that those dramatic cases are the reason behind Bill C-560, and Bill C-422 before it. There are a number of them in Canada, including in Quebec. Sometimes, we wonder which legal planet we are living on.

That being said, just because some judges apply a law a certain way does not necessarily mean that we should shred up that law, throw it out and completely change the system. Whether the Conservative member introducing Bill C-560 likes it or not, this represents an immense change. It is not as easy as he would have us believe. What we do here, the thing that is at the heart of everything referred to as “child care” in Canada, is serving the best interests of the child. That is the basic principle. What this bill does is create a presumption.

When we create a presumption, even if it is refutable, in other words if we can counter or set aside this presumption by introducing evidence, this is still very different than starting with the basic premise, namely the best interests of the child.

In this bill, it is fascinating to see the text that speaks to presumption. I will read the exact text:

The presumptions referred to in subsection (4) [equal parenting] are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or parental responsibility other than equally.

Not only does this preclude the essential nature of the best interests of the child, but it demands a considerable interest. There is a major problem with that. Imposing this presumption is the major problem with this bill.

I asked my colleague a question about retroactivity. He could very well have introduced his bill without undoing everything that has previously been done. Not only is this situation tragic, but tons of cases could end up back in court, cases that people have learned to live with. Perhaps those were not good solutions at the time, but this is what could happen now. Retroactivity provisions in legislation are rather dangerous. The Conservative government was able to see it last week with the Whaling decision. That is a red flag for me.

The NDP caucus has often supported bills at second reading to be able to conduct an in-depth analysis in committee. The major amendment that needs to be made in this case is to withdraw the presumption of equal parenting. My colleague is right that major problems need to be addressed. However, we should not do this by way of a private member's bill; we should have a government bill instead. In so doing, we would be able to better regulate the right of judges to grant custody with a view to equal parenting. Everyone agrees with that principle. I come from Quebec, where civil law stipulates that both parents have parental authority. That is something we are still hoping to achieve.

Under the circumstances, it is not even possible to amend the bill. I will therefore not waste my time. I would rather ask the government why it does not consult with experts in the field in order to draft a piece of legislation that is true to what the member is trying to do. In fact, several reports have been signed in the House for Bill C-422. That would be done legally and without undermining the fundamental principle in family law with respect to custody and the best interests of the child.

The problem is that, once custody is granted to the mother, for example, it takes a lot of convincing to get a judge to change the custody terms. Things can change over the years. Sometimes, a person is not ready for joint custody when the child is one, two or three, but is ready when the child is five or seven years old. We should make equal parenting more flexible over the years.

It would have been much better to throw the baby, meaning the system, out with the bathwater, and say that the child's interest is no longer our concern. Although that is not what I heard my colleague say, because I will not put words in his mouth, that is what his bill says.

I am prepared to accept his speech as it stands, but I must deal with the terminology in the bill. It removes the principle of the interest of the child and creates a presumption of equal parenting and a heavier than necessary burden to make the interest of the child the priority again. That is a major problem that adds to the problem with retroactivity.

With all due respect for the drafters of this bill, it is fundamentally so different from what it should be that I would rather we focus our energy on agreeing that we need to make changes to the custody system in consideration of the best interests of the child and equal custody so that both parents have access to the child. That way, we would be doing a service to society. The bill currently has major problems that we cannot remedy or amend.

It is unfortunate, but this bill should not even proceed to second reading. However, we could sit down with the people who are having problems and who have had a difficult time and listen to what they have to say.

Sometimes judges have simply not caught up with the times and need a few gentle nudges to remind them that having two parents—a father and a mother—is important for the child.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his praiseworthy dedication to this cause and his persistence.

However, I would like to ask him how the existing legislation prevents equal parenting, since everything he said over the past 15 minutes gave me the impression that if that were how the courts made decisions, there would be no need for Bill C-560.

I also wanted to mention that I am really concerned about clause 10 of his bill, the retroactivity clause. I would like him to comment on that because it means that cases that have already been ruled on could go back to court. That could result in considerable uncertainty around custody across Canada.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest.

A Conservative member told her that there was a nuclear power plant in his riding and that it was very safe. However, one of the weak points in Bill C-22 is that the industry will not have to assume any financial liability greater than $1 billion. We have questions about that because it is the people whom we represent in the House, Canadians from coast to coast, who will have to pay for the rest.

If the industry is so mature and safe, should it not have to assume a much greater part of the risk? A nuclear disaster can sometimes cost hundreds of billions of dollars. I shudder at that because, if we pass Bill C-22 as it stands, without going through a committee, it would be dangerous. We would be placing the risk on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

Is that not just another way of providing the nuclear industry with indirect subsidies on the backs of Canadians?

[Justice, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, hearing what people recommend is one thing, listening is another. Did the government listen and really take their recommendations into account? I would remind members that the Quebec justice minister clearly said that Justice Nadon was not one of the justices he recommended.

Canadians can clearly see that the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. The Conservatives happily ignored offensive comments by Vic Toews about how his critics stand with the child pornographers, and appointed him to a plum patronage position on the Manitoba bench just months after he left politics.

Why can the Conservatives not understand the importance of making the best judicial appointments—

[Justice, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Quebec has now been under-represented for more than seven months on the highest court of the land, at a time when some very delicate issues are being studied, including Senate reform. The Prime Minister alone bears full responsibility for the failed appointment of Justice Nadon, despite what the Prime Minister's Office would like us to believe, because, if there was any doubt, common sense would dictate that he abstain.

Will the Conservatives promise to restart the appointment process as quickly as possible and not to nominate Justice Nadon? Quebec and its legal community could quickly provide the minister with the names of some excellent candidates.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by my colleague across the aisle interesting. However, it felt more like a speech on Bill C-23 itself, rather than on the question that is before the House and on which the Conservatives will be asked to vote very shortly.

The Speaker of the House had to rule on some very specific points. In order to justify Bill C-23, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said on two separate occasions that he personally saw an offence being committed. The Speaker of the House stated:

...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that, in making the statement the member intended to mislead the House.

It was deemed prima facie that the three elements were proven.

Therefore, what does the hon. member think about what his colleague did? Does it fit those three criteria, or one out of three or two out of three? We heard everything he said, but it is all about Bill C-23 and never about the subject of the debate today.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's speech.

We have talked a lot about the credibility of the Conservative member who made comments that we now know were not true and that, it has been acknowledged, constituted a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Does that not speak volumes about the Conservatives? All day I have listened to these members dismiss this out of hand, when the very thing that should be sacred in the House is our word, what we say. What we say is not always great—and I include myself in that—but we are not supposed to lie or use unparliamentary language.

The vote that will be held in about two hours will say a lot about our colleagues across the way, who think that it is acceptable to mislead the House and the public and to breach the privilege of parliamentarians in the House, a fact that the Speaker acknowledged. Does that not have an impact on all Conservative members?

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by my colleague, an eminent jurist.

In the same vein, what concerns me about the current turn of events is that on the government benches, the members seem to dismiss out of hand such an important matter as the protection of our privileges. I refer to protection for the fact that we have the right to speak in the House, but we must tell the truth.

How many of us—myself first of all—have been scolded, or worse, by the Speaker of the House as a result of complaints from the people opposite for using language deemed unparliamentary?

In this case, we have a serious violation of what is called our privilege. We take it for granted that when someone stands up and proclaims something, they are telling us the truth. We are not allowed to call someone a liar in the House. The opposition is being accused of wasting our time with this debate. I find that thoroughly unseemly, because it goes to the heart of what our privilege entails.

I am curious to know what my colleague thinks about this.