Robert Goguen

[Justice, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for his question, and of course for his great work on his private member's bill amending the Criminal Code in relation to the impersonation of peace officers. Good job.

Ever since we were first elected, our government has put victims first. Today the Prime Minister announced new measures, which will transform our justice system. We will enshrine clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime. This includes the right to information, protection, participation, and restitution. This builds on our government's solid track record of putting victims first and stands in stark contrast to the Liberals, who systematically ignored the rights of victims for 13 long years.

Law-abiding Canadians know that they can count on this government to stand up—

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, if we turn our backs on abuses, we will not be setting a good example of how to act democratically. I mentioned that financial support had been provided to encourage the country to respect human rights. This financial support needs to continue, and as the trade and contractual relationship develops, there will be more faith in our system and more trade between the people of Honduras and Canada. This will enable them to see how fantastic democracy in Canada is, and they will be able to adopt this model in their country in the future.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her good question. As far as justice is concerned, for example, so far we have provided funding to train people working in the field of justice in Honduras.

From 2009 to 2013, $4.9 million was invested to train police officers and those who work in justice, such as prosecutors, judges and crime scene technicians. That money was used to provide them with the necessary training to truly and finally have a more stable justice system.

There was also a coup d'état in 2009. Since then, funding has been provided to establish a type of truth and reconciliation commission in Honduras, in order to address human rights violations.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly not encourage a country to adopt the democratic principles of a country like Canada by ignoring problems with democracy.

We know that there has been financial support in a number of areas, especially when it comes to setting an example regarding labour and occupational health standards. We have also provided training for those working in the area of justice in Honduras. Additionally, Foreign Affairs provides financial support to encourage respect for human rights.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, others have mentioned in the House the many benefits this agreement would bring to Canadians. Today, I would like to speak of the importance to Canadian investors. Foreign investment is crucial to any modern economy. It not only brings with it jobs, but it increases the transfer of knowledge, efficiencies, and economies of scale to the host economy.

Foreign investment builds people-to-people ties, helps strengthen the country's competitiveness, and in turn paves the way for new opportunities for Canadian companies in dynamic fast-growing markets around the world, markets like Honduras.

Investment opportunities help Canadian companies remain globally competitive by ensuring their integration into the global economy. At the end of 2012, Canadian direct investment abroad had reached an all-time high of $711.6 billion. The value of the stock in foreign direct investment within Canada is also impressive. By the end of 2012, Canada had attracted more than $633 billion in foreign direct investment.

The global economy has faced tremendous challenges over the last few years; but throughout, Canada proved to be a safe harbour as the global economy faced challenges. It is no wonder Canada has proven to be such a draw for foreign investment.

Canada is home to 26 of the Financial Times global 500 companies. More top companies have headquarters in Canada than in Germany, India, Brazil, Russia, or Italy.

Canada has outpaced its G7 partners, with its economy growing the fastest in the last 10 years as a result of low corporate taxes, prudent fiscal management, a business climate that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship, and an open economy that welcomes foreign investment.

That being said, we all know Canada is not an island. We are not immune to the global economic turbulence. That is why we remain focused on helping create more jobs for today and tomorrow with ambitious pro-trade and pro-economic growth measures.

Canada must remain vigilant to ensure that our economic fundamentals remain strong at home and that Canadian businesses continue to have an increasing number of investment opportunities abroad. This is why it is important for us to leverage the investment relationships we have around the world with countries like Honduras.

Canadian direct investment in Honduras was estimated by Statistics Canada to be $105 million at the end of 2007. This was predominantly in the financial services and mining sectors, both of which offer strong potential for growth; and these opportunities are just the beginning for Canadian investors.

We have heard about the tremendous opportunities that exist in Honduras with respect to large infrastructure projects. These projects include the building or improvement of ports, roads, hospitals, bridges, and airports. A country like Canada, with so much expertise in these areas, can take advantage of these significant opportunities in Honduras.

Just these few examples clearly illustrate how important it is to enhance our investment relationship with countries like Honduras.

A free trade agreement with Honduras would provide investors from both countries with the benefits that come with enhanced investment protection and stability. These provisions, which would promote the two-way flow of investments, provide a range of obligations that benefit investors from both countries. They are designed to protect investment abroad through legally binding rights and obligations. The investment obligations of this agreement incorporate several key principles, including treatment that is non-discriminatory and that meets a minimum standard, protection against expropriation without compensation, and the free transfer of funds.

In short, Canadian investors would be treated in a non-discriminatory manner. This dynamic would help foster an investment relationship between our two countries and pave the way for an increased flow of investments in the years ahead.

This agreement would also provide investors with access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement.

I would like to make clear to the House, however, that while this agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Honduras from regulating in the public interest with respect to such areas as health, safety, and the environment. This is the position our government has consistently taken in our trade and investment agreements.

The investment provisions also include an article on corporate social responsibility. This provision recognizes that Canada expects and encourages Canadian companies operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct. This provision also helps level the playing field for Canadian investors when they invest abroad, by encouraging CSR principles among all investors.

Fundamentally, this agreement would send a positive signal to our trade and investment partners around the world. The agreement would enhance investment opportunities for Canadian investors in one of the most dynamic markets of the Americas. To date, Canadian companies have shown a significant interest in investing in the Honduran economy.

It is important this legislation moves quickly through this House. As time lapses, opportunities for Canadian investors are placed at risk. That is why it is critical that Canadian companies have the ability to strike while the iron is hot.

The United States is Canada's biggest competitor in Honduras, and many Canadian goods and services compete directly with those of the United States in Honduras. Our government will not stand by and let Canadian companies compete on an uneven playing field.

I encourage all members not to delay approval of the agreement. Our government has been very clear that trade and investment are vital to economic growth and the long-term prosperity of Canadians. That is why our government continues to move forward with an ambitious pro-trade plan that focuses on creating partnerships in key markets around the world.

Our government is committed to doing everything we can do to open doors for Canadians. That is why I ask all hon. members to show their support for the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Privacy, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, same question, same answer, only this time in French. The member is absolutely wrong.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act protects all Canadians and applies to any voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation. We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on cyberbullying and child pornography, and I look forward to studying the bill more thoroughly.

[Privacy, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act applies to any and all voluntary disclosure of information. Anyone who violates the act can face civil litigation.

We are giving the police the tools they need to crack down on all sorts of online crime, particularly cyberbullying and child pornography; and I look forward to this bill going to the justice committee where it can be studied fully.

[Justice, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that while the government at any given time is involved in some 50,000 litigation cases, about 85% of those are not initiated by us. I would also note for the hon. member that last year we were successful in nearly 75% of those cases.

We have instituted several efficiencies at the Department of Justice and they are already having an effect. The number of hours of litigation decreased by 2% last year. We remain committed to defending the rights of Canadians and to ensuring that hard earned tax dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.

[March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The provisions of the Divorce Act regarding custody and access have not changed since they came into effect in 1986. According to section 16 of the Divorce Act, when making an order respecting custody or access, the court must be guided by only one principle, the best interests of the child.

Provincial and territorial family laws are also guided by the principle of the best interests of the child. This principle is also recognized by many instruments of international law, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The principle of the best interests of the child recognizes that each child is unique and that his or her best interests must be determined on a case-by-case basis. When applying the principle of the best interests of the child in cases of custody or the role of the parent, the courts take into account a number of factors. The main factors pertain to the child, such as age, stage of development, presence of special needs, and the wishes of the child, if any. There are also factors related to the role of the parents, such as the parenting abilities of each parent and how they plan to take care of the child. Finally, there are a number of other factors such as the child's relationships with brothers and sisters, grandparents or any other relative.

Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act also refers to the principles of maximum contact and co-operative parenting, which the courts must also take into account when considering all the pertinent factors in order to determine the best interests of the child.

These principles are as follows: the courts apply the principle whereby the child of the marriage must have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and for the purposes of applying the principle of maximum contact, the court shall take into consideration the willingness of the person requesting custody to facilitate such contact. This is known as the friendly parent rule.

Courts do not consider a person's past conduct unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent. When a custody order is issued, the court can amend it if the court is convinced that the child's situation has significantly changed since a judge issued the most recent order.

If the court determines that there has been a significant change, it issues an order that meets the best interests of the child. When it issues a variation, the court applies the principles of the best interests of the child, of maximum contact and of cooperative parenting. It also applies the rule on past conduct, if needed. Basically, the court has the discretionary power to establish any arrangement that it deems to be in the best interests of the child.

Bill C-560 would amend the provisions on custody and access in the Divorce Act. It would add an approach based on an equal sharing of the parental role and will replace the terms “custody” and “access” with “parenting orders”, “parental responsibility” and “parenting time”.

The bill would add two presumptions about the role of the parents. These are the presumption that parenting time should be shared equally between the spouses and the presumption that parental responsibility should be equal or joint. In Bill C-560, parental responsibility essentially comes down to the power to make decisions on behalf of the child.

The presumptions would not apply if it is established that the interests of the child would be better served by the unequal division of parenting time or parental responsibility. When the presumptions do not apply, the court would still give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with that child's best interests.

The bill proposes to add several criteria that the court would have to consider when determining the best interests of the child. It also proposes to add rules about changing the child's residence. It also contains provisions encouraging the spouses to settle their differences without going to court and to use other dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation.

Family law is a very important area of law.

Canadians are much more likely to have problems related to family law than problems related to other aspects of the justice system.

As is the case for many areas of jurisdiction set out in our Constitution, responsibility for family law is shared by the federal government and the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories have authority to legislate on issues related to couples that are not married and separate, as well as married couples that separate but do not divorce. The provinces and territories are also primarily responsible for administering this justice. This means they are responsible for the operation of the courts and family justice services, such as education programs for children and mediation. The federal government has jurisdiction over divorce and any related matters, such as custody.

Given that this is a shared jurisdiction, both levels of government, that is the federal as well as the provincial and territorial, have been working together for some time to improve the legislation on family law and the family justice system. For instance, as part of the supporting families experiencing separation and divorce initiative, the federal government provided the provinces and territories with funding to support family justice services, especially innovative projects such as specialized services for families experiencing major conflicts and using mediation services from a distance.

During these many years of collaboration, the family law system has gone through many changes. For instance, authorities now focus more on appropriate mechanisms for dispute resolution. In order to minimize the negative impact of divorce on children and other family members, families need a system that will maintain good relationships as much as possible.

Collaborative family law, alternative dispute resolution and mediation are examples of different approaches that help parents come up with solutions themselves. Another example of the ever-changing system of family law has to do with the results of custody cases.

The Divorce Act itself has not changed, but the kinds of orders handed down have changed considerably since new provisions regarding custody and access came into effect in 1986.

In 1986, the majority of orders gave so-called “traditional” custody to mothers, and only 1% of orders resulted in joint legal custody.

The data coming out of certain Canadian courts between 2010 and 2012 paint a very different picture. The data are compiled according to who is living with the child. It is sometimes known as physical custody, which is similar to the concept of parenting time in Bill C-560. The data also show that legal custody of children refers to making important decisions about them. Legal custody is similar to the idea of parental responsibility found in the bill.

The proportion of orders made under the Divorce Act that require parents to make important decisions together has increased from 1% to 75% in recent years.

Statistics show considerable changes in physical custody or parenting time. In 1998, barely 5% of divorce orders set out a shared custody arrangement, under which the children had to spend at least 40% of their time with each parent. However, if we look at the numbers between 2010 and 2012, approximately 21% of cases involved shared custody. That is a significant increase.

Between 2010 and 2012, only 5% of the cases involved sole custody arrangements. That is a lot of numbers, but that is how family law has evolved.

In more than one-third of the orders made under the Divorce Act, judges order that children spend at least 40% of their time with the father. That is a significant, positive shift from what was happening in 1998.

Bill C-560 raises important issues, and I am looking forward to hearing the other members' thoughts on it.

[Merrill Henderson, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I stand today to announce the passing of a constituent and dear friend, Merrill Henderson.

Merrill Henderson was a five-time councillor and five-time deputy mayor for the City of Moncton. He was instrumental in countless projects and continually worked for the betterment of our community.

Merrill never shied away from hard work and what was difficult. He was a wise, sympathetic, and tireless worker who left no stone unturned in the accomplishment of whatever he undertook. The tasks assigned to him were often those most difficult. He was a perfect example of a dedicated and passionate public servant who devoted his life to helping others. He cared greatly about his colleagues and his employees, and he will be remembered for his humility, generosity and, above all, his integrity.

This is a great loss not only for those who knew him personally but also for the whole of the Greater Moncton community. He will be sadly missed.