Skip to main content Start of content

JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Minutes of Proceedings

42nd Parliament, 1st Session
Meeting 124
Wednesday, December 5, 2018, 4:27 p.m. to 5:58 p.m.
Presiding
Anthony Housefather, Chair (Liberal)

Library of Parliament
• Chloé Forget, Analyst
• Nicole Sweeney, Analyst
Department of Justice
• Elissa Lieff, Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector
• Claire Farid, Senior Counsel
• Andina van Isschot, Acting Senior Counsel
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Thursday, October 4, 2018, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses answered questions.

By unanimous consent, the Chair called Clause 22.

On Clause 22,

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 35 the following:

“22.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 23:

23.2 (1) A proceeding under this Act may be conducted in English or French, or in both official languages of Canada.

(2) In any proceeding under this Act,

(a) any person has the right to use either official language, including to

(i) file pleadings or other documents,

(ii) give evidence, or

(iii) make submissions;

(b) the court shall, at the request of any person, provide simultaneous interpretation from one official language into the other;

(c) any party to that proceeding has the right to a judge who speaks the same official language as that party or both official languages, as the case may be;

(d) any party to that proceeding has the right to request a transcript or recording, as the case may be, of

(i) what was said during that proceeding in the official language in which it was said, if what was said was taken down by a stenographer or a sound recording apparatus, and

(ii) any interpretation into the other official language of what was said; and

(e) the court shall, at the request of any party to that proceeding, make available in that party’s official language of choice any judgment or order that is rendered or made under this Act and that relates to that party.

(3) In the case of a discrepancy between the original version of a document referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (e) and the translated text, the original version shall prevail.

(4) The court forms relating to any proceedings under this Act shall be made available in both official languages.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 22, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 1,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 3 the following:

gender-based violence means the use and abuse of power and control over another person as a result of their gender identity, gender expression or perceived gender, and taking many forms, including other forms of discrimination and disadvantage based on race, Indigenous identity, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, immigration and refugee status, geographic location, social condition, age and disability, and can include family violence; (violence fondée sur le sexe)”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed a substantive amendment to the Bill by way of a modification to the interpretation clause, as provided on page 773 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Brigitte Sansoucy moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 4 the following:

“(8) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) For greater certainty, the definition family violence in subsection (1) includes all forms of violence perpetrated against women.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brigitte Sansoucy and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 4 the following:

“(8) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of the definition family violence, threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by means of the Internet or other digital network.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Clause 1 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 8,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 10 with the following:

“7.3 To the extent that it is appropriate to do so, especially with regard to the risks that ongoing contact between the parties may pose in cases of family violence, the parties to a proceeding shall consider resolving the matters that”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 11 with the following:

“(a) to assess whether family violence may be present, using an accredited family violence screening tool, and to assess the extent to which the family violence may adversely affect

(i) the safety of the person or of a family member of that person, or

(ii) the ability of the person to negotiate a fair agreement;

(a.1) to inform the person of all the processes available to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this Act, including family dispute resolution processes;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:

“(c) to inform the person of the parties’ duties under this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 8, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 12,

Brigitte Sansoucy moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 13 with the following:

“best interests of the child of the marriage, in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989, in making a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brigitte Sansoucy and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 13 with the following:

“curity and well-being and, in the case of an Indigenous child, to the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to his or her community, and to the right of Indigenous peoples to raise their children in accordance with their culture, heritage and traditions.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) In the making of parenting orders, no particular arrangement, including the following, is presumed to be in the best interests of the child:

(a) that parental responsibilities should be shared equally among parents;

(b) that parenting time should be shared equally among parents;

(c) that decisions should be made by one parent or both.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.

At 5:15 p.m., Michael Cooper took the Chair.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:

“(b) the quality of the child’s relationship”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing line 22 on page 13 with the following:

“the other spouse, except in cases of family violence or when it is otherwise contrary to the child’s best interests to develop or maintain a relationship with the other spouse;”

(b) by replacing line 37 on page 13 with the following:

“affecting the child, except when such communication and cooperation are contrary to the child’s best interests, including in cases of family violence involving either the other spouse or the child;”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.

Colin Carrie moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 13 the following:

“(c.1) the importance and benefit to the child of shared parenting time and of ensuring that both spouses are actively involved in the child’s life after separation;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Carrie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 24 on page 13 with the following:

“(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.

Brigitte Sansoucy moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 13 with the following:

“cannot be ascertained, based on the 2007 Convention, the 1996 Convention and current best practices in Canada and other countries;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brigitte Sansoucy and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Brigitte Sansoucy moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 13 with the following:

“(f) the child’s rights and cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritu-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brigitte Sansoucy and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 14 the following:

“(i.1) the child and his or her relationship with each spouse,

(i.2) the importance of protecting the physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being of the spouse not engaging in family violence,

(i.3) the association of negative parenting practices with the person who engaged in the family violence,

(i.4) the demonstrated capacity of any person who engaged in family violence to prioritize the best interests of the child and to meet the needs of the child, and”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 14 with the following:

“(g) evidence that the person engaging in the family violence has taken steps to prevent further family violence from oc-”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 15 the following:

“(5.1) Despite section (5), in determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall always take into consideration the past conduct of any person who has engaged in family violence, regardless of when it occurred, its form, its frequency or its pattern.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.

Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

“(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Colin Carrie moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 15 the following:

“(7) Subject to subsection (8), in making a parenting order or a contact order, the court shall apply the following presumptions:

(a) that allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of the child of the marriage; and

(b) that allocating equal decision-making responsibility between the spouses is in the best interests of the child of the marriage.

(8) The presumptions set out in subsection (7) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or decision-making responsibility other than equally.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Carrie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.

Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 22 on page 16 with the following:

“16.2 (1) Parenting time may be allocated by way of a schedule.

(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, a person to whom”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 16 with the following:

“may, subject to compliance with the best interests of the child as set out in this Act, make, during that time, day-to-”

(b) by adding after line 25 on page 16 the following:

“(4) Despite subsection (3), a person to whom parenting time is allocated shall not, during that time, make decisions that conflict with the decisions made by the other person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility has been allocated by a court or that are contrary to the best interests of the child.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 17 with the following:

“der this section, the court shall, after having considered the factors set out in subsection 16(3), consider all other relevant fac-”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 19 the following:

“(4) An application referred to in subsection (3) may be made without notice to any other party.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 0.

Ali Ehsassi moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by

(a) replacing line 17 on page 19 with the following:

“tify, at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation and in the form prescribed by the regulations, any other person who has parenting time, decision-”

(b) replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 19 with the following:

“(2) The notice must set out”

(c) by adding after line 29 on page 19 the following:

“(d) any other information prescribed by the regulations.”

(d) replacing line 32 on page 19 with the following:

“tions, or in the regulations made for the purposes of those subsections, do not apply or may modify them, including where”

(e) by adding after line 33 on page 19 the following:

“(4) An application referred to in subsection (3) may be made without notice to any other party.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ali Ehsassi and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Dave MacKenzie moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 19 the following:

“(d) a statement that, if the relocating party does not receive written notice of objection within 60 days of notice of proposed relocation having been given, consent to the relocation will be deemed to have been given.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dave MacKenzie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 2.

Ali Ehsassi moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by

(a) replacing line 1 on page 20 with the following:

“16.91 (1) A person who has given notice under section 16.9”

(b) replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 20 with the following:

“object to the relocation within 30 days after the day on which the notice is received, by setting out their objection in

(A) a form prescribed by the regulations, or

(B) an application made under subsection 16.1(1) or paragraph 17(1)(b), and”

(c) adding the following after line 12 on page 20 with the following:

(2) The form must set out

(a) a statement that the person objects to the proposed relocation;

(b) the reasons for the objection;

(c) the person’s views on the proposal for the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, as the case may be, that is set out in the notice referred to in subsection 16.9(1); and

(d) any other information prescribed by the regulations.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ali Ehsassi and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 21 the following:

“(h) any family violence and the factors set out in subsection 16(4) relating to family violence, as well as

(i) whether the relocation would protect the person who intends to relocate from the risks or ongoing impacts of family violence, and

(ii) whether the opposition by the other person to the relocation is an act of coercive and controlling behaviour that may perpetuate family violence.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 21 with the following:

“child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.”

Debate arose thereon.

Ron McKinnon moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing, in the English version, the word “was” with the word “were”.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Ron McKinnon and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.

The question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Dave MacKenzie moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 26 on page 21 with the following:

“provides that a child of the marriage spend the vast majority of their time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.

(2) In any other case, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.

16.94 A court may decide not to apply subsection 16.93(1) if the order referred to in that subsection is an interim order.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dave MacKenzie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 12, be amended by

(a) replacing line 8 on page 22 with the following:

“idence, in the form prescribed by the regulations, and shall set out, in addition to the information”

(b) replacing line 10 on page 22 with the following:

“could be exercised in light of the change and any other information prescribed by the regulations.”

(c) replacing line 13 on page 22 with the following:

“tions, or in the regulations made for the purposes of those subsections, do not apply or modify them, if the court is of the”

(d) adding after line 15 on page 22 the following:

“(4) An application referred to in subsection (3) may be made without notice to any other party.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Clause 12, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 14,

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 25 with the following:

“es resides.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Clause 14, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 to 21 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 23 to 30 inclusive carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 31,

Ali Ehsassi moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 50 with the following:

“(b) be registered for the purposes of enforcement in the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ali Ehsassi and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 31, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 32 to 45 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 46,

Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 59 with the following:

“under section 12.1, send to the person referred to in”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Iqra Khalid moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 46, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the French version, line 4 on page 62 with the following:

“(i) soit dans le cadre de la Loi sur le divorce, dans le”

(b) replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 62 with the following:

“taires, dans le but d’obtenir ou de faire modifier une”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqra Khalid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 46, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 47 to 64 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 65,

Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 65, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 6 on page 70 with the following:

“against, any garnishable moneys payable to or for the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 65, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 0.

Clause 66 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 67,

Colin Fraser moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 19 and 20 on page 70 with the following:

“tion 60, be recovered by way of deduction from, or set-off or compensation against, any garnishable moneys payable to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Colin Fraser and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 67, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 68 to 88 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 89,

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 89, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, lines 1 and 2 on page 79 with the following:

“recovered from the debtor by way of deduction from, or set-off or compensation against, future moneys payable to the”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 79 with the following:

“or set-off or compensation against, moneys payable to or for”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 89, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 90 to 97 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 98,

Ali Ehsassi moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 98, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, lines 6 and 7 on page 83 with the following:

“covered from the debtor by way of deduction from, or set-off or compensation against, future moneys payable to the”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 83 with the following:

“from, or set-off or compensation against, moneys payable to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ali Ehsassi and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 98, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 99 to 113 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 114,

Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 114, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 91 with the following:

“tion from, or set-off or compensation against, future pen-”

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 91 with the following:

“or set-off or compensation against, future diversion pay-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Clause 114, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 115 to 125 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 126,

Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-78, in Clause 126, be amended by

(a) replacing line 26 on page 96 with the following:

“19, 21, 22 and 23 to 25, subsection 28(3) and sections 32 to”

(b) adding after line 5 on page 97 the following:

“(3.1) Section 22.1 comes into force in one or more provinces on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 126, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.

Schedule 1 carried.

Schedule 2 carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-78, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 5:58 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.



Marc-Olivier Girard
Clerk of the Committee