Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 16, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:00 a.m. to monitor the implementation and application of Chapter 1, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, and the Canada Shipping Act, and the associated Federal Child Support Guidelines.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, you will recall that toward the end of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, the Senate passed and Royal Assent was given to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, and the Canada Shipping Act.
At that time, for reasons that I need not address now, the committee was concerned to obtain an undertaking and did obtain an undertaking from the government that the child support guidelines would be referred on a continuing basis to this committee for the purpose of monitoring. That mandate was renewed early in the Thirty-sixth Parliament. We now have a mandate to monitor these guidelines and this morning we will begin the process.
It had been expected that the Deputy Minister of Justice Mr. Thomson would be with us this morning. Unfortunately, he has been summoned to a cabinet meeting. There is nothing he or we can do about that, but we are pleased to welcome Ms Thea Herman and Madam Murielle Brazeau from Justice Canada.
Ms Thea Herman, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the child support guidelines and their implementation. As many committee members know, it has been almost a year since the department was last here to talk about the child support initiative. I am happy to report that we are successfully implementing the guidelines but not without some difficulties which I will discuss.
Today I will not address the issue of custody and access today. The previous federal Minister of Justice agreed to consider that issue. The Senate passed a motion in October, which was also passed in the House of Commons in November, as a result of which there will be a joint Senate and House of Commons committee which will review custody and access issues. This committee will be co-chaired by Senator Landon Pearson and Mr. Roger Galloway.
The committee has been asked to examine and analyze custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce. In particular, it will assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices. We hope that this child-centred approach will emphasize parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements that are based on the best interests and needs of children. The committee will present its report by next November. As a result, I will not talk about custody and access.
Instead, I will discuss three issues in particular: first, what the Department of Justice is doing to implement the guidelines; second, what the provinces and territories are doing; and third, what we have heard so far from the legal profession and from the general public on their experience to date with the guidelines.
This May, the amendments to the Divorce Act came into effect, as did the Federal Child Support Guidelines and amendments to the Income Tax Act concerning the tax treatment of child support payments. This means that the comments this morning reflect eight months of experience with these new guidelines. This May's changes dramatically affect the way the courts and the practising bar, in dealing with their clients, determine child support amounts.
As with any major piece of legislation, all the players in the system have had to go through a fairly steep learning curve. We must remember that this is still early days but, even so, I think we can say that, so far, things are going well. This does not mean that we do not have more to do. The courts, the bar, still need more training on the technical aspects of the guidelines, and the jurisdictions still need to do more in terms of developing services.
That being said, I will turn to our three subjects, the first being the activities that we are undertaking at the Department of Justice.
To implement the child support reforms, we have set up a child support team of which Murielle Brazeau is the head. The units in that team are the following: a policy development group; support enforcement; communications and public legal education; research; program implementation; a coordinator for implementation; and the team leader, Ms Brazeau.
The policy development unit of the child support team develops policy and regulation around the three federal statutes, the Divorce Act; the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, which I will call FOAEA from here on in; and the Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, which we call GAPDA. These amendments include what we call the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
We are closely monitoring how the reforms are being implemented and, in particular, the case law that is coming out of the courts across the country. We can then determine if any amendments are required, whether we need to change the guidelines or the legislation.
Over the past eight months, the policy unit has been working on finalizing minor technical amendments to the guidelines, working with the jurisdictions to help them develop their own legislation to introduce guidelines, and monitoring the case law as it develops across the country.
When we started looking at the case law, we found that indeed there were some technical problems that needed correcting. I have arranged to provide the clerk of the committee with a summary of these changes. I should point out these changes are not substantial in nature, but simply correct such things as anomalies between the French and English versions of the guidelines. These amendments came into force last week on December 9.
As you may know, after the introduction of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, each province and territory must then decide whether it will amend its own legislation to either adopt the federal guidelines or create their own guidelines. One of the key goals of the entire initiative was to try to have child support determined the same way for children within a particular province or territory, regardless of the marital status of their parents. That is, if their parents were separated, regardless of whether they were divorced or not, the hope was that child support would be determined in the same way.
On May 1, when the guidelines came into place, only Quebec and Saskatchewan had introduced their own guidelines. Saskatchewan's guidelines mirror the federal guidelines and Quebec has established different guidelines.
On December 1 of this year, Ontario proclaimed guidelines that are the same as the federal guidelines. Prince Edward Island has also had guidelines which it passed in November. Since their guidelines are slightly different from the federal guidelines, they are seeking a federal designation so that their guidelines can apply under the Divorce Act. We hope to have that designation approved so that they come into effect on January 1, 1998.
As for the other jurisdictions, the majority of the provinces and territories are working on the adoption of the federal guidelines through their regulatory process. That is good news.
As I have said, we are closely monitoring the case law that is emerging on the guidelines from across the country. In general, the judgments show that the courts are in fact applying the guidelines as expected. From the early case law review, we find that the provisions on shared custody, undue hardship, and extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activity appear to be the most difficult to apply. We expect that to become easier as the lawyers and judges become more familiar with the guidelines.
The next activity I would like to speak about is enforcement. On May 1, the amendments to FOAEA and GAPDA also came into effect, as I have mentioned. Part I of FOAEA provides for the release of information from specific federal data banks to help find someone who is in breach of a family support provision.
On May 1, we added Revenue Canada to the list of data banks. On that day, we also created Part III of FOAEA which mandates a licence-denial scheme. If you are in persistent arrears, the province can ask the federal government not to give you a passport or certain aviation or marine licenses.
The FOAEA unit in the Department of Justice has now received over 500 licence denial applications, with the largest number coming from the Province of Alberta. The scheme is now fully operational, and letters are being sent out to non-complying payers to inform them of the revocation of their passport or federal licence.
As well, the team is coordinating the federal enforcement strategy within the department with officials in the provinces and territories. This means working on a variety of activities related to enforcement, such as monitoring the implementation of the new mechanisms, assisting in the development of international reciprocity agreements, promoting the exchange of information across jurisdictions, and developing policies to improve support enforcement.
I should now like to turn to the third activity: communications and legal education. This program educates and informs Canadians about the child support initiative so that they know about the new approach to determining child support. We are working closely with the provinces and territories to ensure maximum coverage of materials produced and also to avoid unnecessary duplication. As of May 1 when the guidelines came into effect, the child support team had produced an informative pamphlet which has been distributed to approximately 1 million Canadians. It has also produced a guide and tables for calculating basic child support amounts for each province and territory.
We produced these publications in consultation with the federal-provincial-territorial task force on child support, and we have provided more than 350,000 copies of the guide and tables to the provinces and territories which they, in turn, provide to the public.
In addition, the child support team has produced a small number of bookmarks and posters for exhibits at conferences, such as last summer's Canadian Bar Association meeting in Ottawa.
In June, more than 700,000 Canadians who had either paid or received child support in 1996 received information from Revenue Canada on the new tax rules. This package included Department of Justice information on the guidelines. Shortly before the mailing in June, the child support team thought it would be important to notify some 12,000 family law lawyers and judges about the impending mail-out to payers and recipients of child support. Therefore, we sent them copies of the materials as well as a copy of the guide.
Each of the provinces and territories is distributing the federal information along with their own customized materials on court procedures. Canadians can also call us for information. Since October 30, 1996, nearly 50,000 people have called our toll-fee information line. In addition to the materials that we have provided for the general public, the child support team has produced a reference manual for use by lawyers and judges. This manual includes specialized articles on the guidelines, written by academics and lawyers. The articles reflect the views of the writers themselves. The reference manual includes copies of the amendments to the Divorce Act, the guidelines and other reference documents. The manual will be updated from time to time.
This particular document is getting excellent reviews from the legal profession who have indicated to us that they really appreciate having this tool. The child support team also issues a newsletter four times a year to people with an interest in the initiative, including lawyers, judges, academics, and the general public.
The team has recently released a workbook to help parents and professionals estimate child support amounts under the guidelines. The workbook is being distributed to lawyers, judges, mediators, and some members of the public who have indicated an interest. We are preparing another workbook for the general public which will be simpler to use and deal with simpler situations such as sole custody situations for parents who have a salaried income.
We will be working with the provinces and territories to determine what other educational materials are needed.
In November, we ran ads across the country, which some of you may have seen, in about 160 newspapers, as well as in such major Canadian magazines as Maclean's, L'actualité, Chatelaine, Today's Parent, TV Guide, TV Hebdo, and Reader's Digest. As a result of this campaign, we have been receiving, of course, many more requests for information from our toll-free line.
Finally, the Department of Justice has an Internet site that includes information on the child support initiative. We have worked very hard to develop these materials which inform the public and professionals about the new guidelines in what we hope is an user-friendly way. We are very pleased with the material we have developed, and we have arranged to have a package of the material sent to you.
I should now like to turn to the fourth unit or activity: research. It is early days in terms of the data, in terms of actually knowing what is going on in the courts. I will talk a bit about what we are doing to get that data. Much the information we have now is anecdotal, and you can all appreciate how essential the research is and the monitoring of this initiative is to understanding what is going on. Over the next four years, the research unit of the team has to prepare a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the guidelines, and it will also update the federal child support guideline amounts as required.
Section 12 of the act makes specific reference to the requirement for a report to Parliament on how the guidelines are working. The federal-provincial-territorial task force on child support implementation has established a subcommittee on research and project evaluation. This subcommittee will help develop the comprehensive program of socio-legal research that we need to support the review that the amendments to the act require. It has been a priority of this group to determine what guidelines we need related to research. The research unit also has to develop a document for the child support research framework. This document on the framework will be used as a basis for consultation with stakeholders and to communicate our plans to academic researchers and others who are knowledgeable about research methodologies, in order that they are able to provide us with useful input. We hope to start consultations on this document in February or March.
Although this framework is still being finalized, we have always known we needed early data on the implementation of the guidelines in the courts. Therefore, with the support of all the provinces and territories, we have just started a pilot survey of child support awards. The first phase will entail the collection of data of actual awards to give us information on how the courts are applying the guidelines. We expect to have a report on early trends this summer. Although this report will describe a situation during the first year, the transition year, it will be used to modify our training, if needed, our public legal education programs, and even the guidelines, if necessary.
I should now like to turn to the activity of professional training. Over the past year, officials from the child support team have been extremely busy organizing training sessions on the guidelines across the country. The participants at these sessions have included members of the family law bar, the judiciary, personnel in the courts, mediators, and accountants. Several refresher or update courses are being organized for the coming spring, and will be coordinated with relevant officials in the federal-provincial-territorial task force. We know that training is absolutely crucial to having the guidelines apply properly and that, although thousands of judges, lawyers and mediators have received training across the country, more training is needed. We are working with specific organizations such action the National Judicial Institute, and with continuing legal education programs, to assist them in organizing their own training programs.
The next activity is the financial assistance we provide to the provinces and territories. The child support team helps the provinces and territories to implement the administrative changes necessary to implement the guidelines, to test innovative approaches, to monitor and evaluate the activities within each jurisdiction, to communicate and provide public legal education and information to the public, and to develop professional training activities related to the child support reforms. In addition, the team has helped non-governmental organizations to develop and deliver training and public legal education and information materials.
Funding also provides a mechanism for the provinces and territories to gather information on how the legislation is being implemented. This information will be used to help develop policy and legislative and program changes, if necessary.
There is an implementation component of $50 million over five years available to the provinces and territories, an enforcement component of $13.6 million over the same period, public legal education and information programs, and training, as I mentioned, of court workers, judges, lawyers mediators and so forth.
Before moving on to the second part of my talk, that is dealing with what the provinces and territories are doing, I should like to mention the advisory committee. This committee is chaired by our team leader and is made up of family law practitioners, judges and academics from across the country. The committee advises the department to help us implement the reforms. It has met twice this year, and at the last meeting in September members were generally positive about the progress so far. At its next meeting, the committee plans to take an in-depth look at the three most difficult areas: shared custody provisions, the undue hardship test, and special expenses.
We have covered quite a lot of ground so far, and I hope I have given you a good perspective of what we at the Department of Justice are doing. This is a new process for all of us, but we think that, so far, things are going well.
I would like to turn to what is happening in the provinces and territories. As I have indicated, the way these guidelines work means that we need to work closely with our colleagues in the provinces and territories. I will talk about what is happening in the area of consultations, public legal education and communications, dispute resolution, training, legal aid, public information, and court and community-based services.
With respect to consultations, all jurisdictions are continuing to consult both internally and externally on issues relating to implementation of the guidelines. The majority of jurisdictions have established committees made up of affected government agencies and departments, as well as external committees made up of the judiciary, the family law bar and legal aid officials.
With respect to public legal education and communication, every jurisdiction has introduced services to educate the general public about child support reforms. In addition to the materials that we have provided, all jurisdictions have provided written material that explains the application of the guidelines within their own jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions are working with their own public legal education and information organizations to augment existing material and to target special interest groups. Almost all jurisdictions have toll-free inquiry lines. Staff have been trained in court locations across the country to provide the public with information on the guidelines. Some jurisdictions offer public information sessions to help participants in the process better understand the reforms.
Finally, a number of jurisdictions have established or enhanced their existing parenting programs so that parents can learn more about the divorce process and also how to go through the process minimizing the negative effect on their children.
When it comes to dispute resolution, all jurisdictions that now provide dispute resolution services have been actively working with staff to include services relating to these guidelines. Quebec, for example, has set up, with the help of our funds, a new mediation program available to all divorcing parents. For those provinces or territories that do not provide mediation programs, several are looking at the establishment of such services.
Jurisdictions are also very active in training. In all jurisdictions, there has been training of court staff, family maintenance workers, family law lawyers, maintenance enforcement staff, the judiciary, local bar and legal aid staff. All jurisdictions are also planning training refresher courses.
I would like to turn briefly to the topic of legal aid. As many of you know, in the last several years many of the legal aid programs across the country have been reducing coverage of family law-related services. This means that there is an even greater need for people to receive good information and for people to receive training. For those provinces that do continue to provide coverage, these jurisdictions are training staff on the guidelines and are developing approaches to handle the potential influx in case loads.
The final and important activity I want to look at with respect to the provinces and territories is court or community-based services. All jurisdictions are trying to make their processes more efficient and effective. There are different ways, though, that people are accomplishing this. Some jurisdictions have hired more court staff to process court applications. Some provinces or territories have child support clerks who help low-income, unrepresented clients to determine the amount of child support and to file consent orders, among other things.
Committee members might be interested to hear that several provinces -- British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta -- have established child support resource centres. These centres provide legal and court information to people looking for information on how to change an existing order.
Finally, some provinces are adopting or examining the adoption of automated information systems in their courts. These systems can speed up the court process and make it easier and faster to get necessary case information.
We have talked a lot about what governments are doing. Now I would like to provide you with an overview of what we are hearing from the public and from the legal community about how the guidelines are working.
As I mentioned, much of what we are receiving thus far is anecdotal. We are confident that as our research initiative proceeds and as the guidelines proceed, we will be able to move from the anecdotal and have actual data to report.
The calls we get on the information line are 99 per cent neutral. Most people just want information on how the guidelines work. We do, however, get letters from people who are dissatisfied with how they believe their situation will be affected by the guidelines or who are not happy with how they have been dealt with by a court. In many cases, the impact of the guidelines on second families is the issue that is being raised. We hope that the undue hardship provision will address this issue, and we are closely monitoring its application.
From the perspective of the bar and the judiciary, most people agree that the guidelines are an improvement, even though there is a learning curve for those judges and lawyers. Not everyone was well versed in the guidelines when they were implemented last May. Many lawyers are telling us they are finding the comparison-of standards-of-living test difficult to apply. I would note that this test is advisory, and we are hopeful that the work book we have just issued will provide assistance in applying this test.
In fact, after the training has been delivered, many lawyers are now telling us that they have a good grasp of the issues and that they are working very well with the guidelines. They tell us that they are settling more cases than they were before the guidelines, which we think is a very good sign.
There are new contentious issues, however, such as whether some special expenses should be allowed, but these are more easily resolved than they would have been under the previous system where every aspect of a child support order could be contested.
As for the non-governmental organizations, the Canadian Bar Association indicates that the guidelines are an improvement over the previous system. In the fall, the Minister of Justice and the department met with some women's groups. Some of the issues they raised with us included the following: the need for more training for the legal profession; the problem of child support arrears being cancelled when fathers go back to vary their orders to have the guidelines applied; the impact of the guidelines on custody and access; and the low levels of awards when the payer earns under $40,000 a year.
On the positive side, they tell us that they are no longer bargaining away their right to child support. Some have told us that they want automatic financial disclosure upon separation and automatic special expenses for medical and dental coverage, as well as retroactive support and income imputed according to the support payer's lifestyle.
Men and second wives who have written to us are mainly concerned about the level of the awards and the effect of the tax change on their financial situation.
Finally, the child support advisory committee I mentioned previously has told us that the guidelines have increased the number of negotiated child support amounts. They suggest to us that the following provisions need to be monitored closely: what constitutes extraordinary extracurricular activity; how to determine what is shared custody; and how to calculate an amount using the discretionary factors. We plan to follow this advice and monitor those areas.
In conclusion, we can say that implementation, overall, has been positive, but there are still some difficulties that must be further examined and worked out. That should not be surprising, especially in the early days of such significant legislation that hopefully will do a lot of good for children and their parents.
We think that the implementation has been positive, in part as a result of the process being simplified and by providing clear direction in what can be a very contentious and emotional area.
From a strictly bureaucratic and legal perspective, I am happy to report that the first eight months have gone well.
I have tried to be up-front about some of the difficulties we have been encountering, and I hope members of the committee will agree that, overall, we have made considerable progress in the implementation of these guidelines in a short period of time.
Naturally, you may have ideas for ways in which we can improve the implementation or the guidelines, and we are eager to hear those ideas.
The Chairman: Thank you for a very comprehensive report.
Senator Cohen: Thank you for a comprehensive overview of the work that has been accomplished. From what I have heard over the last eight months, it has been overwhelming, and I compliment you and the department on your input in this very difficult subject.
You have told us that most of the information you have been receiving is anecdotal rather than actual data. Is the six months that remains enough time to assess what is happening? Perhaps we should revisit this whole subject in six months time. I realize that you are still receiving input but, nevertheless, I will ask my question, realizing that you may do not have the data.
To date, have you identified any guidelines that require amendments?
Ms Herman: As I mentioned, we introduced some technical amendments that were passed last week. Perhaps Ms Brazeau could comment on that.
Ms Murielle Brazeau, General Counsel and Team Leader, Child Support Initiative, Department of Justice: The amendments that we introduced last week were minor and technical. For example, they make the French and English version the same and correct typographical errors in the table for the Yukon where we missed a few zeroes, which made a difference.
We have identified a few areas in the guidelines which are more substantial in nature; however, we did not want to proceed with any substantial amendment so early after the introduction of the guidelines. I will give you an example.
The guidelines require that the parties provide to the courts three years of financial information -- that is, income tax returns. That is very burdensome on the courts, especially if the two parents have agreed on the amount. The guidelines generate a lot of agreements. Consequently, the courts and the lawyers are burdened with the added responsibility of safeguarding all these income tax returns. The provinces have asked us to make an amendment so that they would only have to table the income tax records for one year or that they would not have to table them if the two parties agree that they have seen each other's income tax information.
We did not make that amendment in this round because it would have been more substantial than the others. One jurisdiction was not absolutely sure that it agreed with that amendment. We did not include anything that was contentious with the provinces and territories in this round of amendments, but a number of issues like that have been identified.
We have close contact with the law profession who use our 1-800 line not only to ask questions but also to point out difficulties. If they see a problem, they call us and identify it. We have a list of areas where we monitor these problems. However, as Ms Herman said, it is a little early in the process because we do not have raw data, only anecdotal evidence.
Currently, we are gathering data. A pilot survey is starting right now in all the provinces and territories. By next summer, we should have a good first report based on that information.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: My question is for Ms. Brazeau. Ms. Herman talked about the two provinces that have their own guidelines: Quebec and Saskatchewan. Could you tell us what difference there is between the guidelines that exist in these provinces and those of the federal government and what impact this could have on couples?
Ms Brazeau: Saskatchewan's guidelines are identical to those of the federal government. Prince Edward Island has also just adopted guidelines that are slightly different from those of the federal government. The amounts indicated in the child support tables were too low for the people of Prince Edward Island. They consulted their Bar Association and increased the amounts of certain income categories by certain percentage points. We are trying to obtain a designation for Prince Edward Island so that they can have their own divorce guidelines.
Right now, the guidelines adopted by Prince Edward Island apply only to cases under the provincial act.
Senator Maheu: And Quebec?
Ms Brazeau: In Quebec, the guidelines are very different. When we began reviewing the guidelines in 1990, we did it through a federal-provincial committee and Quebec sat on this committee. From the very start, in 1990, Quebec advised the committee that it was developing its own guidelines. Throughout the process, the federal government and Quebec exchanged information. We always knew what Quebec was doing and vice versa. Quebec's guidelines are very different because Quebec has a very unique social assistance system and their guidelines are in keeping with their social assistance system.
They are very different from ours, in that the income of both parents is considered when setting the amount, whereas under the federal government guidelines, we only consider one parent's income.
When we appeared before this committee in February, we clearly explained the differences, stating that although the way that these amounts were collected was very different, the actual difference between the amounts was not all that great.
If we were to compare the amounts set by our guidelines to those set by Quebec's guidelines, we would see that, for income under $40,000 per year, Quebec's guidelines are a bit more generous. However, when the income is greater, exceeding $60,000 per year, it is the federal guidelines that are more generous.
Senator Maheu: Are you telling me that no other provinces consider the salaries of both parents?
Ms Brazeau: There are no others; all of the other provinces adopted the federal guidelines.
Senator Maheu: That's interesting.
Ms Brazeau: In the end, the income of both parents is taken into account. In determining how much the payer is to pay, we consider only that person's income. The child's needs will be covered by both parents. Let's take an example where the mother has been given custody of the child. She will provide a similar amount, in accordance with what is recommended in the tables, based on her level of income.
Senator Maheu: I am going to repeat my question, just to make sure that I understand you properly. Let's take the case of a father who has legal custody of his child; his spouse could be earning $90,000 or $100,000 per year and the federal guidelines will not take this into account whatsoever?
Ms Brazeau: No, if the woman is earning $90 000 per year and the man has an income of $20,000 per year, under the federal guidelines, the man will pay an amount that anyone earning $20,000 per year pays. The woman will pay, as child support, an amount in accordance with her $90,000 income. The children's requirements are not covered solely by the father. They are covered by both parents. However, when the judge has to determine how much the child support payment should be, he only considers the father's income under the federal guidelines.
[English]
Senator Jessiman: Are you lawyers?
Ms Herman: Yes, we both are.
Senator Jessiman: The guidelines are provided for in the Divorce Act, so they cannot contain provisions which go beyond the Divorce Act; is that right?
Ms Brazeau: Yes.
Ms Herman: Yes, that is right.
The Chairman: I think these have the status of regulations, do they not?
Ms Herman: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Why is it that, under the guidelines, your definition of "child" is substantially wider than the definition of "child of the marriage"?
Ms Brazeau: It is the definition of "child" as it applies in the guidelines.
Senator Jessiman: Yes, but the act provides a definition for a "child of the marriage."
Ms Brazeau: When the act gives the definition of "child of the marriage", it is to determine who can receive child support.
Senator Jessiman: Yes, and it also outlines who should be subject to the guidelines. It is only those children who are defined in the Divorce Act that should be subject to these guidelines.
Senator Cools: Of course! What else!
Senator Jessiman: The definition in the guidelines is substantially wider. Why is that so?
Senator Cools: From which page are you reading?
Senator Jessiman: I am looking at the federal child support guidelines. I do not know whether this is the most recent version, but I am certain this has not been changed.
The Chairman: Am I correct in saying that the issue you are raising is the status of a child who is not a child of that particular marriage, but a child of a previous marriage by one of the partners, but a child for whom the paying partner acted in place of a parent?
Senator Jessiman: The act states that a child of the marriage means a child of two spouses or former spouses who, at the material time:
(a) is under the age of majority and who has not withdrawn from their charge, or
(b)is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability, pursuit of reasonable education or other cause, to withdraw from their charge to obtain the necessaries of life.
However, in the guidelines, "child" means just "child of the marriage." "Child of the marriage" must be limited by what is in the act.
Ms Herman: A child for whom support must be paid is defined in the act. That definition would apply.
Senator Jessiman: Would it be correct that less than 50 per cent of children over the age of majority whose parents separate are sick or disabled?
Ms Herman: I would assume and hope that is the case. We have no statistics on that.
Senator Jessiman: Do you have any statistics on children who stay under the charge of the custodial parent and continue in higher education?
Ms Herman: We have no statistics on that, but we could monitor it. As we monitor the orders, we can determine how many orders include children over 18 years of age.
Senator Jessiman: Ordinarily under the act, when a child reaches the age of majority, unless disabled, sick, or for some other cause -- which has now been interpreted by the courts to mean higher education -- they are no longer covered. I would have thought that, ordinarily, in that case, if the original court order was silent on the matter, an application would have to be made to bring that person under the guidelines. However, under these guidelines the reverse is the case. Section 3(2) of the guidelines state that, unless otherwise provided under these guidelines, where a child to whom a child support order relates is the age of majority or over, the amount of the child support order is the amount determined by applying these guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority.
The onus is on the non-custodial parent to continue to pay. The guideline goes on to say that if the court considers that approach to be inappropriate, it can award the amount it considers appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child, and the financial ability of each spouse to contribute to the support of the child.
Ordinarily the law says that once the child has attained the age of 18, the responsibility no longer exists, unless there is disability, sickness or other cause. The government wanted to include in there "higher education," but we would not agree to that because the courts have interpreted "other cause" to mean just that, but if it is put in, the courts may interpret it to mean something else. We are having the same problem with the courts on other matters. This is a good example. The courts have interpreted "other cause" to mean someone going to school for a longer period of time. The government wanted to include those words in the legislation, which may have extended it further, but it was not amended to cover that.
However, these guidelines shift the onus, and I think that is wrong. The act is specific that a child is no longer a child of the marriage upon having reached the age of 18 unless sick, disabled, or there is some other reason which compels the child to remain a child of the marriage. The guidelines say that you must continue to pay after the child reaches the age of 18, unless an application is made to the court to change that situation.
I bring that to your attention for your consideration. I think there should be an amendment.
Senator Cools: As we have all been doing triple duty, I have not yet had an opportunity to look at these documents, but the point raised by Senator Jessiman preoccupied us last February. An important dimension to this question is that, under the former regime there was a tax advantage which was the justification for paying child support to the custodial parent past the age of majority.
As Dr. Ross Finnie and many other witnesses have said, once the tax advantage was removed there was no advantage or even rationale for continuing with the regime.
If the guidelines are intended to quietly re-organizing the situation, then we must look at them very carefully. Formerly, some fathers would continue to pay support to the mother for a 22- or 23-year old, but once the tax advantage was removed that stopped and the father would, if he chose, give money to the young person directly. It is an enormous area of contention.
I can cite many examples of non-custodial parents who are striving to have names removed from those orders because they are paying enormous amounts of money and the child is deriving very little benefit from that money.
Could you respond, please?
Ms Herman: You have raised several issues, senator. One is the policy issue as to whether or not it should apply to situations in the case of children who have reached the age of majority and who are still in higher education. That is one of the issues we will be monitoring.
The other issue raised by Senator Jessiman was, in part, a procedural issue as well as a policy issue. Again, it is something we need to consider. However, as I read the section, it states that, where there is a court order with respect to a child who is 18 years of age or over, the guideline sets out the amount of support due.
Senator Jessiman: If the court made the order respecting a child over that age, that is not a problem. There are hundreds of cases where an order is made when the child is of a minor age, and education has not been a consideration. Now fathers who are paying support are coming along and saying, for example, "Mary is now 18 and I want to pay her directly rather than give the money to that old witch that I lived with for four or five years and divorced 10 years ago."
I am suggesting that the onus has changed and that it is not fair.
Senator Cools: Senator Jessiman is right. As I said before, I have not looked at these documents yet.
You mentioned that you attend meetings that are convened all over the country to deal with these issues. Perhaps senators could be included in your mailing list so that we can be informed of what is happening in this regard. We may even chose to attend some of these meetings.
Senator Jessiman is quite correct in that, under a provision called the "presumptive rule" something very interesting is stated, and that is that the amount is determined by applying these guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority.
Ms Brazeau: This section provides the court with two options. It can either apply the table of amounts and use the guidelines, if the child is under the age of majority, or it can consider other circumstances. It gives the courts an option.
Senator Cools: I understand that, but it is the nature of the options being given to the court that concerns me.
Senator Jessiman: It is really a question of who has the onus. Once the child is over the age of 18, unless an application is made to the court, the custodial parent continues to be paid. It should be the reverse. These are exceptions. These are for children up to the age of majority, although once they have attained that age, certain special circumstances can apply. If there are special circumstances the person may apply to the court. They are doing it the other way around.
The Chairman: The issue has been quite well aired.
Senator Cools: I have several other questions. As I said, I am not that well prepared for this meeting, but I will catch up.
I hope the fact that the deputy minister was unable to make it here this morning does not mean that he will not join us at his earlier convenience. I was looking forward to our meeting with him. I am stating for the record that we still expect the deputy to appear before our committee.
I understand that the Department of Justice is engaged in some major expansions both of budget and personnel to be able to address these initiatives. Can you tell me, first, the number of staff that has been hired; and, second, the total amount of budget expansion that has been spent?
Ms Herman: Yes. We have that information.
Senator Cools: Of the staff hired, how many are lawyers?
Ms Brazeau: We have five lawyers on our staff.
Senator Cools: I want to know the total expansion in staff and the total expansion in the budget as a result of the passage of Bill C-41.
Ms Brazeau: We went to Treasury Board this August.
Senator Cools: That is another question.
Ms Brazeau: We have approximately $6 million for the year 1997-98.
Senator Cools: Who is "we"?
Ms Brazeau: The Department of Justice.
We have about 28 persons right now in the child support team.
Senator Cools: Are these new personnel?
Ms Brazeau: I would say most are from the Department of Justice.
Senator Cools: The total expansion is $6 million and 28 persons. From testimony before the National Finance Committee, my understanding was that the increase was much more substantial than that.
Ms Brazeau: The bulk of the work that we are doing is with the provinces and territories. The majority of the money, which is $50 million, is going to the provinces and territories for implementation. Some $13.6 million will go to the provinces and territories for enforcement.
Senator Cools: Perhaps at another point in time you could lay out for us the total new costs and new personnel.
Ms Herman: Do you want information from the provinces?
Senator Cools: I am just interested in the federal treasury, that is, federal treasury expenditures.
Ms Herman: It would be the $6 million for our infrastructure, plus the amounts going to the provinces and territories for enforcement.
Senator Cools: My understanding is that the numbers are more expansive than you are suggesting.
The Chairman: What was the number, Ms Brazeau, for enforcement going to the provinces?
Ms Brazeau: A figure of $50 million will go to the provinces and territories over five years.
The Chairman: Did you say $6 million was for your own infrastructure in the department?
Ms Brazeau: Yes, that is for this fiscal year. Then there is $13.6 million over five years for enforcement.
Ms Herman: That is to the provinces and territories.
The Chairman: I thought the enforcement money was included in the $50 million. What is the $50 million for?
Ms Brazeau: There are two funds to the provinces and territories. One is to help them with the implementation of the guidelines, which totals $50 million; the other is $13.6 million to help them improve their enforcement systems.
The Chairman: Are both of those amounts over a five-year period?
Ms Herman: Yes, they are.
The Chairman: Then there is $6 million in this fiscal year for your infrastructure.
Senator Cools: We can also look to the Estimates.
The Chairman: Do you need further clarification?
Senator Cools: No, I think I understand, but it would be good to have it all on one sheet.
You mentioned in your remarks two organizations with whom you were working closely. One was the National Judicial Institute and the other was your advisory committee. Who chairs those two groups? Who are the members? What is the cost to the department or to the government for both of them?
Ms Brazeau: I am not sure about the details on the National Judicial Institute. We deal there with Delores Hansen. I understand she is responsible for organizing sessions to train judges. We deal with her on a regular basis. We often send someone to make a presentation to the judges she is training.
Senator Cools: You cannot tell me the names of the chair or the members of the National Judicial Institute?
Ms Brazeau: We could certainly find out.
Ms Herman: It is the national institute run by judges to train judges. Delores Hansen is the director responsible. That national organization delivers the training, but we provide assistance and sometimes we actually go and do a training session.
Senator Cools: Is the institute a government agency?
Ms Herman: No, it is arm's length from the government, although it does receive some funding from government.
Senator Cools: Do you know who the chairman is?
Ms Herman: I can find that out. The judges have control over the training, but we assist them, on a cooperative basis, to deliver programs around the child support guidelines.
Senator Cools: Who chairs the advisory committee and who are its members?
Ms Brazeau: I chair the advisory committee. The members have been designated by our deputy minister after consultations with the provinces and territories. We have about 15 members representing most provinces and territories. The members are judges, lawyers and academics.
Senator Cools: Could you tell me who they are?
Ms Brazeau: I will gladly provide you with a list of names.
Senator Jessiman: Could you also tell us their marital status?
The Chairman: No, no.
Senator Jessiman: That is not a sexist question.
The Chairman: It has nothing to do with sexism, but it does with people's privacy. I do not think it is relevant, senator.
I will tell you who they are, or rather what they are. I have a note here on the advisory committee to the Department of Justice's Child Support Team. The committee is comprised of family law practitioners, judges and academics. It meets several times a year to advise the Department of Justice.
After this meeting, I will circulate a draft prepared by Margaret Young who is from the Law and Government Division of the Parliamentary Research Branch. This draft outlines a possible work program for this committee on this issue. The work program really consists of a list of potential witnesses. I will circulate it and you can get back to the clerk if you have views as to other witnesses who might be called. Over the Christmas break, we will organize meetings to begin in February.
Senator Jessiman: Who is on the child support team?
Senator Cools: I thought you were about to read the names of the committee members.
Senator Murray: The child support team is headed by Madam Brazeau.
Senator Jessiman: Who are the members?
Ms Brazeau: They are Department of Justice officials.
Senator Cools: Would you name them, please?
The Chairman: You need not give their marital status.
Ms Brazeau: I do not have that information.
Senator Jessiman: This is about divorce, men and women, and I think their marital status is relevant.
The Chairman: I do not think it is a fair question, senator, to ask of officials of the Department of Justice who may be preparing these guidelines any more than it is fair to ask about my marital status, yours or that of anyone around the table. With great respect, as you know, the question is irrelevant.
Senator Jessiman: It affects married couples.
The Chairman: I appreciate that.
Madam Brazeau, you were about to tell us the names of those people.
Ms Brazeau: Grace Brickell is the co-ordinator for communications. Karen Bron works in programs, the division that gives the money to the provinces. Steve Dulude is the coordinator for programs. Kathleen Fawcett is the coordinator for enforcement policy. Michèle Fournier is a secretary. Jane Gibson is a researcher. Carolina Giliberti is the coordinator for policy implementation. Benoît Guilbert is the person responsible for our 1-888 number. Dorothy Hepworth is the coordinator for research. Hélène Joly is a secretary. Lise Lafrenière Henrie is the coordinator for policy development. Kathleen Malone-Aubrey works in our communication team. Natalie Morissette works in our policy development unit. Diane Penney is a secretary. Rebecca Purdy is a student working with us on contract. Rachelle Richichi is our administrative officer. Pauline Saumure is an administrative assistant. Michelle Smith works on policy development. Jim Sturrock is a research officer.
Senator Cools: This is your child support team. The names you have just articulated are your staff; is that correct?
Ms Brazeau: I said originally that they were Department of Justice officers.
Senator Cools: I think Senator Jessiman was trying to make the point that, last year, we found it very odd that every single one of the departmental lawyers working on the matter was not only a woman but a feminist. I do not think Senator Jessiman should be painted negatively, because at the time, someone made a remark that, in today's society, had they all been men, members of this committee would have objected. I am sure that Senator Jessiman remembers that last year a particular journalist tried to paint him negatively when he asked that question.
The Chairman: Ms Young is suggesting that we invite various people who have had experience with, and who are subject to, the guidelines. It will be fair at that point to ask, "Are you a custodial or non-custodial parent? Are you receiving support in some capacity ore other?" I do draw the line at asking public servants their marital status.
Senator Cools: I would support you in that.
The Chairman: I appreciate that.
Senator Cools: I want to know more about the National Judicial Institute and who chairs it.
The Chairman: They have undertaken to provide that information.
Ms Herman: We will provide that. The National Judicial Institute is run through the Canadian Judicial Council.
Senator Cools: I do not think that is so. It is covered by an act of Parliament. We should clarify that.
The Chairman: Ms Herman, if you would send that information to the Clerk, she will see that Senator Cools and other members of the committee are informed.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: You mentioned that you had begun collecting data on the new guidelines in force. What are the most difficult issues? In other words, what issues are constantly copping up and need to be considered for improvement?
Ms. Brazeau: Right now, it would be joint custody and special expenses for children's activities.
Senator Pépin: What would these be?
Ms. Brazeau: Child care expenses are very easy to determine, however, the definition of special extracurricular activities is a very difficult issue. There is also the test of undue hardship, how to determine whether or not there is undue hardship.
Senator Pépin: What does that mean?
Ms. Brazeau: Undue hardship.
Senator Pépin: Could you give me an example?
Ms. Brazeau: For example, a father paying child support now has children from a new union and his current situation does not allow him to continue paying the amount that he was paying prior to having other children. In this case, we apply at a two-level test contained in the guidelines. This test provides the courts with guidelines outlining when it can amend the child support should there be undue hardship for one party.
This is a two-level test. First of all, the party must prove that he is suffering some hardship. Second, the payer must prove that his standard of living is below that of his first family. The amount of child support can be paid by the payers at each income level. This is an amount that is financially feasible. If the payer wishes to reduce this amount, he must prove that his standard of living is below the one he had when he lived with his first spouse and their two children -- to give you an example. In some instances, a man may have a lower standard of living because he has new children and therefore it is appropriate to grant him undue hardship and the court may decrease the amount of child support payment.
The guidelines show how to compare standards of living. It is easy to plead that one's standard of living is lower and that a reduction is in order, however, it is much more difficult to compare two standards of living. Consequently, we established a mathematical formula contained in the guidelines which, however, has proven to be very difficult to understand to date both by lawyers and judges.
We published a reference manual in which we explained the test very well. It was published only a week and half ago, but I feel that it will help intervenors in understanding these aspects better.
I would like to talk about an issue that has not yet been discussed. Throughout Canada, people are developing computer programs to help lawyers apply the guidelines; more specifically, four people in Canada are working on this. They are working with us and received a copy of the reference manual; we worked with them to make sure that the program is running properly. Hundreds of lawyers in Canada use these computer programs and tell us that they have no problems applying the guidelines.
Senator Pépin: In my opinion, it must be difficult to define and to establish an amount for extracurricular expenses.
I have another question. From the beginning, we have been talking about very important things: expenses and costs. Are one of your committees looking at the impact of shared custody on children? There are decisions stipulating that the children are to spend one week or one month with the mother and a week with the father and the parents don't reside in the same city. The children must therefore be displaced, changed schools. Has anyone taken a look at the emotional impact of this arrangement on children? Have any studies been conducted on this issue?
Ms. Brazeau: This is not part of our mandate. We are responsible for setting the guidelines in order to determine child support.
Senator Pépin: Who is looking after this?
Ms. Brazeau: A committee will be studying the question of custody and access rights and we could ask that this committee deal with this issue.
Senator Pépin: Finally, I read a court decision concerning children living in Rimouski and who have to spend one month with the mother in Rimouski and one month in Montreal. These children are attending elementary school and I wonder how they are going to be able to deal with the situation. Even when both parents live in the same city, the situations are not always all that easy.
You said that some judges are taking refresher courses. I am very happy to hear you say this, but when you look at some decisions, you start to wonder. Parents are very glad to have shared custody, however, shouldn't we be studying the impact and consequences of this on children and teenagers? I don't know if it is so beneficial for them.
[English]
Senator Cohen: I can tell my colleague that the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate will be studying exactly the question that she asked. Several of us are members of that committee, and the question will probably be addressed in depth because it is a concern of many people.
Senator Pépin: I know that the joint committee will be studying that but it is interesting that we passed legislation which provides guidelines, and yet no one is studying the impact they will have on the children.
Ms Brazeau: I do have close contact with the people who are working on this project, I know them well, so I will pass your comment on to them and they can consider it.
Senator LeBreton: I am quite offended by any suggestion that women or men cannot adjudicate on this. I consider myself a feminist, and there is an old feminist saying that the word "dog" does not mean "bite," and the word "feminist" does not mean that women hate men.
Going down the list and counting how many women and how many men is counter-productive, specially since most of the secretaries are still women. I know because I used to be one myself.
I wish to clarify something Senator Maheu said, and it was based on the income of the father. Did you say that, if the father was earning $20,000 and the mother was earning $70,000, the support is based on the father's income?
Ms Brazeau: I have a good written explanation on this issue, and I will send it to you.
Senator LeBreton: When the courts decide these issues, how does the mother's income factor into this? Who determines what amount the mother will contribute?
Ms Brazeau: The amount that the mother is required to pay is presumed. There is a presumption that she will pay what she can at her income level. If she earns more, she will be pay more.
The Chairman: Senator Jessiman makes what I think is a valid point. It is more helpful if we speak of the "custodial" and "non-custodial" parent.
Senator LeBreton: In this case, the mother is the custodial parent, so it is assumed. I wanted clarification on that.
The child support guidelines on page 5, step 2, state that:
children who have reached the age of majority but are still dependent on parents, owing to illness, disability or other cause (the courts have generally interpreted "other cause" as including reasonable education).
I suppose it is still too early to tell, but do you not fear that this is subject to wide interpretation and possible abuse? How do you keep control of a situation like that? Let us assume that one parent has a child beyond the age of majority who continues on in school ad nauseum. Will something be built into the system to prevent a parent and a child -- a willing accomplice <#0107> from expecting the other parent to continue paying?
Ms Brazeau: The courts have discretion. I have never seen a case where a child is 35, still going to university, and a judge continues to order child support. We must believe the judges are using this discretion well and are not forcing parents to pay for education in unreasonable circumstances.
Senator Forest: I wish to echo the sentiments of Senator LeBreton. I would hope and expect that around this table and in any committee, if we really believe that kids come first, the sex of those who are dealing with the issue will not affect our judgment.
I realize you do not have statistics, but I am interested in the anecdotal information you might have with respect to Alberta. I received information from a judge who was concerned that the level under the guidelines is lower than it was previously. I have also heard concerns expressed from other members of the public who are neither custodial nor non-custodial parents. They are people who have worked in the system. Do you know if the guidelines are generally lower in Alberta?
Ms Brazeau: I know that before the guidelines were introduced, the awards in Alberta were somewhat higher than the guidelines.
The only information I could provide would be anecdotal. Some say it is the same; some say it is higher; and some say it is lower. It is very difficult to assess.
By early next summer, hopefully we will have very good data in this respect, and Alberta is participating in the collection of that data.
Mr. George Thomson, Deputy Minister, Department of Justice: The information will relate to recipients as a whole in the province of Alberta as opposed to recipients who are within the income bracket that has generally made its way before the courts. In other words, the awards that were being made for those with more income available overall were quite high in Alberta. The average award under the guidelines may turn out to be lower than that across the board.
If you take all recipients in Alberta, which includes those of all income levels, and compare what they were getting through court proceedings and the guidelines, we still do not know if they are receiving more or less under the guidelines. Our thought is that this difference will not be substantial. However, we need to look at that.
Senator Jessiman: We must understand that the awards before were tax deductible by the person making the payment, whereas the amounts received were taxable in the hands of the recipient.
The recipient now receives these funds under the guidelines because they are divorced under the Divorce Act. However, people who are separated in the provinces and who are not divorced do not come under the guidelines. The guidelines are only applicable after divorce. Separated recipients may believe that they are getting tax-free dollars; whereas, in fact, they may be getting dollars they must include in their income because they do not fall under the guidelines.
Senator Forest: I appreciate that, Senator Jessiman. The particular judge who was speaking to me was well aware of the tax differential. He had taken that into consideration.
Ms Herman: The federal tax changes apply to both sets of orders. In addition, many provinces have also adopted, in effect, the federal guidelines for application to provincial child support situations and situations of separation. The amounts would also be consistent, whether the parents are separated or divorced.
Senator Jessiman: I am reading from your little pamphlet entitled "Child Support Guidelines." It states:
2. The Guidelines are part of the federal Divorce Act. They apply to parents who get a divorce that includes a child support order and to parents who want to change a child support order made under the Divorce Act. The federal Guidelines do not apply to married or unmarried parents who separate under provincial or territorial law, but do not divorce, because these situations do not fall under federal jurisdiction.
Does it go the next step? Assuming they did apply, does the recipient include the money in income, or is it tax free?
Ms Herman: The tax treatment applies.
Senator Jessiman: In other words, it is tax free to the recipient.
Ms Herman: If the province has not adopted the federal guidelines, then the guidelines themselves might not apply, depending on the jurisdiction.
Senator Jessiman: There is no question that the income received is capital in the recipient's hands. That is what I thought would be the case. Are you confirming that?
Ms Herman: Yes, the tax treatment applies to both. The guidelines apply if the province has, in effect, adopted them.
Ms Brazeau: The new tax treatment applies only if parties change their order.
Senator Jessiman: What if they got the order or separated after May 1?
Ms Brazeau: If they have an order after May 1, the new tax treatment will apply.
Senator Cohen: I noticed that the child support team issues a newsletter. Would it be possible for us to receive copies of that newsletter?
Ms Brazeau: Certainty.
Senator Cohen: Could you explain to us what the research unit does and if there will be publications of the work that has been accomplished thus far? If so, could we have copies of those?
Ms Brazeau: The research unit is responsible for monitoring the guidelines by gathering data. We talked earlier about their developing a research framework. We are determining all the research issues that we will be examining in the next four years of the initiative.
Once the research framework is completed, probably in February, we will consult with stakeholder groups, with academics, and with people in different organizations who know about research methodologies. To develop the research, our research unit is working with a subcommittee of the federal-provincial-territorial task force. We meet with them almost every second week by conference call to develop the research.
After the research framework is completed and we have consulted, then we will put it into effect. The task force subcommittee wants to start immediately on the collection of data. We talked about that earlier. That study will occur in January. The research unit is working on it right now. We are also working on issues such as researching enforcement mechanisms and how the new legislation is working. For example, Alberta has very useful parenting programs, as has Manitoba. We want to evaluate the impact of those courses and how well they work. We will evaluate a number of similar issues.
We may wish to monitor a number of projects in the provinces besides the parenting plans. Once we have the results, all the provinces can see them. It will help the provinces determine whether or not they want to go the same route.
Mr. Thomson: We can make available our proposed research framework, when adopted, and any reports produced through this research.
Senator Cohen: That would be helpful.
Senator Jessiman: Do you have any statistics from May 31 up to the present time concerning whether there are fewer or more applications for shared or joint custody? I was told of a situation where one parent had custody for three days a week, which works out to 40 per cent; while the other parent had custody for four days a week. The courts do take both incomes into consideration when deciding upon custody. Has there been any increases in the number of days non-custodial parents have custody?
Ms Brazeau: We do not have that information. The difficulty is that, in order to do a comparison, we need some data related to what happened before the provision came into effect. Unfortunately, we do not have prior data.
This is an issue we are interested in monitoring, but it will be a tough issue to develop. However, we will look into it. It is an important issue.
Senator Jessiman: In one case, that did happen. An acquaintance of mine, a lawyer, read the guidelines to inform himself about them. He knew his wife's income and the possible effect it would have vis-à-vis the guidelines. These people now share joint custody. The court awarded him custody of the children for three days of the week, and it worked out quite well. The children are happy spending three days with him and four days with their mother.
The Chairman: I wish to thank Mr. Thomson and the other witnesses for appearing here today.
Members of the committee will be receiving a one-page document entitled: "Federal Child Support Guideline Study - Proposed Witness List." If you have comments to make regarding this list, or further suggestions, please send them to the clerk of the committee. Meanwhile, we will proceed over the Christmas break to make arrangements for meetings to hear some of these witnesses when we return in February.
Senator Jessiman: I assume that the Canadian Bar Association is included in that list?
The Chairman: Yes.
Honourable senators, today we are saying not "Goodbye" but "au revoir" to our distinguished clerk, who is expecting what used to be called -- and, I trust it is still regarded in this way around this table -- a "blessed event" in January. She will be on maternity leave for six months and will return following that, but as a new member and a new chairman of this committee, I wish to thank her most warmly for her assistance and cooperation to all of us. Best wishes from all of us!
The committee adjourned.