Evidence of meeting #122 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parenting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Professor Emerita, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
I just want to say to Kathy and the committee that I love that suggestion. I think that's an excellent suggestion.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Ms. Vandergrift, you didn't really have sufficient time to respond to a question put to you by...I can't remember. I think it was Mr. MacKenzie.
We have heard that it's important to put the interest of the child front and centre; however, in practice.... If you can elaborate on what that would look like in practice and on what needs to be done, I think that would be very helpful.
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
I think the criteria in the law go some way, so there needs to be a process to determine what the best interests are. If the direction to all the players in the court system is that the best interest of the child must be the top priority, and we hold them to that, then I think—maybe I'm not helping you enough—that can happen.
What mostly happens in family law that I hear about is that there are warring parents, and the child's interests are lost. If the courts must put the best interests of the child front and centre—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
As a matter of principle, I don't disagree with that, but in practice, how do you attain that? How do you make sure you do a very good job of ensuring that the views of the children are presented?
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
When they make their applications, they need to speak to the best interests of the children first. If you have the views of the child reports—and those are taken very seriously by the judge—that's another way. We heard too that judges interviewing children themselves can be a useful tool sometimes, but sometimes not. I think there are different tools that can be used.
The importance here is that it's going to be very clear in the law and be mandatory, and it will be mandatory for their legal advisers to put their best interests first. If every player has to put the best interests first, hopefully it permeates the system.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We're going to go to Madame Sansoucy now. Please put your headphone on for translation if you're not bilingual.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you for your remarks.
Both of you agree that, in addition to a reference in the preamble to the act, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be referenced throughout the act.
Thus far, we've been told that the convention should be explicitly mentioned in proposed new section 16. Do I understand correctly, though, that you think specific references to the convention should appear in other places as well?
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
We were particularly interested in making the best interests strongly rooted in the rights of the children and so chose to recommend it for section 16. I could go through it and look at other places where that might be the case.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Yes, please, and if you see other spots where it should be added, kindly let the committee know.
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
Yes.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
That brings me to my next question. In your brief, you say the necessary measures should be taken to enforce child support payments under the act and thus respect children's rights. You point out that Canada has an unacceptably high level of arrears in parental support orders and that, despite previous recommendations to correct the situation, no improvements have been made.
I'd like you to elaborate on that. What recommendations were made and what more can we do within the context of the act?
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
Are you referring to support payments?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
5:30 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
I think that a number of measures in this bill are going to help. Beyond that, I think it's greater attention to enforcement and really tracking enforcement and monitoring.
When we prepared for the review of children's rights in 2012, it was surprising that more than 50% of payments were in arrears. Somebody is not monitoring and pushing to make sure these payments are being made. I think it's a matter of enforcement and resources for enforcement, but a number of measures in the bill will assist as well.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
When the minister appeared before the committee, she clearly stated that one of the main objectives of the bill was reducing child poverty.
One witness recommended adding guidelines for child support. The Quebec bar association countered that, even with such rules in place in Quebec, the issue was still a problem in cases where the parent required to pay support had limited means.
Child support payments can go a long way towards reducing the repercussions of divorce on the parent who has custody. However, support payment measures may have no effect in cases where families face social and economic challenges.
Has your coalition explored measures to address cases where the payer parent has meagre financial resources?
5:35 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
I understand the desire to improve this area as one contribution to reducing child poverty, because certainly single parents with children are one of the biggest groups. It can't be the only one. When it comes to the poverty reduction strategy, we want to see multiple indicators for child poverty, and it will take other measures by states as well. This is one measure, but it's not the only one we need to ensure that child poverty is addressed.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I see. Thank you. I think a more reasonable approach is needed to achieve that goal.
Now, I'd like to revisit the child's prerogative to be represented. In your opening remarks, you said that a child should have legal counsel in certain cases. Some witnesses talked about the social worker relationship and the fact that the child could also be represented by a third party, which wouldn't necessarily be a lawyer. If medical or psychological considerations are involved, that third party could even be a social worker. The person would be present throughout the process, making sure the child's voice was heard every step of the way. Other witnesses told us that judges weren't the most appropriate people to question the child. A witness added, however, that that wasn't true in Quebec.
I'd like you to elaborate on how the act could be strengthened to ensure the child's voice was heard during the entire process.
5:35 p.m.
President and Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
I think there can be a range of ways that the voice of the child is heard. When we had our conference in 2009, we highlighted a number of good practices that were of different kinds. It isn't just one way, but I do think that in some cases, perhaps particularly where there is high conflict, legal representation that is done well and done to lift up the views of the child in an appropriate way can sometimes play an important role. That person can also be an agent to lead to reconciliation. Those examples are there as well. I don't think it's just one tool, because legal representation is probably not needed and not appropriate in all cases.
We heard stories also of children included in mediation, and that was beneficial. That's a very interesting approach, and children were actually helpful in a mediation process. This is where I guess training and developing skills to choose the appropriate tools for the appropriate context is a question. I don't know that you can legislate one approach, but I think making the views of the child mandatory is a big step forward in Canada.
November 28th, 2018 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you both for being here. I appreciate your briefs and your comments.
I will start with Professor Neilson.
Professor Neilson, in your brief you mentioned that although Canadian case law is clear that the child's best interest is the only test, scrutiny of case law reveals that judges are imposing joint-care parenting presumptions. I guess I'm wondering why that is, because I would presume judges are familiar with the case law as well. Perhaps you could comment on that.
5:40 p.m.
Professor Emerita, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
In some ways, I would like to ask judges myself.
What seems to be happening—and this particularly comes out of a review of cases in connection with parent alienation, but it also comes out of my review of cases in domestic violence cases—is that the maximum contact provision in the existing Divorce Act seems to be given so much priority that sometimes—and perhaps this is a result of family courts being under-resourced and not having adequate time—rather than fully investigating the parenting and the circumstances of the child, we see in the case law that judges will often jump to the maximum contact provision. They will prioritize that over the detailed analysis of all the facts of the case that we would really like to see in terms of the safety and best interests of children.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
In that same section, you give a list of things that shall not be presumed.
Is that a normal sort of thing for legislation, to say that we shouldn't look at these things? Is that directed at judges to make sure they are following...? I mean, the fundamental principle of this bill is the best interests of the child.
Could you comment some more on that?