[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 24, 1996
.1548 
[English]
The Chair: We're back.
I have a more detailed ruling on what was decided the other day. First I'll just point out that in one sense this is moot, because we've been able to resolve the issue in such a way that the motion can still be heard with the member for Wild Rose present.
What happened was that the member for Wild Rose, who is an associate member of this committee and who was signed in on the day in question, served notice of a motion that he wants the committee to debate and make a decision on.
I indicated as chair that in my view, because he's not a full member of the committee and because we have a rule requiring a notice of motion to be given 48 hours in advance, his notice would not be sufficient to bring notice to the committee. As such, we would not be able to consider the motion unless a full-time member signed it, and I suggested that resolution. The member for Crowfoot then adopted the notice of motion and signed it himself and it was filed.
The motion was considered today in the sense that it was raised and the member for Crowfoot requested that the matter be tabled until the member for Wild Rose could be present. He asked that it be done after we return from our trip to the Yukon and British Columbia, and the committee agreed to that.
.1550
That's why I say in one sense the point's moot, but I understand this has never been done before, so it's helpful to have a ruling. The Reform Party can consider what they're going to do with it in terms of reference to the Speaker or not, so for those reasons I'm happy to make a more complete ruling or to give details.
There is no question that a substitute on a committee has the same rights as a member of the committee for the period of time during which he or she is a substitute. There's also no question that the Standing Orders generally apply to a committee and that committees can have their own rules to regulate internal procedure.
Finally, there's no question in my mind that it would be inappropriate for committees to use rules that they make up themselves in order to somehow dilute the effect of Standing Orders that would otherwise apply or to prevent a member of Parliament from exercising his or her full rights and privileges with respect to committee work.
It's the position of the Reform Party that that's what we've done here - and I'm sure the Reform Party feels we've done it inadvertently, not on purpose - and that what we have here is a clash between our internal rules and the Standing Orders. With respect, I would disagree.
Let me put it this way. The purpose, in my mind, of rules and procedures is to act as a means to an end, to get us in an orderly fashion to a particular goal. They're not substantive. They're process, not substance - form, not substance.
Our internal committee rules provide that any motion of the sort given in this particular case must be made with 48 hours' notice to the committee. That's because this committee intends and wants to regulate our hearings and our sessions in such a way that, quite frankly, a session can't be hijacked by a member who feels he or she has something more important to deal with.
The notice provision lets us prepare in advance to accommodate a motion while moving forward with our main agenda. The other thing is it allows the main core of full-time members of the committee to maintain the continuum in terms of control of their agenda.
In this case the member for Wild Rose was substituting for a Calgary member and was signed in only for that date. This is important. When one substitutes, the form provides that the substitution is only for the date stated on the form.
Even though the member for Wild Rose is an associate member of this committee and we have that designation in Parliament, I think that's a red herring, because associate members have no more rights to sit on the committee than anyone else. They have to be signed in. That document must be signed by the party whip; the only way they can stand in is by having that signed. Rule 114 makes signing in mandatory.
Because the associate member is limited to that one day only, one could argue - and I would suggest - that the notice of motion he provides fails because he has no authority to give notice once the hearing has finished on that particular day. He can't stay signed in.
Plus there's no guarantee that the particular member will be in the room to make the motion48 hours later. In fact that's exactly what happened here, although I'm not suggesting... The member for Wild Rose may have stayed away because of the ruling I made. I don't know.
The question we have to ask is whether the member's right to be a full committee member has been violated. I think the answer to that is no. He was here in the room. He participated. He could have voted had we dealt with anything on that particular day. He could also have asked and ultimately did ask a full member to give notice for him, and then come to committee 48 hours later to make the motion himself. That was the solution that I proposed as chair and that he accepted, but what's more interesting is that's the ongoing solution we've come to.
Notice was given. The motion has been tabled on consent of all members. The motion will be moved and argued when the member for Wild Rose is available to do so. So I would suggest that none of his rights have been violated, because a Standing Order doesn't provide specifically that he has the right to give notice of motion. That's just a creation of this particular committee.
.1555
In any event, it seems, as I said earlier, that the rules regulate the means by which we achieve an end. In this case, we need some flexibility in order to control our procedure, and that's the concern of the full-time members of the committee. That's what that notice of motion is for, but it does not prevent the member for Wild Rose from making his motion, and as I understand it, he will do so the next time he's available and we're all available to hear it.
So that's my ruling and that's the reason I would say that while the content of the motion is not out of order, it's not appropriate and it's not possible for a part-time member of the committee to give a valid notice; it would have to be done by a full-time member. Thank you.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I have a couple of comments. One is, can I have a copy of your ruling so I can study that?
The Chair: You'll have to get it from Hansard. I have a few notes, but not in any... We'll make sure you get a copy.
Mr. Strahl: Okay, thank you.
On first blush, it does appear to me that there still remains the problem of the rights of a member of Parliament who's not a full member of the committee to participate fully in committee work. That they're not a full member of it restricts their activity to the decision of the chair, and I don't know that this would be right. I don't think it's right.
When you're substituted in, you normally have at that time full rights on the committee. The 48-hour rule, which is your own committee's rule, is necessary for the smooth functioning of the committee, but because of that quirk in the Standing Orders, where you can only substitute in for one day, you may have someone who's interested in a particular bill or issue and wants to be substituted in daily for maybe three or four weeks. We've done that before.
The Chair: We've all done that.
Mr. Strahl: So that particular member, on that particular issue, for example, is out of luck. I don't know if it's fair to those people.
I'll look at your ruling and make comment on it further, but it does seem to restrict the rights of a member of Parliament who is not a full member. I don't know what we can do to address that concern.
It was okay the last time because Mr. Ramsay was here, so he moved it on behalf... But that won't always be the case. Jack, as you can see, had to catch a plane.
The Chair: Could I point out to you that the notice of motion doesn't have to be served at committee. For instance, Mr. Ramsay has several times given us notice of motion on an afternoon, after committee, and we've dealt with it as soon as we could after 48 hours had passed.
They're frequently done by e-mail from an office or by a memo delivered to the clerk's office, so it's not a question of having to be here. I can tell you that I don't think you'd have any argument with me if an associate member who wasn't signed in tried on Friday afternoon at 4 p.m. to give us notice of motion. He would have no standing in our committee if we weren't sitting and he weren't signed in. So the same thing would happen. He'd have to find a colleague to do it.
I finally point out that I suppose the only time it could limit someone... The only people who are limited are people who would be limited anyway, who don't have official party status and therefore aren't part of -
Mr. Strahl: I don't want to hold up the business in committee today - we have witnesses - but if I could have that ruling, I'll look it over and maybe we'll talk some more later.
The Chair: Do with it what you will. That's why I gave it. It will be interesting. Thanks,Mr. Strahl.
We have before us, from the Canadian Bar Association, Joan Bercovitch, who is the senior director of legal and governmental affairs - hi, Joan, I've met you before - and who, I understand, wants to introduce other colleagues.
Are there any University of Windsor graduates here? I'm just checking. Go ahead.
Ms Joan Bercovitch (Senior Director, Legal and Governmental Affairs, Canadian Bar Association): Good afternoon. You know who I am: Joan Bercovitch, senior director, legal and governmental affairs for the Canadian Bar Association.
[Translation]
The Canadian Bar Association is a national organization that represents more that34,000 lawyers throughout Canada.
[English]
Central to the mandate of the Canadian Bar Association is the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and we are of the view that our submissions to you this afternoon are consistent with that mandate.
.1600
The brief before you has been prepared by the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association. This section has over 2,000 lawyers, members from across the country. Those lawyers represent both custodial parents and non-custodial parents and the children of those parents.
The section has been involved in the process of developing the child support guidelines at issue today since 1991, following adoption by the CBA's council of a resolution in 1991 in support of the principle of child support guidelines.
Presenting the submission today is Maître Miriam Grassby, who is chair of the family law section's committee on child support guidelines.
[Translation]
Ms. Grassby practices family law in the province of Quebec.
[English]
With her is Mr. Steve Andrew, who is the past chair of the family law section of the CBA and a family law practitioner in Edmonton.
Again, both have represented both custodial and non-custodial parents and their children.
I'm also very pleased to introduce to you Mr. John Hoyles. Mr. Hoyles is the new executive director of the Canadian Bar Association.
The Chair: Welcome.
Ms Bercovitch: Thank you.
Maître Grassby and Mr. Andrew will present the submission. They'll be pleased to take your questions following their intervention.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Steve Andrew (Past Chair, Family Law Sub-Committee, Canadian Bar Association): We thought it might be useful at the outset to go over briefly some of the history of our involvement with respect to the child support guidelines.
The national family law section has been involved with the Department of Justice and their review of the current system of child support. Prior to the green paper that was released in June 1991, our section formed a committee to consider the child support guidelines and to develop a CBA position.
The committee released its submission in April 1991. The section then appointed a committee to respond to the government proposals. The result of that was our submission on child maintenance guidelines, which was submitted in December 1992. In that submission the section advocated an income equalization approach to child maintenance guidelines as being in the best interests of children.
In 1993, section representatives struck a committee to study possible reforms with respect to taxation, vis-à-vis child support. As a result of that, in July 1994 we presented our submission on taxation to the parliamentary task group on child support, that being chaired by MP Sheila Finestone.
In early 1995, we began consideration of the federal-provincial-territorial family law committee's report, and another committee of section representatives prepared a submission on child support guidelines, which received the approval of the section as a whole.
Many of the same committee members have now reviewed Bill C-41 and the information paper released by the Department of Justice in June 1996, called A Working Draft of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Again, our latest submission was ratified by the section.
I will go into our submission in a historical sense and a little bit more detail. In 1991 we said we supported guidelines because they would bring increased certainty, increased efficiency and consistency, and because if published - and they would be - they would facilitate settlement. The objective, hopefully, would be to ensure adequate standards of living for children based on the means of their parents - that would be both parents contributing in accordance with their means. Judicial discretion would be retained for fairness in individual cases.
In the 1992 submission, we indicated that the goals of the guidelines should be to reduce child poverty, increase child support, and educate the public about the expectation of support, thereby reducing litigation and encouraging settlement.
The reason behind that is that most intact families spend a significant proportion of their total income on children, but children in separated or divorced families are not getting their fair share. The reasons for that include inadequate calculation of costs of children or inadequate calculations of the tax consequences. The result is the custodial parents often have financial difficulties while the non-custodial parents have leftover income.
.1605
At that time our submission indicated we should instead try to equalize the standard of living in both households, using both parents' income and the number of children in the formula. At that time our submission indicated the distinction between spousal and child support would be irrelevant.
At that time we suggested we calculate the award by combining the gross total income of both parents and allocating it to equalize the standards of living. The example we used at that time was there would be three parts for each adult and one part for each child, and you would use those in proportioning the amount of child support.
Our report on taxation in 1994 submitted that the deduction for child support payments for payers should be abolished and included for income recipients...and instead give a limited tax credit to payers who make their payments in a timely manner. We indicated the tax credit should be a percentage of the support paid, the same percentage for all payers, regardless of the tax bracket. We suggested the tax credit should be limited to the lowest income tax bracket and capped by the number of children or on a per-family basis. We thought that would better ensure any tax subsidy would reach the children while at the same time compensating payers in the lower income tax brackets so they wouldn't lose from the change in the tax treatment.
In 1995 our submission again said we supported child support guidelines, but on the condition that they improve the financial situation of custodial households to provide more adequately for children. At that time we had concerns that the overall levels of the awards were too low. We had a further objection to the underlying premise of allocating awards, that all payers at the same income level and with the same number of children would pay the same amount. Our concern was that this would give similar payers the same income after paying child support but it did not take into account what proportion of the family income was represented by the payers' income before separation. In other words, the amount paid didn't vary according to the custodial parents' income. No mechanism for considering the fairness of any resulting income disparities between the households was available at that time.
Our most recent submission has been released today.
Although it's a quick overview, that gives you some idea of how we've got to where we are today.
Ms Miriam Grassby (Chair, Child Support Guidelines Committee, Canadian Bar Association): Through work. We've been working very hard on this.
What we've tried to keep in front of us is the issue of trying to make as many children as possible in Canada benefit as much as possible from both parents' income and doing it in a fair way. It's a very hard question. If you have sat here you must realize how hard it is.
We're very pleased about part of the guidelines. We still have recommendations to make, and we'll continue to make them, because we end up, as lawyers in the field...and just last week I saw something I'm going to tell you about later. It's new and it brings home the real problems we're going to have, and do have, in the country with children and poverty and sharing incomes.
We are very pleased the guidelines are going to give consistency and fairness at the same income level. We're pleased people who can't afford to have lawyers and people who may not need to have lawyers in order to determine child support... There's going to be an amount, and when a mother or a father who has custody says this is what the kid needs and the other parent says no, you're exaggerating, you're being unreasonable, she can say no, this is what it says. So they're going to be able to resolve things without litigation and without ill-will. Things are going to be easier to mediate. In many situations the awards will be higher, but there are situations where we have to be careful, because the awards may not be high enough.
One of the things the guidelines are bringing in is a formula for measuring standards of living, and this is a good thing. What we're going to suggest is that we perhaps use that formula subsequently also, when it's in the children's interest, to deviate upwards from the guidelines.
.1610
Not knowing what other representations have been made before you, I want to underline that one of the very good things in the legislation is it is made clear the guidelines will apply to children over 18. There may be situations where one can deviate, but it is very important. When you practice law you see these dreadful situations where children are sent subpoenas, their employers are sent subpoenas and the non-custodial parent is arguing the 19-year-old child doesn't require support. It is devastating for these children. These children of divorced families are very vulnerable. It is a very difficult age for children. It is very important that it has been kept in and that the guidelines will apply unless particular circumstances give cause to deviate. Please don't touch this because it is an important issue.
The government has decided to say child support is given priority over spousal support and it is very clear in the legislation. The government has attempted in the legislation to also point out there will be situations where there will be no spousal support, even when there are rights to spousal support, because child support will use up all the available income.
There is one thing we would like to have added. There is a lot of emphasis on the fact that child support gets priority. It is very easy for courts to forget about the issue of spousal support. We'd like to have a reminder in this legislation, a clause saying judges must look at the issue of spousal support, even though there may not be money to grant it. Very often some of those rights are quite invisible and they need to be reminded to look at them.
There is in the legislation something we don't agree with. It is in the guidelines. This is the question of shared custody, where children go back and forth and may have a week here and a week there. At the present time, the guidelines don't apply. I believe the reason the guidelines don't apply is there is an understanding that things may cost more and therefore you should have more than just the difference between the amounts the two custodial parents would pay at that point by virtue of the guidelines.
For example, in a situation where one child lives with one parent all the time and the other child lives with the other parent all the time, the guidelines provide that you just do the difference between what each would owe the other. Under shared custody this is not provided.
We think it is very important that it should at least be the same because very often the higher-income parent who has shared custody believes because he or she has the children half-time, nothing is owing. Many people get mixed up with this and there is no request for support.
Even the minimal amount of support that would be owing by comparing the guidelines is better than someone not having the money to exercise his or her rights to get a judgment based totally on judicial discretion. It is also better than going before a court that gets quite mixed up on what the real expenses are and that may think nothing is owing. It's funny. It is one of those issues that is also quite nebulous in front of the courts.
One of the other questions we've had some trouble with is special circumstances, or add-ons. Although some of the amounts related to things like child care and private school may be discretionary, it should be clear the add-ons must be added on to the basic amount.
One of the ones that isn't very clear is the extra-curricular activities. What is a special extra-curricular activity? Is it $800 for hockey? Is it for piano? Is it only for that special athlete? I think it would be important, so we don't have to get into litigation to work out what it is, to make clear what these add-ons are, particularly in the area of extra-curricular activities.
One of our most important issues - we would ask that this be given serious attention - is related to the reasons and the examples of when one can ask to deviate from the guidelines because of undue hardship. We ask that the list provided outlining circumstances when one can argue undue hardship be clearly non-exhaustive, and that the list clearly show examples for custodial and non-custodial parents and for children.
For example, there is an issue of high access costs. It should be high access costs for the non-custodial parent and perhaps the costs of non-access for the custodial parent.
Where there is a discussion of debts, it should be clear whether it is the custodial parent's debts or the non-custodial parent's debts. It's very tempting when you read it, if you look at them, to interpret them only in reference to the payer spouse. It is important it be clear. We don't want to spend a year figuring out what it means through the courts at the expense of people who just simply want to have the rules applied.
.1615
We believe very strongly there are two questions, two issues that should be added. There are two examples. We believe that if a child has an unmet need after the guidelines have been applied, this should be an example of undue hardship. The whole purpose of these guidelines is to bring money to children. If the money is there from the non-custodial parent and a child has an unmet need, this should be a reason to be able to deviate from the guidelines upwards.
What is an example of an unmet need? I'm going to come back to this example. It could be a child who lives in a neighbourhood and who will no longer be able to live in this same neighbourhood because of the application of the guidelines. It could be a child who has had certain extra-curricular activities that have been relatively costly but that don't fall into the ``superchild'' category of extra-curricular activities. This child should not be deprived of these activities. This child should be able to have access to those activities.
To put forward the issue of an unmet need is bringing it back and child-centring it. It is giving an example and making it clear it isn't just for the payer spouse.
Finally, we feel strongly about the question of disparity of income. There are going to be situations where there is a disparity of income and where necessarily a child's needs are not going to be met, where a child is not going to benefit from the non-custodial parent's income to the extent he or she should.
If we don't provide in the undue hardship clauses this as an example, the courts are not going to recognize it. They're going to say these are the guidelines and we have to apply them. There is no way to deviate from them.
I was mentioning we see things in our offices that maybe aren't obvious in committee. I had a women come into my office just a week ago. She had been married for five years to a man who is now making $120,000. She had an 11-month-old baby and she would go back to work probably in an income range of $30,000.
I did a sinful thing, really. I actually looked at what her expenses might be. I know these guidelines work on averages, but I actually thought she might have to spend real money to pay real bills.
So I gave her $850 for rent, which would not be abnormal rent in a city like Montreal for a woman and a child who have come from a home where the global income was $150,000 before the woman stopped working to have a baby. I just did very basic expenses. I counted a car and rent of $850. I gave her about $50 a month for the child and $50 a month for recreation. The total expenses came to approximately $1,600 without day care, but including the car, food, etc.
When I look at the guidelines for a person who is making $120,000, I see the non-custodial parent - in this case the father - would have to pay $846. This means this child will be short $752 to meet expenses. The only way the mother is going to be able to make it, because the mother's net income is about $2,000 a month, is if the mother takes $750 out of her net income, which is impossible. Here is a situation where she is going to be paying almost the same thing as the father who is making $120,000, and it's literally impossible.
The other possibility is to say there should be no car in this home, there should be very little recreation, and we're going to have to cut the rent by $350. What this means is the child is going to move into a very different area from where the father is going to be living and perhaps going to schools that would not be the first choice. This situation, where there is a large disparity of income, should be an example of where one can say one should be able to deviate upwards to meet this child's needs.
.1620
This is not something that's going to apply when the non-custodial parent makes $50,000 and the custodial parent makes $30,000. It probably won't be used in situations unless there's a pretty good chance of getting something and there's a pretty good income on the other side. It won't be a sluice gate to open, but it will be there when you really have a problem and where there is an important disparity. We feel very strongly about this.
I think that covers it. Perhaps Mr. Andrew can add anything else. We've had quite a few discussions. We have additional things in our brief, but I believe some of them have already been met and some of them are perhaps less important. That would finish what I have to offer this afternoon. I'll be pleased to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments?
Mr. Bellehumeur, ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): I would like to congratulate you on your brief. I'm somewhat sorry that you're the last witnesses that we will hear on this day when we are doing the clause-by-clause study of this bill. You have raised issues that I haven't heard much about before today. It helped me understand several points. I am sorry not to have heard this before, because today is a bit late. Perhaps we'll come back to this at report stage in the House.
You said that the guidelines proposed by the government are a big step forward and you have proposed a series of recommendations. I would like to know if the government consulted you before drafting Bill C-41.
Ms. Grassby: I think I can say that, since 1991, we have been consulted, time and time again. The most important changes in Bill C-41 are in fact those to do with guidelines as well as implementation. All those issues have been discussed over and over again, but they have not necessarily been discussed with a view to changing the legislation, but rather with a view to changing the Divorce Act. I would like to point out that the text of the bill was not shown to us before it was published, but there is very little that surprises us after having been involved in the consultation.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Fine. The act will be reviewed after five years. Do you think that five years is too long? Given everything that you have said, do you not think that this act should be revisited in two years?
Ms. Grassby: It would be somewhat complicated to do so in two years because some start-up time is required. People have to get used to the legislation and data has to be collected. So I'm not quite convinced of that, but I can tell you that the Canadian Bar Association will look at that closely. If we notice something after three years, we will act.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You will sound the alarm.
Ms. Grassby: Yes, yes.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Thank you. I have no further questions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Mr. Telegdi.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): You raised a topic when you referred to real numbers and I like that.
Earlier, we had representation from the National Association of Women and the Law. It's interesting that when it came to the guidelines, they were arguing that for people making $40,000 or less, the amount of money allocated was inappropriately low. I guess it reflects the various perceptions we have. I would suspect the Canadian Bar Association deals with the more affluent folks, whereas legal clinics deal with the less affluent folks. Anyway, it just struck me as an observation.
I wonder if you could send to the committee some figures in terms of what you just said. I'd like to look at how it impacts on real incomes and real situations.
You mentioned you have a situation where a child will move from a neighbourhood because that child is no longer able to live there. I would suggest to you that anybody who is making around $40,000 or less will definitely have to live in a different neighbourhood. It's not because of any choice; it's a matter of necessity.
.1625
The other issue I raised earlier this morning - this is a public policy issue - is whether we get to the point where we make sure every member of the estranged family is getting some kind of support from social assistance. I ask that as a practical matter on how the state administers welfare dollars. Obviously, if you have more people on welfare, you have more case workers and more people involved. I'm just looking at the practicalities of it.
Ms Grassby: Shall I start to answer some of those questions?
First of all, I want to clarify that many of the members of the CBA work for legal aid and in legal clinics, so we see all the problems. Perhaps one of the reasons we're talking about disparity of income here is because we understand that at certain income levels guidelines can't make money for the family. When you have a disparity of income and there is money there, we should at least be sure there is a way of having the children benefit from it.
You're correct when you say that if someone is making $40,000 and there's a split, there will probably be a reshuffling of where people live because there's just not that much money to go around.
We have felt that some of the amounts are low, although there's been a lot of movement because of what's happened. I think, for example, the amounts I've often found to be low are for one child. The amounts for two children don't seem to be as problematic. It's interesting that in the case that came in front of me just recently there was one child. The guidelines work in many cases, but there should still be an opening when it's to the benefit of the child for deviation.
I didn't quite catch your question on social assistance, so I can't answer that. I'm sorry.
Mr. Telegdi: The practical reality now is that if you happen to be a non-working spouse who is looking after the kids and your supporting spouse or ex makes a low income, you're going to end up on some kind of assistance to top up the payments you already receive.
The extended argument this morning was to make people earning less than $40,000 in the guidelines pay more. I could see the situation arise where the income of the spouse who stays at home looking after the kids is topped up, and the providing spouse making the payments will have to be on social assistance as well.
Ms Grassby: I think an effort has been made in the levels to be careful about some of those things. I also think we have to be careful not to mix. In a situation where a spouse is not working and is looking after children, there will be an issue of spousal support, which doesn't exist in all cases. These guidelines are not meant to address the issue of spousal support.
Mr. Andrew: There's also a cut-off point at the bottom end of the payer's income where there is no obligation to pay. You're not going to end up with a situation where he will have to pay.
Mr. Telegdi: I'm saying that the other law group was arguing that we should make them pay and make them pay more, even though there is less of an ability to pay.
These guidelines demonstrate to me most dramatically the change in the law, whereby you no longer get to deduct support payments. It might be fair overall, but it negatively impacts on the people who make less money in terms of their ability to pay.
Ms Grassby: The fact is that more and more custodial parents do work in Canada. That's what has changed so much over the last years. The issue of it being taxable was so often a source of poverty for them because things weren't properly calculated that we have supported the issue of it becoming non-taxable.
.1630
There's no question that at a certain income level it creates less money for the family. But it's not so clear how much is actually lost from low-income families because it was actually the high-income spouse who was paying to the low-income spouse, where the actual money was being created, and not so much the person who made $30,000 paying to someone who made $15,000. That's another debate, I think.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendments to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistant Act are going to add Revenue Canada to the data bank to get information on enforcement. We haven't heard much from any of the witnesses on the privacy issues surrounding that. The only witness that commented was Revenue Canada. When it was here it said it was going to have to manage the issue.
I get nervous when I hear that term, ``managing issues''. I wonder if the Canadian Bar has any concerns. I know the Ontario Advocates' Society said it wasn't concerned with the issue when I raised the question.
[Translation]
I forgot yesterday to put this question to the Bar of the province of Quebec,
[English]
but it wasn't in its submission. So I wonder if should we be checking with another section of the Canadian Bar, or is that something you considered?
Ms Grassby: It's not something we've actually looked at in any detail. We've spent a lot of time looking at the taxation and the guidelines, so we don't have a recommendation to make at this time on that.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): There are still a couple of minutes left. Madam Clancy.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): Thank you very much. I want to apologize first to the witnesses.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): For being later than the translators.
Ms Clancy: Yes. I was at a party function. We're having this conference.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): It's a political party.
Ms Clancy: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I did want to address you. I have skimmed your report. I will give it much more time because it's quite clear that it's an exceptional report - not exceptional from the Canadian Bar Association, just an exceptional report.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): Watch out. Once she starts to compliment people you're in trouble.
Ms Clancy: I want to ask you about the complexity issue and the two paragraphs on page 23. I have to admit, when I first saw the guidelines I sort of thought ``ugh''. I'm wondering whether you just decided to leave it to see how it would fall out over time - excuse the expression. Why didn't you have any specific recommendations on complexity?
Ms Grassby: We've worked to make it as simple as possible. We're in a poor position to criticize on the issue of complexity when we understand the complexity of the issue. What can we tell you?
One of the things that makes these guidelines simpler than other guidelines is that we're looking at only one income while still taking into consideration that the custodial parent is paying. That in itself makes it simpler than many.
Ms Clancy: So you're basically saying maybe there's some hope that as the sparks fly upwards we can make it less complicated as we get used to dealing with it. Am I putting words in your mouth?
Ms Grassby: No, I think it's something we think could actually work. We recognize that you can't make something simple out of something complex.
Ms Clancy: Absolutely. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Mr. Bellehumeur, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Bellehumeur: No.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Torsney): Mr. Rideout.
[English]
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): I have a very quick question about something I think you said before, but I just want to clarify it. Have some of your recommendations already been acted upon by the department? Has it incorporated them into some amendments?
Ms Grassby: Do you mean from the prepared brief?
Mr. Rideout: Yes.
Ms Grassby: No. I was simply saying I understood that some of them were being taken into consideration. I didn't bother mentioning them today, and some of them were more -
Mr. Rideout: Do most of your recommendations fall within the guidelines of things you'd like to see changed, or do you want legislation changed?
Ms Grassby: When we refer to this we're talking about Bill C-41 and the guidelines themselves. Essentially, most of our recommendations deal with the guidelines per se.
.1635
Mr. Rideout: Yes, because we can still change those later if we proceed with -
Ms Grassby: They are part and parcel of that.
Mr. Rideout: I agree. I'm just thinking of time.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.
Does anybody else over there have a question? Wow! We're all very subdued tonight. I don't know what's going on.
Perhaps at some point we could have the list of the guideline changes that have already been suggested, because a lot of us are interested in following a couple of these changes.
Ms Grassby: I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Our recommendations are in the brief.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Oh, complete? Okay. I thought there were some other things that were already being worked on.
Ms Grassby: No.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): It's just the ones you didn't highlight.
Ms Grassby: That's correct.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.
Thank you very much for coming today. It's certainly been terrific to listen to you and to your presentation.
This committee is adjourned until 4:45 p.m., approximately 11 minutes.