STFC Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON TAX EQUITY FOR CANADIAN FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR L'ÉQUITÉ FISCALE POUR LES FAMILLES CANADIENNES AVEC DES ENFANTS À CHARGE DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, May 14, 1999

• 1311

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.)): Pursuant to the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, dated March 17, 1999, the sub-committee resumes its study on tax fairness for Canadian families with dependent children.

I have the pleasure of welcoming among us Mr. Gilbert Claes, who represents Après-Rupture, an action group to support father- child relationships, and also Mr. Pierre Sauvageau, who will make an individual presentation.

We will be following our usual procedure. You have five to ten minutes to make your presentation so that there will be 20 to 30 minutes for members to ask questions.

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau (Individual Presentation): Perhaps I could just say a word. I am representing myself, but my presentation will be linked in part with that of Mr. Claes.

The Chairman: Very good.

Please go ahead, Mr. Claes.

Mr. Gilbert Claes (Representative, Après-Rupture): Thank you very much. I represent Après-Rupture; this is an organization which has been helping separated or divorced fathers for more than two years now.

I am not a taxation expert and my approach has to do with policy matters and social directions for a specific group, namely separated or divorced fathers who are still part of the family even if it has broken up.

I will be talking about the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Society has been undergoing great changes over the past 30 years. We can see this in all areas, and more specifically in the case of the family. As Canadians, we should be aware of these changes and the resulting impact on all those involved in our social fabric.

According to Auguste Comte, the primordial importance of the family is due to the fact that it constitutes the key element of society. He also believed that the family is our most precious social institution. For some people, in any case, this positive view of the family is very different from what they actually experience. The gradual crumbling of families and confrontation between parents on questions of child custody and access would appear to be just the tip of the iceberg as far as this huge social problem is concerned.

Most industrialized countries have, like Quebec, seen a considerable increase in the number of divorces. This is all the more significant since there are fewer and fewer marriages. As well, we see that the break-up rate is even higher for couples living together than it is for married couples. This phenomenon has a major impact on the increase in the number of broken families and blended families.

I would like to take advantage of these hearings and the subject being studied today, namely equity, to make a recommendation to members of the committee in addition to the many others you have received. I have only five minutes to go through my entire text, so I would like to recommend right away that we abolish the notion of the single-parent family. Both parents should be equal in their dealings with social, legal and taxation institutions, and should be fully entitled to all their rights. In order to achieve this, mothers and fathers would each receive half of family allowance payments.

• 1315

In 1997, the Canadian government set up a Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. A report was tabled in 1998, which clearly showed the existence of the of family breakdown. Thanks to the work of the honourable Landon Pearson, MP Roger Gallaway and the honourable Anne Cools, the committee made us aware of the various aspects of child security.

Many stakeholders have an important role to play with regard to this security. The Minister of Revenue must also adjust to this demographic reality. Shared custody must be fair for all members of the family.

Today single-parent families represent 16% of all Quebec families. Furthermore, of the 309,435 single-parent families surveyed in Quebec in 1996, 81% were headed by mothers and 18.4% by fathers. The number of fathers raising children on their own has increased only slightly over the past 15 years. Something new, however, is the increase in the number of responsible parents who decide to raise their children under a joint custody arrangement following marriage breakdown.

Given this transformation of the family, pressure has been exercised by various groups to have legal, taxation and education changes introduced. Almost all these changes have been more or less to the hidden advantage of single-parent families. I say "hidden", because there appears to be a generalized attitude that the loss on one hand should be compensated by an increase in tax measures on the other. What concerns us here as we appear before this committee is the taxation aspect and more specifically the question of tax fairness for families with dependent children. This notion of families and "dependent children" gives rise to considerable interpretation when we try to determine what our taxation legislation means by "dependent".

Although almost 20% of fathers are single parents at the present time, 96% of child support payments usually go to the mother. In other words, fathers are still the providers in 96% of cases.

Revenu Québec has settled for $396 million in child support payments, an average of $520 per month per person. I think that separated and divorced fathers have shown very clearly that they are responsible for the care of their children, in spite of government policies improving women's access to the labour market, strangely enough. We must realize that following various taxation and legislative changes, all these men have accepted up to a certain point the responsibility imposed on them for their children. Too often we forget that historically, fathers have always instinctively protected the nation, the family and their children, even at the risk of their own lives. When I speak about protecting, I also mean that fathers have been the providers of the families' financial security, daily and traditionally.

In spite of the historical aspect of this responsibility which was almost always met, over the years changes to taxation and the legislation have been introduced which consigned the providing parent to oblivion or even to the slaughter house—if you will excuse this expression—of tax collection.

Just one example of this is the Quebec family allowance system which was set up under a bill adopted in 1993. This bill provides for the payment of a monthly allowance to the legitimate mother, whether natural or adoptive, of any single child under the age of 18. I could list a whole series of changes brought in over the years, but in view of the short time available to me I will let you read them for yourselves. More often than not, they were to the disadvantage of the father and resulted in a fiscal imbalance.

For more than 20 years, we have seen all sorts of changes in legislation, for example relating to the reciprocal enforcement of support payments, or to the recovery of support payments (1998) to the amount of support payments (1996) and so on. In other words, what I am trying to show members of this committee is that the numerous changes to family law have made many honest fathers feel that they are being treated unfairly as far as taxation is concerned, particularly with respect to the family.

I should emphasize that I am not a tax expert. I am just a father and an activist who meets daily with other fathers who have been thrown into an unfair social or fiscal situation following a marriage breakdown.

The four points which have been brought to my attention most frequently are the following:

1. the equivalent-to-married exemption, when a parent is involved in joint custody and pays child support;

2. the child tax benefit for dependent children, which is set and paid according to an excessive and discriminatory scale;

3. legal fees which cannot be deducted by a parent who asks for changes to child support or custody, whereas the other parent affected by these changes can deduct them;

4. taxable support payments are deducted from gross income when contributions to a registered savings plan are being calculated.

• 1320

Take the case of the equivalent-to-married exemption. Let us look at a specific example, the case of a parent who is involved in joint custody but whose income is higher than that of the mother of his children. He is required to pay child support, and I would point out to the committee that we accept this obligation. This parent who looks after his children half the time also pays child support with money non-taxable, or net dollars, determined by the scale set at the time of the marriage breakdown. The Department does not allow him to make a deduction for dependents because he makes support payments. As we see it, however, he definitely looks after the child half the time and the other half he takes care of the child's expenses through child support payments.

How do we determine who is eligible? If this same parent received support payments instead of paying them, the Department would allow him the equivalent-to-married exemption. It is unfortunate that once again it is the parent who pays who is subject to this discrimination. In a real case which we have used as an example—and the documentation is in the brief—the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, mentions in a letter dated April 17, 1996:

The problems which we have seen to date are principally associated with cases of joint custody. In order to determine who is eligible in cases of joint custody, each parent must fill out a questionnaire and give a detailed summary of his or her responsibilities with respect to raising and meeting the child's needs. In most cases, the information gathered makes it possible to determine which parent has the principal responsibility for housing and meeting the needs of a child in the case of joint custody.

The tax benefit for dependent children is determined and paid according to an excessive and discriminatory scale. I would like to congratulate—and I hope you will excuse my sarcasm—the official who designed the questionnaire to determine who meets the needs of the child. Thanks to this questionnaire, the brilliant official decides who is the "best parent". The questionnaire does not take into account the sex or the age of the child. If you were to address these same questions to philosophy students, you would get a 200-page thesis per question. The fact that in the majority of cases an ordinary parent may not have the necessary education to fill out such a questionnaire is often overlooked. We find some real pearls along the lines of:

How do you comfort and guide your child/children?

Put this same question to the father of a 10-year old boy and the mother of a ten-year old girl and you will get two entirely different answers. You could try your questions out on a Kosovar refugee who has saved his family from the war.

If you get the same points on this questionnaire as the mother, you still have to undergo the endurance test of the ruling. Once again, fathers are the losers because, when joint custody is granted, the father usually gets 40 p. 100 of the time while the mother gets 60 p. 100.

As separated or divorced fathers we have to deal on the one hand with a society which calls upon us to take more responsibility for our children; but on the other hand, when we do so, doubts still exist and we have to take tests or fill out questionnaires.

It is rather strange that our elected representatives still seem to think that it is principally one parent who assumes these responsibilities. In an egalitarian society, this attitude should be reexamined.

In the same letter, Paul martin also mentions:

if the couple has only one child, he can claim the equivalent for a wholly dependent person, and the other can receive the child tax benefit;

The official will deduce that the child is not wholly dependent upon the father since he does not have exclusive custody. This would naturally have an effect on the amount that can be claimed.

In an interpretation bulletin a dependent person for purposes of the equivalent-to-married exemption is defined as someone who is wholly dependent on an individual or on an individual and other persons with whom he maintains a residence. What would happen in the case of joint custody?

• 1325

As we well know, a couple separates because the partners are no longer getting along well. We have to expect that relations between husband and wife will be somewhat strained. Our income tax system even makes provision for this situation, to its own advantage, naturally.

We see in section 118(4)(b):

(b) not more than one individual is entitled to a deduction under subsection (1) by reason of paragraph (b) thereof for a taxation year in respect of the same person or the same domestic establishment and where two or more individuals otherwise entitled to such a deduction fail to agree as to the individual by whom the deduction may be made, no such deduction for the year shall be allowed to any of them;

Sometimes we are no longer parents and our children are no longer our own. The department has even assumed the authority to decide when one is the parent of a child and when one is not. In section 118(5), we find the following interpretation:

(5) Where an individual in computing his income for a taxation year is entitled to a deduction under paragraph 60(b), (c) or (c.1) in respect of a payment for the maintenance of a spouse or child, the spouse or child shall, for the purposes of this section (other than the definition "qualified pension income" in subsection (7)) be deemed not to be the spouse or child of the individual.

I recognize that these may be interpretations made for taxation purposes, but it is very painful to be told you no longer have children when you are a father working very hard to maintain joint custody.

Legal costs may be claimed by the parent who asks for a change to support payments or custody, whereas the parent who is affected by these changes may deduct them.

In the 1998 income tax guide, we see:

You can deduct any of the following:

[...] fees you paid to object to a reduction in support payments or their cancellation;

You cannot claim legal costs to [...] establish or revise a right to support payments, or to establish custody of a child.

As it is the father who makes support payments 96% of the time, I have no trouble imagining that it is the remaining 4% who benefit from these deductions.

Taxable support payments are deducted from gross income when contributions to a registered savings plan are being calculated. Those who are still making taxable support payments, survivors of the Thibaudeau affair, are penalized when providing for their retirement and find themselves more than ever dependent on the welfare state. Those who are paying the tax which is no longer paid by the recipients of the support payments are increasing their outlay from 40% to 50%, and are thus reducing their ability to provide for a secure retirement. Indeed from 1987 to 1995, the percentage of the labour force and paid workers contributing to a retirement plan has dropped from 39.4% to 35.1% for men and has risen from 29% to 33.5% for women.

I would point out that the life expectancy for men is seven years shorter than it is for women. However, there is no difference in contributions made to the Quebec pension plan. I believe that the federal government may have a different way of calculating this. I will not take the time today to speak about the fairness of the tax burden of health costs borne by men in comparison to women.

Here is my conclusion. The government has introduced a number of bills which may have a profound impact not just on fathers and those who are currently separated or divorced, but on Canadian families as a whole on the eve of the new millennium. These changes should be fair to all members of the family unit and not favour one parent over the other.

Is our income tax legislation ludicrous? We hope not. We firmly believe that section 118 should be revised to reflect the social reality of children living with their parents in a joint custody situation. For the most part it is fathers who make support payments. We feel like a discredited and isolated minority, however. We feel that many of these sections undermine our rights. They constitute a discrimination under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On behalf of all of those who are affected by such discrimination, I would like to express our profound hope that our Canadian society will continue to be democratic and listen to all its citizens. This calls for profound changes which would be in the best interests of those who elect you.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will take 15 minutes for questions. Please make your questions short.

Mr. Paul Szabo.

• 1330

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you.

We have heard the points you have made from another group, and I think we understand the concerns. Having said that, we have about four million families in Canada that are together, and they don't get an equivalent-to-married amount because they're married. They have a basic personal amount they each get, and if only one is working there is a spousal amount. It has nothing to do with the equivalent-to-married amount. They have no benefit from this equivalent-to-married amount; nobody has.

But when they break down, when the family breaks down, it triggers the need for the tax benefit of being able to create a brand-new tax credit, called the equivalent-to-married credit. So the husband who has no custody or shared custody is working and gets his personal amount. The mother could be working and she gets her personal amount. In addition to that, the custodial mother also gets to claim the child as equivalent to married. So there's an additional non-refundable tax credit on the table as a result of family breakdown. That's just a fact.

I was sort of curious that if all four million families in Canada separated and divorced, the total cost of the equivalent-to-married exemption to the country would be $6 billion, just because we all divorced. As you put it, when divorce separates it doesn't work any more.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Paul, it would be only one or the other.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Both houses don't get it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: No, no, I understand, but none existed when they were together. They had two personal amounts and no equivalent-to-married amount, because they were together. But once they separate, they have a personal amount for the spouse, a personal amount for the other spouse, and the equivalent-to-married amount. So there are three non-refundable tax credits when you break down, and only two when you're together. So it actually costs all Canadian taxpayers more every time somebody breaks down. So the previous witnesses said to us, “You know what, our tax system encourages divorce”.

I want to ask you, when a family breaks down for whatever reason—and I don't think it's just because it stopped working, as I think 75% is due to domestic violence, substance abuse, adultery... That accounts for 75% of the reasons why families break down, according to Statistics Canada. Why is it that all taxpayers have to cough up more tax dollars because a family broke down? There is an economic cost to breaking down. We know there's a second residence to pay for. We know that the economic condition of those people who were together now is worse because there are more costs of living involved for a second residence.

So I ask you, should our tax system give anybody the equivalent-to-married exemption for a child after they break down because they broke down? Was that not their choice and their responsibility? Why should we ask the rest of Canadians to give a benefit to people whose families have broken down?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Claes, if you please.

Mr. Gilbert Claes: You say that 75% of divorces can be attributed to problems of violence, among others. I think this poses a real question to society when we see the divorce rate increasing so alarmingly within a period of 10 years. I think that the government, in its taxation policy, must also respond to society's reaction to this epidemic of marriage breakdowns.

There is no point in saying that it costs money to separate and that separation should not be encouraged. That is not the problem. I do not think that is the problem. There are many aspects to this problem. First of all, a great deal of research has been done on violence, to the point that we have propaganda being turned against us on a daily basis. We are being labelled as violent. I find this unfortunate. It is not the case. Fewer than 10% of the population have a problem with chronic violence, and the prisons are there to deal with that.

• 1335

I think that marriage breakdown is rather a question of societal behaviour. It is now something which we must accept. We cannot eliminate divorce. Even though there are so many couples now separating, the primary and most important concern of parents is still the safety and wellbeing of their children.

When a marriage breaks down, the question of financial security arises. I think that most fathers, both during marriage and afterwards, are very aware that secure financial provision must be made for the children. That is why we are here before the committee. We would like to point out to you that when a couple separates, both parents become poorer, as you have mentioned.

We have to restore some form of justice by providing us with help. Traditionally, over the centuries, it was the man who always defended and provided for his family. We must maintain this notion. Equality of the sexes has led to the idea that everyone shares everything 50-50; when that does not work, you get out. Breakdowns are not always attributable to violence. Often it is a question of adjustment, behaviour and individualism.

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking if the state should assume such a fiscal burden. I have to say that is not my problem. As a father, I am almost certain that my two sons will separate from their partners someday and be obliged to pay child support. My problem is to ensure that there is fairness in the taxation system and that fathers will not be treated like society's outcasts.

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand your position. I don't think we're going to agree. It just seems to me that all Canadians are being asked to provide additional tax breaks to families who break down. To me, that is the inequity.

Any settlement or support payment charts, whether you're on the old system or the new system, take into account the economic resources of the family as it existed when it broke down. All of the consequences of that breakdown are taken into account in determining that chart. You're not going to make up the economic loss or the economic deterioration of a family—because now they have to have two houses or two apartments—you're not going to make it up on the backs of stable, secure families in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Claes: Fathers' associations, unlike those that defend mothers, have no funds for research. There is no secretariat or department for the status of men who could give us subsidies for finding a consensus so that this does not become an added burden for society as a whole.

However, the sharing can be done according to a scale proportional to the time devoted to child care time. For instance, I asked that family allowances be split according to custody time. I do not think that this would put an additional burden on the State.

The Chairman: Mr. Cardin, you have four minutes.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Good day, gentlemen. Thank you for coming to discuss an issue you consider unequitable for fathers who pay maintenance support or have shared custody of children.

After hearing many witnesses, the sub-committee seems to be putting an increasing emphasis on children and the family as a child development unit. If the government accepted to implement the recommendations you have made today, what advantage would children and the family as a child main living unit derive from this?

• 1340

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: I can answer this question because I am personally living this problem. I make support payments while sharing custody of my three children. For the last three years, I have asked for the equivalent-to-married exemption even if I applied for a deduction for support payments. Although I am not legally entitled to this deduction, I still tried asking for it. For the government, the equivalent-to-married exemption amounts to $800 or $900. I am living as a single parent. I live alone with my three children whose custody I share. Mr. Szabo said that this involved even more expenses. Yes, I do have additional expenses. An equivalent-to-married exemption would only give me about $800 or $900 a year, but it would be a clear advantage for my children.

Mr. Szabo asked where we would get this money. If each family could get even just that amount, families would be a little less poor and the government might also have to spend less money. I do not want to quote any figures because I am not a taxation expert, but if the government can reduce its expenses in fighting poverty by allowing for an equivalent-to-married exemption, it would get a large part of this money back.

Mr. Serge Cardin: When you ask for an equivalent-to-married exemption for a child, do you expect the exemption to be split in two or do you want the entire exemption for yourself as well as another full exemption for your spouse?

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: We have three children. If I were not making support payments, my wife would be entitled to an equivalent-to-married exemption for a child if she were living alone and I would be entitled to an equivalent-to-married exemption for another child because I would be living alone. Revenue Canada would accept this because there would be no support paid. Revenue Canada recovered substantial amounts by making support payments not taxable. This was a way of giving money back to single parent families. I consider myself as a single parent, but for tax purposes, Revenue Canada does not consider me as belonging to a single parent family because I pay support. The law clearly states that when an individual pays support, his children are no longer considered as his children. Why, when two weeks out of four or 26 weeks each year, do my children stop being my children because I am paying support, whereas for the other 26 weeks in the year, I am accountable for housing, transportation and all the other expenses incurred for these children? They are not considered to be my children because during the 26 other weeks, I pay support.

In our brief, there is a letter. I have begun to intervene with Jean-Paul Marchand, an MP, regarding this inequity and I had my situation updated on April 23rd. The letter is appended to the brief. I have had full custody of my eldest son since February 18, 1999. I paid support during the three weeks he spent with his mother from January to February 18. Revenue Canada will refuse me the equivalent-to-married exemption because I paid support for three weeks, whereas during the 49 weeks of the year, I was in full custody of the child. Had I paid only $1 in support during the year, they would refuse to give me the equivalent-to-married exemption. That is the current situation. There is some inequity.

You asked me about how this could help the children. I think I told you how. It helps a bit. I'm not asking for things that cost a fortune. Personally, for myself this would be $800 or $900. I know that for the population as a whole, some adjustments might have to be made, but there is catching up to do in the fight against poverty.

• 1345

The Chairman: Was your brief also tabled before the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate?

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: It is in our brief, along with my letters and the rest. I joined up with Mr. Claes.

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo also sat on that committee and he affirms that your views were reflected in the report by Ms. Cools and Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Herron, please.

[English]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): One question concerns the child care expense deduction that certain families have the capacity to claim.

The debate has been that with families where there are two-parent households, if the one parent decides to work in the home and one parent works outside the home, that family feels it doesn't have the recognition for the contribution the parent staying inside the home is making, and they are ineligible for any kind of a taxation credit or deduction in that regard.

With your particular circumstance, if they went to a system of a universal refundable tax credit of that nature, is that something you folks would advocate on a universal basis if it was tied on equally—it didn't matter the makeup or the structure of the family, but it was done on a universal basis, similar to the former family allowance that was once in place?

The Chair: Could you rephrase the question in fewer than thirty words?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I think so.

If we went to a family allowance system, versus the current child care deduction perspective, so that every parent with families would receive the deduction, would that be something you'd advocate? Would it have to be split equally?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Claes: I am not a taxation expert to answer those questions. However, I am thinking of the child's point of view. The child must be our first priority. Taxation is an important issue for parents, but I think that we cannot make a decision in view of the enormous quantity of different types of wages and jobs. From a child's point of view, as a society, we must see to the security of our children. If the universal approach gives a better response to the child's essential needs, then I favour the universal concept. Mr. Szabo asked if this would cost more money or whether it would be more equitable for all the current kinds of families. These issues must be raised. If a return to the old system were to cost more money for most citizens, it would have to be evaluated. If it makes no difference and also eliminates many conflicts between separated couples, I am in favour of universality.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth, please.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

You were referring to this report, and I am one of the authors of this report. It's interesting to see that today there is response from editorial boards across the country from various newspapers, The Vancouver Sun, The Vancouver Province, the Times-Colonist, and so on, that is putting it to the government that they should not delay the implementation.

• 1350

The government has said they're going to review delay as part of the review of the child maintenance schedules that were brought in under Bill C-41, and all the tax implications of that—whether it's working out well or not working out very well—are going to only be reviewed in the year 2002, unfortunately. I'm sad today about that prospect.

I want to get back to a couple of things.

On child maintenance, there has always been tax paid on child maintenance, but under the old regime parents could decide who paid the tax. They could arrange things favourably for themselves so that one parent or the other, whoever was in the lower tax bracket, could pay the tax on the child maintenance. Now there's no discretion on child maintenance: the payer—and often that is a father, but not always—has to pay the tax.

That basically resulted in a tax increase to the nation, in ballpark figures, of about $350 million, which the government said they would give back to families in the form of an increase in the child tax benefit. It's really hard for the public to assess whether those promises have been fulfilled.

I want to just ask you for your quick assessment of what a payer should pay to the other, according to the new schedules of money. The old system said that there was an assessment of ability to pay, balanced off by demonstrated need on the other end. That was the old law. That system is gone. Now, according to the schedule, there's only an assessment of ability to pay, and it doesn't matter whether there's any need on the other side or not.

I just want to get your comment about how you feel the new schedule of lists is working. Does it help children and take into account the changes I've mentioned about assessing ability to pay only, versus the old system? Do you have any suggested changes to the new regime?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: Are you talking about the child tax credit system or about the way support payments are calculated?

The Chairman: The calculation.

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: Of child tax credits?

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm talking about child maintenance according to a divorce order or a provincial maintenance order, where there's a list that says how much must be paid for one child, two children, etc., and it's all worked out on a chart. That's according to Bill C-41. There are tax implications of that, because that's income, but the rules have changed now. I just wondered if you could advise us how you feel that's working out.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Sauvageau: I assume that these are tables for calculating child allowance where support payments are made.

Having lived through this myself, I can tell you that generally speaking it works very well. In Quebec, there are tables but can be adjusted in view of shared custody. I do not think that this applies outside Quebec. However, what is missing, and I have noticed this, would be a more concrete approach that would not give judges any leeway, so that support payments be calculated by taking into account taxes, tax benefits and the support tables so that the sharing be just.

Currently, in shared custody, whenever one receives support, judges in most cases give all the exemptions and tax benefits to the mother, which is totally unfair because both parents contribute to expenses incurred by the children when they share custody.

• 1355

In many cases, judges, besides using tables and awarding tax benefits to the mother, ask the father to assume other expenses normally factored into the support payment. This obliges him to spend more, when these expenditures are already included in the support payment. This is one aspect that doesn't work.

In my opinion, the judges have far too much latitude. They do not try to figure things out. This is the big problem. Calculating alimony is problematic. As soon as we get into the financial aspect, arguments arise.

Contrary to what a witness said this morning, the government does not necessarily have to solve all problems. However, I think that by setting stricter standards for expenses and giving a little less leeway to the judges would do a great deal to free couples from financial burdens. I do not know if this answers your question.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Sauvageau and Mr. Claes, your views were already reflected in the other committee's report. It dealt more specifically with the issue that you are most concerned with.

As far as we're concerned, we have a narrower mandate, to deal with the current perception according to which the tax system discriminates against families with dependent children regardless of whether one or two persons contribute to the family income. This is our mandate. We are confined to it, but you can rest assured that your view was already reflected in the other committee's report and was included in its recommendations.

We will also include some excerpts from your brief in our report. For that I would like to thank you very much on behalf of my colleagues.

I would like to introduce our next witnesses, from l'Association des secondes épouses et conjointes du Québec, Ms. Carole Ducharme and Ms. Annie Godbout; from l'Association Liens Pères-Enfants de Québec, the President, Mr. Rock Turcotte, as well as Mr. Aurélien Lessard; and l'Association masculine d'entraide pour la famille, Mr. Jacques Pettigrew.

I welcome you. As there will be three presentations, one by each organization, I will ask you to take no more than five or seven minutes so we may have ample time left for questions. The MPs have a plane to catch at 4:00 PM. So we are pressed for time.

Ms. Godbout, you have the floor.

Ms. Annie Godbout (Representative, Association des secondes épouses et conjointes du Québec): Thank you for giving us the opportunity to come here today.

We represent women who have been fighting for their independence for many years and who believe in love in relationships. This is why we are second spouses. Our organization is a new one, it was only founded in 1996. Therefore, our activities, demands and our thinking are relatively new. Our problems are very old, but we have only recently become able to express them. This is why we are making this short presentation before you today. We want to participate in the current democratic debate and make attitudes evolve.

We represent a non-profit organization founded in 1996. We are common law spouses or spouses of men paying support for children from a previous marriage or to former spouses.

• 1400

These are the claims that we chiefly want to draw to your attention: we want legislation to recognize that the second spouse or common law spouse is the only spouse of her husband or common law spouse and vice versa; and to give blended families an equal status with normal families so that they be treated like normal families especially regarding taxation; we want the law to limit the right to support payment for an ex-spouse to a maximum period of two years following the date of the divorce; and to establish rules that confirm the financial independence of the spouses of the second marriage, by ensuring that the financial situation of the second spouse—of course this does not happen as frequently, but there are more and more cases of ex-spouses receiving support—not be taken into account when the judge determines the amount of support to be paid to the ex-spouse of our husband or spouse.

The Chairman: Could you please speak more slowly, because the interpreters are finding it hard to keep up with you.

Ms. Annie Godbout: I am sorry.

The first thing that we want to tell you, honourables members, is that alimony and child support are lifelong responsibilities. The obligation of child support is in our Quebec Civil Code; however, we wonder if it should last as long as it does now. We see more and more adult children claiming support from their parents when they should be financially independent.

Children are at the centre of blended families that we, as second spouses, have formed with our husbands. They are at the centre of our moral concerns, because we are committed and attached to them but there are also financial concerns. Financial support for these children is a part of our lives; we collaborate either directly or indirectly to the financial support of the children of our spouses and they also do the same. We buy them gifts and we take them on outings; we coach their soccer team, which involves travelling and expenses, etc.

The financial and moral commitments of parents of a second marriage to their respective children must be recognized by legislation, especially legislation that has a bearing on taxes, because money is the real issue here.

The fact that support payments are considered as a compensation or an indemnity for the benefit of the ex-spouse leads to serious abuse and injustice. The way legislation evolved has made support payments into a form of compensation or indemnity that can eventually last for the whole lifetime of the second spouse, so that the financial independence envisaged by the divorce laws, that support payments were supposed to further is no longer a fundamental criterion.

The way legislation has evolved in favour of ex-spouses is, in our view, out of context with the real status of women in 1999. It happened within the context of traditional marriages where men were the providers, where any self-respecting man was expected to support his wife and children, where women were dependent on them; that was the context that society approved of at the time.

Women in 1999 are no longer in that situation; in 1999, female students are in the majority in several university faculties in Canada and, in Quebec, they are entitled to child care for $5, as this allows them to be on the job market and finally to do all the things that men do.

When tax deductions for child support payments were eliminated, that at least helped to establish scales for support payments. You certainly are aware that both levels of government had made millions with this.

• 1405

A solution might be to make support payments to ex-spouses non deductible and to establish scales of payment. This would no doubt free up some money to allow us to really take care of our children in our new blended families, because support paid to a former spouse always takes priority over the needs of the blended family. This burden slows our progress, hinders our plans for the future and our attempts to sweeten family life because the former spouse has the right to grab her support payments first. In Quebec, support payments are deducted at source from the salaries of fathers and ex-husbands.

Seven blended families out of ten break up because of financial problems. Children already had a hard time when their first parents broke up. When you strike up a second relationship with a man you love, who accepts your children, who lives with you, and the when you have to break up because everyone is fed up with the financial burden, the children suffer the consequences.

The amount of support paid to the ex-spouse should be exclusively based on criteria that have nothing to do with the new spouse of the payer—because as I said, courts consider my income to set the support payments my partner has to pay, and this is unacceptable—but, rather, with the personal characteristics of the recipient of the support payments.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I can hear, but there is a great deal of interference in the back. I do not know whether Mr. Szabo is holding subcommittees. Out of respect for the people who are speaking and for those who want to hear, I would like...

The Chairman: If you want to talk, Paul, you might perhaps go further to the back because you are disturbing Mr. Cardin. Thank you.

Mr. Serge Cardin: You are interfering with this person's presentation.

Ms. Annie Godbout: Thank you very much. When scales Payment are set, measures to oblige a return to the job market should be considered. Let me remind you that we are not talking about children but mature women who are of age and can to be independent. We should see if they can find other sources of income or support, within limits based on social assistance legislation or psycho- social evaluations to determine whether or not they are fit to work. We also suggest that eventually, all persons with support obligations towards those persons should participate.

We know that this exists in Quebec. There is an obligation of support between ascendants and descendants and, obviously, between spouses or ex-spouses. We suggest that when an ex-spouse really needs support, all those who are legally responsible for supporting that person should contribute, according to their capacity. Persons who are unfit to work should be supported by society at large.

A study was done on the relationship between the independence of women and their financial self-sufficiency. Courts encourage women to believe that their ex-husbands can support them on a lifetime basis without their having to do any work. We therefore recommend that support payments for ex-spouses should last no longer than two years after the date of the divorce.

Now let us talk about support payments and work on the black market. Here, Mr. Szabo, we are dealing with something that concerns you more directly, namely taxation. Our system encourages people to work on the black market. We are not saying that those who pay support payments and those who receive them are guiltier of this than other Quebec taxpayers. The tax burden imposed on Canadians and Quebeckers has become so heavy that everyone, even those who benefit from it, thinks about tax evasion. You are putting the people whom we represent, their spouses as well as the beneficiaries of the payments, in a situation where they are sorely tempted by tax evasion.

• 1410

We know that what we are saying could, at first sight, seem to go against commonly accepted ideas, but we are convinced that the more we are heard, the more people will understand that women's independence depends on their financial independence. That is what we wanted to emphasize here. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Turcotte, welcome.

Mr. Rock Turcotte (President, Association Liens Pères-Enfants de Québec): Good day. L'Association Liens Pères-Enfants de Québec, ALPE-Quebec, thanks the subcommittee for this invitation. We would like to make a few remarks and recommendations.

ALPE-Quebec is an association of separated or divorced fathers residing in the Quebec and Chaudière-Appalaches region. We want to represent the views and interests of fathers to the government.

Fair taxation for families, chiefly families that have broken up, is of great concern to us. By eliminating tax exemptions for support payments, fathers who pay support have been divested of all government help and of all social or fiscal recognition.

We are here because marriage break-ups in Canada are becoming more and more contentious, and courts are having trouble in recognizing that fathers are family members and not only financial providers or parents who are only peripherally involved.

The government must stop acting as if the separation or divorce of parents also implies fathers' divorce from their children. Various studies have clearly shown that children stand to lose the most in such situations. These same studies show that regular contacts with both parents allow for a more balanced development of children.

In our view, it is time for the government to set up a permanent organization for consultation with men and more particularly to reassert the value of fatherhood in Canada. It should be noted that the rate of suicide among males, especially in Quebec, is very high. The school drop-out rate among boys is higher than that of girls. In most if not all university faculties, the proportion of women students who obtain a degree is higher than that of men. That is a situation we must take note of. So much then for the general background.

An organization such as ours must work to minimize tension in the case of a separation or divorce because in the final analysis it is always the children who pay the price. The aim of our association, and it is a commendable one, is to allow each of the parents to resume control of their lives in the best possible circumstances so that the children are able to get through this transition period with the least possible disruption.

Since the change in the tax treatment of support payments and the implementation of new support payment tables, every day we are witnesses to apprehension caused by this system and examples of injustice. The non-custodial parent, and a working one at that, feels as if he has been run over by a steamroller.

The failure to recognize the father results in winners and losers. This situation must be denounced and changed as quickly as possible. It has become urgent and a priority to restore a certain element of justice in the tax treatment of child support. How can a parental family responsibility, of a financial nature to boot, not give rise to any tax deduction? How can the non-recognition of fathers, or a custody situation of less than 50%, quite often combined with the almost entire financial burden, not result in any tax deduction or credit?

The changes that have occurred in our society in recent years did not take place in a vacuum. They have had daily impacts on those who are living such experiences. In the new post-feminist society, the government must help fathers do a better job of carrying out their role with their children. Separated fathers feel that governments have used the Thibaudeau case as a pretext to impose on them a significant fiscal surcharge.

We would like to use this opportunity to recommend that a Canadian Secretariat for Fatherhood be created in order to reassert the value of fatherhood and to encourage greater equity in the family treatment of fathers and mothers. Over the recent years there has been a widening discrepancy.

• 1415

I'd now like to turn the floor over to Mr. Aurélien Lessard who will continue the presentation.

Mr. Aurélien Lessard (Member, Association Liens Pères-Enfants de Québec): In conclusion, over the years our governments have developed a set of tax and financial measures for families without undue concern for the consistency of such measures or even the principles or concepts underlying them.

With the almost simultaneous introduction of apparently isolated measures such as the deduction at source of support payments, the elimination of tax deductions for child support, thereby putting an end to the recognition for tax purposes by the State of the fatherhood of separated or divorced fathers, and the introduction of scales for the setting of child support, it appears the government has decided to single out separated or divorced fathers as scapegoats for the extravagant spending that has led the government to such a huge debt.

Will we find ourselves in a situation where prospective fathers, before having children, must assess the possible financial consequences of a divorce?

We must look twice before transforming fatherhood into economic servitude. The fiscal deficit of the government is not our only cause for concern, the present demographic deficit will also have an impact. The decision to make fatherhood unaffordable will not help solve the government's difficulties, whether they be financial or demographic.

The government must put an end to the status of single person imposed on separated or divorced fathers with relation to the financial or tax support granted by governments to families; it must recognize the contribution of separated or divorced fathers to the support of their children in the same way that it recognizes the contribution of fathers living in two-parent families; it must simplify and customize the tax treatment and financial support measures for families; it must develop and disseminate simulations indicating the simultaneous impact of all changes proposed by the government of Canada relating to family aid on the basis of the criteria of equity, neutrality and efficiency; it must recognize that non-custodial parents are entitled to family assistance, and tax and financial measures.

The government should set up an assistance network for men so that men are represented before government bodies. The recent debate on joint custody illustrates the extent to which men are under-represented as compared to women.

A fatherhood secretariat should be set up in order to respect the principle of equity between men and women. Its mandate should be the promotion and recognition of fatherhood at all levels of society.

To answer Mr. Forseth, I'd like to draw your attention to the last two pages of our brief where we refer to the present situation of fathers as a result of the change to the tax treatment of child support. The figures in the graph show that a father earning $16,000 and one earning $61,000 end up with almost the same net revenue for the accommodation of their children. At the present time, the courts seem to accept that a father with an income of $15,000 or less does not pay child support. In fact, the man who earns $15,000 ends up being the winner. Someone earning $61,000 is allowed a maximum of $12,410 to pay for accommodation that is large enough for him to have his children over. Thank you.

• 1420

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pettigrew, please.

Mr. Jacques Pettigrew (Representative, Association masculine d'entraide pour la famille): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You may wonder whether I am a relative of the Minister. It would appear that we are of the same origin because there was only one Pettigrew family that arrived here.

That being said, our association has been in existence for four years and is concerned with the welfare of the family unit, either intact or blended. The group I represent, the men's association for family support, was pleased and relieved to find out about the creation of this committee to study the tax treatment of families.

Our association observes that the development of children in families is the result of the educational, moral and spiritual values of each of the parents, as well as their economic ability to meet the material needs—I am thinking for example of education—as well as the cultural needs of their children, including their ability to send their children to university eventually.

In this respect, parental abilities depend to a large extent on their ability to provide satisfactorily for all their children's needs. It can be said that the mere fact of providing clothing, food and housing for a child is not enough to ensure his or her full development.

Furthermore, parents who have made their contribution to increasing the Canadian community and building a society respecting our Canadian democratic values are entitled to recognition from this same society because of their daily responsibilities.

The purpose of this recognition is not simply to allow a more or less acceptable standard of living materially speaking but to ensure that these families can live decently. The AMEF believes that the government must be more involved in providing a greater contribution to the financial resources of these families. In our view, social benefits must be restored to such families first of all and, at a later stage, their privileges must be increased significantly, particularly with respect to child tax benefits.

Let me give you a brief overview of taxation over the past decade and the principles leading the government to decide on its chosen direction.

You will remember deductions for dependent children, tax deductions for the payer of child support and the increased income declared by the beneficiary. As you probably realize, I am thinking of the Thibaudeau case among others. In the view of our association, this unfortunate individual case led custodial parents at the time to believe that they were victims of a terrible tax injustice. You may remember that at the time, in 1991, mothers had child custody in 86% of cases according to Status of Women Canada.

You may also remember the intense media concentration on Ms. Thibaudeau and the associations supporting her fight. The Supreme Court rejected her application which was later taken up by governments. We all know the result of this saga. Changes were made to legislation on the taxation of support payments as a result of the social and political pressure of custodial parents. In this way, the federal government was able to save in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year and the Quebec provincial government $70 million a year. The families affected by such changes ended up losing these same amounts.

Our association is of the opinion that governments have the moral, social and political obligation to return this money directly to the families affected by such changes. The impoverishment of these families is, in our view, an irritant leading Canadians to turn inwards and no longer have children.

The government has been successful in reducing its deficit to zero, a laudable achievement. The federal government is now faced with certain choices. It can maintain its deficit at zero or run a surplus budget and pay off its debt.

• 1425

We think that Canadians have made a considerable effort to achieve this zero deficit. In our view, the Minister of Finance should focus his attention on reducing the tax burden for families in Canada.

We think that the people have made sufficient sacrifices over the past several years. It would be ill-considered not to take into account this collective effort for a certain amount of time and to continue to limit the money available to taxpayers and thus weaken their position. This collective effort has affected families, the disadvantaged, those who do not have steady jobs and seasonal employees. Let us remember that $20 billion was recovered as a result of the changes made to the unemployment insurance program.

If Canadians must continue to make an effort, then we can at least spare those who have taken on the social responsibility of raising the next generation. After all, the family is the most important value of this society.

In the opinion of the AMEF, it is essential to reduce the tax burden of low or middle-income earners by reducing their income tax rate.

We believe that those who have sizeable resources or who are able to afford luxury goods should make a greater contribution by paying a surtax on these luxury items. This principle of indirect taxation is used by certain countries to establish a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The AMEF believes that this indirect tax on luxury products has the advantage of not increasing the marginal tax rate for high income earners become it lets them choose freely how they spend their money. The AMEF does not want to reinvent the wheel since this solution has already been proven to work in other countries; our organization believes that this is one of many ways to make progress without affecting the poorest members of society.

On the other hand, the AMEF believes it is imperative to review the child tax benefit so that families which are still together and families where the parents have separated may still function in a system which is to their benefit.

Whether a family is still together or not, the parent who earns less than $21,000, which is close to the poverty line, receives the maximum child tax benefit. In our opinion, the middle class, which represents those earning an average income between $30,000 and $50,000, should also receive the maximum child tax benefit. The middle class is taxed to the point where it is literally suffocating. We believe they deserve a break.

Furthermore, it would be a financial incentive for parents who have separated to share custody of their children more equally if you increased the income level for the maximum child tax benefit. Families where parents have separated need to share responsibilities more evenly between both parents to strike a balance. The committee already knows that single-parent families face enormous odds. The AMEF believes that families where parents have separated should be taxed more fairly to encourage co- parenting and shared custody.

In 1985, major amendments were made to the Divorce Act. For instance, subsection 9(2) of the Act imposed an obligation on lawyers to discuss with their clients issues such as support orders or custody orders and to inform them about mediation services which might help the spouses weather their separation.

Since then, a divorce statement contains the above-mentioned formula as well as the lawyer's attestation that he followed the formula.

However, this formula contained in the Divorce Act does not seem to have produced the desired results, since the general public is still not very familiar with mediation. As well, the courts are still bogged down with divorce hearings, many of which focus on child custody issues.

At the time the law was drafted, it was possible to deduct lawyers' fees in cases where these fees would affect the income of the parties concerned. However, the Department of Revenue did not apply this rule to mediation fees, since cases before mediation were not contested. Despite the fact that mediation costs money, the Department of Revenue did not take its cost into consideration and still does not.

• 1430

And yet, the amendments to the Divorce Act were made by the same government which controls the country's finances. Our organization believes that the government and the Prime Minister have the intrinsic duty to harmonize the laws they enact. The benefits provided by an Act must be in accordance with related legislation.

In order to promote a smoother separation of families by less confrontational, more humane and more efficient methods which meet the objectives contained in the Senate recommendations proposed approximately six months ago, the AMEF proposes that the Revenue Department allow spouses who choose mediation rather than the courts to deduct their mediation expenses.

In the same vein, if lawyers' fees and other legal fees arising out of divorce cases, legal separation cases or joint requests for a change in status could be deducted, it would be a financial incentive for couples to choose conciliation and mediation, which are very successful in Australia and the United States.

The Association masculine d'entraide pour la famille would like to thank you for letting us speak and for listening.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Since Mr. Szabo and Mr. Forseth must leave at a quarter to three, I think we should let them ask their questions first, if you don't mind, Mr. Cardin.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would like perhaps each presenter to give a brief comment to this one question.

In the situation where we have one parent who pays to the other parent for child maintenance because they're not joint parents—they're not together—and one parent is ordered by the court to pay the other for child maintenance, how can we make the taxes on those payments be applied more fairly between dads and moms? What tax code changes would you make to try to get things to be more fair, in your point of view?

[Translation]

Mr. Rock Turcotte: What we are proposing is that the separated moms and dads be eligible for the same tax credits and exemptions as those available to united families. That's all, that's our position. This also answers a question previously asked.

Ms. Annie Godbout: I think we should include all payments made to families on behalf of children, be it in the form of refundable tax credits, deductions or direct benefits such as the child tax benefits. We must include all monies paid to families on behalf of children; that way it's consistent. It's the first thing we have to do in the name of fairness.

I'm for universality. In Quebec, many social tax measures are incorporated into tax legislation. Tax laws are so complex that taxpayers don't understand them; they can't even find out what their marginal tax rate is. The way I see it, we don't need more tax measures, we just need to harmonize what we have and make sure it applies to everybody.

The Chairman: Mr. Pettigrew, please.

Mr. Jacques Pettigrew: I agree with the association which just said that it should be proportional to custody time.

• 1435

For instance, if a parent has custody 30 p. 100 of the time, he should receive a tax credit of 30 p. 100 in his capacity as guardian, if you look at it the old-fashioned way, that is, he looks after the kids and does not share responsibility for them as was recommended by the Senate. The parent who pays support should also receive a tax credit based on the amount of time he has the kids.

Mr. Rock Turcotte: In fact, the emphasis is not on custody time but rather on the financial burden placed on either parent. Tax exemptions should not be based on custody time, but on the cost of bringing up the kids.

Mr. Aurélien Lessard: Quebec and the rest of Canada don't calculate the financial burden the same way. We're proposing the Quebec model, which uses percentages when each parent's share of the costs is calculated.

Under the current method of calculation used in Quebec, if the father must pay 80 p. 100 of the support payment as established under a schedule, and a mother pays 20 p. 100, the father should be eligible for 80 p. 100 of all the available tax credits. As Ms. Godbout said, it would be much easier for everyone to have a universal tax credit, because everyone would understand it better.

Ms. Godbout said that tax law is so complex that people just don't understand it and feel victimized.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, do you have a final question?

Mr. Paul Forseth: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Cardin, please.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Isn't it Mr. Szabo's turn?

The Chairman: No, he doesn't have time.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Your presentations were very interesting. You raised several issues which will contribute to and further many aspects of our debate. Let's come back to tax issues, which the committee should be studying, even though all the other aspects of the problem interest us.

I would like to draw your attention to the graph which was presented by the Association Liens Pères-Enfants de Québec; this graph shows how much after-tax money is left in people's pockets. Madam Godbout, I presume your association is also concerned with this issue. The amount of money left over for the second spouse, for the second family, is not much, which may lead to conflict, despite the fact that families try to avoid it as much as possible.

The graph does not show every possible situation, such as the one where a former spouse receives support payments. How can splitting tax benefits, be they based on custody time or financial burden, really change the situation I have just described, strictly in terms of income?

Mr. Aurélien Lessard: Are you asking me the question?

Mr. Serge Cardin: I'm asking anyone who can answer.

Mr. Aurélien Lessard: It's the children who benefit. The welfare of the children is the most important point.

Mr. Serge Cardin: We all agree on that.

Mr. Aurélien Lessard: As Ms. Godbout mentioned a little earlier, if the financial burden is too great for one of the spouses, the children will suffer.

• 1440

Since we now have to live with these rules, couldn't we give a tax credit to the parent who bears the greatest share of the costs? That way, when the kids visit the father, they can stay at a place similar to the residence of the person who has official custody of the children.

When tax exemptions for support payments were eliminated, it created an imbalance. The Canadian government made that choice and we have to live with it, but today we realize that the tax system must be changed because we went too far the first time around. We can use the tax system to level income inequalities in our society. If we really have the welfare of children at heart, I think we will have to do something.

As it currently stands, federal tax legislation does not recognize the father. The message you're sending, and it was said this morning, is that you do not recognize the fact that the father is part of the family. This is serious, since people are saying that paternity does not exist anymore. Fathers have become mere providers. But we are more than that. Even if it costs the government money, there would be benefits down the road since less kids would drop out of school, there would be fewer suicides, and fewer people would need social programs or turn to crime. When a child runs away from home because there's nothing but conflict, society pays a price. The tax system should recognize the father as belonging to the family. The shape of families has changed. That's what we must remember. We should not exclude one parent because the courts decided to give the other parent permanent or full custody of the children.

The Chairman: Would anyone like to add something? Ms. Godbout.

Ms. Annie Godbout: At the ASEQ, our thinking on taxation is still in the early stages, but I can tell you that some of us are experiencing inconsistencies in the tax system.

For example, I have two sons from two successive marriages and my current spouse earns slightly less than I do. He's the one who can deduct child care expenses for my eldest son, who is not his son and for whom I have joint custody with my ex-spouse.

I talked about integrating tax measures. We are a blended family and we try to live as a real family with my two sons when both of them are with us. The expenses my current spouse is bearing for my eldest son are not recognized. The expenses that we bear together to raise our blended family are not recognized. Blended families are relatively new. The notion is not well understood and it is obviously not taken into account in tax legislation which simply remedies or reproduces what is occurring in society in general.

In the future, the ASEQ will call for tax equity and fair tax measures for blended families.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Godbout. Mr. Szabo and Mr. Forseth, welcome back, and thank you for your participation.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I apologize for missing your presentation.

Ms. Annie Godbout: You can read it.

• 1445

Mr. John Herron: I got a call about something in my riding.

[English]

I did pick up when I returned here that you point out something that's very, very critical. That is, the structure of the family in this modern age we live in, unfortunately—and sometimes even fortunately, because there are sometimes better situations—is very fluid. The structure of the family can change. I think in your testimony you actually represent that in the comments made just a few minutes ago that whatever public policy we develop ultimately has to ensure that the welfare of the child is best taken care of. Your testimony has been put into Hansard, which is the record of... Every word you said has been recorded, so I'll have an opportunity to read it once I get a copy of the Hansard.

Again, my apologies for missing your presentation a few minutes ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Do you want to make a closing remark?

Ms. Carole Ducharme (Representative, Association des secondes épouses du Québec): I would like to have the last word, if I may.

We are talking about taxation. I am not a tax expert, but I would like to add that currently, in 1999, couples are refraining from living together, establishing a household and having children because of the burden of their financial responsibilities to the former spouse. I wanted to add that.

The Chairman: Today, the committee is wrapping up its Canadian tour. We started Monday morning in Vancouver. We also went to Calgary, Toronto and Halifax. If there is a message that the committee will retain, it is that in any approach, suggestion or change that we propose, we must take into account the well-being of children first and foremost.

I would like to thank you for coming. I know that you are not all from the Montreal region. You have come from afar. The committee members thank you for your comments.

I would also like to thank committee members for their presentation. They have also been on the road since Sunday. I hope everyone will have an excellent weekend.

I would also like to thank the staff. Without them, we would not be able to do our work. Thank you, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.