SJCA Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL SUR LA GARDE ET LE DROIT DE VISITE DES ENFANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, June 1, 1998

• 1153

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.)): Good morning, everybody. We are now about to begin the 33rd meeting of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

I always like to begin by reminding everyone what the mandate of the committee is. It is to examine and analyse issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements, based on children's needs and best interests.

We welcome this morning as our first witness, from the Centre jeunesse de l'Outaouais, Louise Carignan.

Senator Anne C. Cools (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Before we begin, Chairman, perhaps we could just note formally that this meeting was called for 11.30 a.m.; that it is now 11.55 a.m.; and that it was unable to start because of an absence of the requisite six members required to hear witnesses. I just wanted to put it on the record.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I've been here since 11 a.m.

• 1155

Senator Anne Cools: I believe you, and so have we all, but I'd just like to—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I haven't, because I knew nothing about the meeting until I arrived in Ottawa.

Senator Anne Cools: But you were here. It's the people—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson):

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Senator Anne Cools: Chairman, I'm speaking.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson):

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] It's on the record.

Senator Anne Cools: Well, I wasn't finished, Chairman. I was trying to make the point that the rules of Parliament and the reference given to this committee... When they say that six are the required number to be able to hear witnesses, that six is a way of diminishing a quorum.

I'm just making the point again and again that this committee operates 99% of the time without quorum and has great difficulty mustering the six. I would also like to point out to the chairman that the six means six is the required number to hear witnesses, which means that if there are five, the meeting should close down.

I'm just restating the rules. It seems that nobody knows them any more.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Senator Anne Cools: I just wanted to make that point for the record.

So, my apologies. This is why we're a little bit late. There were simply not enough people in their chairs.

[Translation]

The Joint Co-Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Ms. Carignan, I invite you to take the floor.

Ms. Louise Carignan (Social Worker for Youth Protection, the Outaouais Youth Centre): Good day. I am very impressed with being here. The delay and all the traffic around Parliament gave me a chance to relax a little. We can see that things are really moving.

I used to be a social worker in Ontario and I am now working in Quebec. I am pleased to come and share my professional opinion as a social worker which I have been for almost 20 years. I have worked both directly and indirectly at solving problems of legal custody and I have always worked in the field of youth protection.

Most children who are directed to youth protection have or are going to live through a separation situation. Nowadays, nearly one child out of two will have to live through the separation of his or her parents.

This morning, I would like to talk to you about a concrete case. I had to appear before the court in a case where a couple had been separated for six years. At the time of the separation, it had been agreed that the father would keep the older child and that the mother would keep the younger child. This decision was due to financial as well as other aspects. This arrangement was very agreeable to both parents, but the needs of the children were practically not taken into account. The siblings ??? had been separated, and for the two parents it was a good way to carry on their conflict through the two children because each one of them was holding a child hostage. This allowed them to hurl criticism at one another and to say: “Look at the way you're raising the younger one". Or "Look at the way you are raising the older one”, and so on.

Both in Ontario and in Quebec the Youth Protection Services regularly witness this kind of situation. We have chronic complaints and we see finally, that it's the war between both parents that is still being carried on.

How can we solve this problem? This morning I would like to propose to you some recommendations aimed at preventing divorce situations. Now, in 1998, as the year 2000 is approaching, most of our children will have to live through the separation of their parents. The guidance given to the professionals and the parents who will have to live through this kind of situation should be based on two premises: the couple is divorcing, but as for the children, they do not have to get divorced from their parents. Parents remain the parents of their children throughout their whole lives. Perhaps our way of playing our role and exercising our rights and responsibilities will have to change.

• 1200

I deeply believe that the presence of both parents is absolutely necessary in a child's life to ensure the overall and balanced development of the child. How can this be organized and put into action? A great deal of open discussion has been held on this, but there have also been many discussions under the table because the situations are not always clear either for the parents or for the children.

Regarding prevention in divorce situations, as I was saying, young couples should be educated right from the beginning of their married life and of their family life. Parenting and family life are skills to be learned. We should develop services to ensure this and to avoid the harmful breakups that the children have to suffer from as well.

I would recommend that we raise the awareness of the population regarding the needs of the child and the impact that divorce can have on a child. Although we do know that there is an impact on the children, we should pay more attention to other factors such as the age, the gender and the personality of the children and we should not become oblivious to their needs, as these needs become crucial at a certain point in time, and very apparent. In the case which had been brought before the tribunal and about which I spoke to you this morning, protection measures have been resorted??? to because both the children in this family are experiencing serious behaviour problems. If this couple, which broke up six years ago, had been obliged to undergo a compulsory mediation procedure right from the beginning of their separation, we might have prevented the conflict between the two parents from crystallizing and the children being placed in a triangle, as they have become hostages as it were, messengers and witnesses for parents who are angry at each other.

I would be in favour of setting up a plan for helping families in trouble and which are on the verge of breaking up. The Ontario Health and Family Social Services Act has provisions for protecting children who are at risk. In Quebec, we unfortunately do not have that specific kind of law and we have a great deal of difficulty in getting a head start and being able to prevent situations which are highly dramatic for children. This kind of protection should be promoted more and more, as well as a concrete support program for lessening the impact of divorce on child development.

When parents divorce, they are in a vulnerable position and they themselves have to go looking for support. It would be good for such services to be available ahead of time and easily accessible in some organizations. We could set up a mediation program in our institutions and offer a parallel support service for the children.

I would also like to set up programs for promoting the preservation of the bond between both parents. In my opinion, both parents have a fundamental role to play if we want to have well-balanced children. Sometimes the agreements reached by parents who divorced ten years ago no longer correspond to present needs. Unfortunately most of the legal agreements end up being carved in stone. People say: “Here are your rights and here are my rights. And that is a thing to which you have no right.” Once again, the needs of the children are completely forgotten.

I noticed that most of the children with whom I have worked also needed to maintain their bonds with the extended family. Grandmothers, godfathers, godmothers, are important to children. These are important persons who have a certain role to play in the lives of these children, and in spite of this, they are being brushed aside.

• 1205

It is also very important to keep the siblings under the same roof. In the case I was mentioning, they had split up into two families: the mother with one son on one side, and the father with the other son on the other side. The two brothers have never learned to live together. When they meet on weekends, they face off in conflict. Each one has the status of an only child during the whole week and during one out of two weekends, each one has to share his mother or his father. So the child says: “This is my parent.” It is important, especially for very young children whose parents break up, that the children both go to see dad on weekends or vice versa. They also feel more secure since there are tow of them.

I am also speaking to you in light of my personal experience because I went through a separation several years ago. I always insisted that both my children should be with either one of the two parents at all times and I can presently see the very positive effect that this has had on them. They have learned to live together and to put up with each other. They are able to speak to each other frankly and honestly. I would rather not go into too much detail.

The solutions we have found up to this time are not necessarily the best, although I must say that we have succeeded in doing a few things. The three main solutions found in separation and divorce cases are: mediation, tribunals, and psychotherapy.

A legislative effort should be made to encourage mediation and to train professionals, whether they be legal or health or social service professionals, to find solutions through conciliation and negotiation. Naturally, it would be easier to use mediation if the parents are emotionally mature, if they have common sense and good flexibility. Mediation tends to make things more objective and neutral. The intervenor works with the objective of truly defending the interests of the children. Naturally, mediation is not a panacea or a remedy to our general social malaise. Sometimes we have to resort to the courts, as I had to in the case I mentioned to you this morning. In such cases, the procedure is much clearer, apart from the fact that it is an adversarial situation: one parent on each side.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): I'm sorry, Ms. Carignan. Are you almost through? We don't have much time.

Ms. Louise Carignan: Yes.

This is also an expensive solution and a long process for the parents during which time the needs of the child go wanting. It often happens, after appearing before the court, that you're engaged in an unresolved conflict emotionally and psychosocially.

Naturally, another solution could be psychotherapy. Unfortunately, some parents divorce because of personal problems that one or both parents are having or because of a parental problem of incompetence or incapacity.

All those solutions are available, but they should be more accessible and the needs of the children should be emphasized.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Thank you very much. First, I'd like to thank our witness, Ms. Carignan, and apologize for our tardiness.

You raised the matter of protecting children at risk. You said that there was intervention in Ontario, but not in Quebec. I'd like you to tell us a bit more. How do you identify a child at risk in the event of a separation or a divorce?

• 1210

Ms. Louise Carignan: When a child hears the other parent being denigrated, it puts the child in a conflictual situation where the other parent is concerned. The child loves both parents and wants to continue to love both parents. For example, when a child goes to his father's place and his father badmouthes the child's mother, then the child doesn't feel comfortable expressing love for the mother. The child wants to continue to please daddy because daddy's love is being sought. The child wonders if daddy's example shouldn't be followed and if mommy shouldn't start being hated. For the child, the parent's image is most important. The child needs to believe in the credibility of both parents.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Do you identify those children at risk before separation or during mediation? I don't understand. When do you start establishing that a child is at risk? I suppose you work with that clientele.

Ms. Louise Carignan: The child is at risk the moment there's a conflict between both parents. The conflict between the parents can be verbal but can also be physical. When both parents undergoing separation start yelling names at one another and pitching plates or flower pots like in this morning's example, it makes the child feel insecure. The child is at physical risk from a flying plate or flower pot and the parents don't represent any kind of security anymore. The child is at risk because the child's development is being compromised at a time when security, stability and continuity in life are needed. The younger the child, the more difficult it is for the child to understand the complexity of the environment in such circumstances.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Fine. You didn't really say much about your youth centre. I'd like to know your client make-up, the age of the youths and what kind of conflicts they're going through. Are these cases of marital violence?

Ms. Louise Carignan: The Outaouais Youth Centre works with children from 0 to 18 years of age. We work with families where there is mistreatment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, negligence, lack of supervision, severe behaviour problems and criminality. Our clients are also parents who have problems imposing discipline, who abandon their children or are drug addicts.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Who sends you the children? The parents or the Youth Protection Branch?

Ms. Louise Carignan: Either or both parents can ask us because they feel they're at the end of their rope, because they've identified some problems with the child but can't control the child. The child can then be placed in another environment. We can also make the decision to remove the child because of the parent's attitude or behaviour.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you very much.

As you're aware, the Divorce Act sets up the scenario of how things will go. I would like you to tell us what specifically you would suggest to change the Divorce Act. You had advocated more mediation and better training of mediators, and you certainly recommended against the litigious, expensive, formal proceedings of a court trial and so on. So how can the Divorce Act be changed to promote the kinds of elements you're recommending?

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Carignan: First of all, I'd like to see a change in the time frames. Lawyers would probably be in a better position than I to answer that question, but I wonder if the Divorce Act couldn't be changed in that respect. I find it trying when parents divorce and appear before a court that the child has to wait two years before knowing exactly what's going to happen. In the meantime, there are all kinds of games going on between the parents.

We have a sector in the Superior Court called psychosocial expertise which intervenes in divorce cases. We meet both parents or the children and make recommendations concerning those children. I have here the factors we use as a basis for our recommendations.

• 1215

Legislation should provide that as soon as the parents can't agree anymore or don't show any will to agree further, then things should go ahead in the interest of the children. They should be guided towards expertise and the matter settled as swiftly as possible.

For two-year-old children, a two-year period is a long time and those are two very important years in their lives. The children can't take the delays imposed by justice. I would therefore like to see those time frames decrease and made very clear.

According to the provisions of our legislation on child protection or legislation like the Ontario Law on Health and Social Services, we have 30 days after a report to do an assessment and give direction. We should go in that direction except that we'd be facing a black hole in the Divorce Act. The parents aren't nuts. If they're divorcing and they don't want to reach a settlement, they won't want to undertake legal proceedings. That aspect would become difficult. On the other hand, the parents of those children are not necessarily married and so wouldn't ask for a divorce. That's another variable that must be considered in these decisions.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: All right, so what you're recommending are mechanisms to certainly have a speedy resolution of conflict, and you support mediation or arbitration systems, or whatever, that reduce actual court trials. Perhaps you're recommending some way to remove the capacity to fight by changing the rules themselves, whereas if there are not the mechanisms—the perverse incentives, you might say—then they won't be used.

Is that a summary of what you're saying?

Ms. Louise Carignan: Would you repeat the two last sentences? I didn't hear you.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What I'm trying to say is that in some respects, capacity creates its own demand. If there's a possibility for a conflicting couple to use existing rules to fight and it really doesn't help anything, perhaps you change the rules.

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Carignan: There are the two basic premises at the outset: you have to recognize that parents can divorce but that they will and must remain parents. In that spat, one of the two parents doesn't want to be eliminated and doesn't necessarily want to be a part-time parent or simply pay support. From that point of view, you're not really recognizing the needs of the children. You're making a mistake and you're going towards scenarios that are full of frustration for the children and both parents. More and more studies are conclusive in that respect.

It's tiring to be head of a single parent family these days. You have to force yourself to come to an agreement so as not to divide these children physically or emotionally.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Senator.

I would just like to home in on that question a little bit more. I don't want to be presumptuous—this is my first morning with this committee, and I want to thank the committee members and the chair for welcoming me—but as we talk about more mediation, I want to know if you can be more specific. Are you in a sense saying that perhaps there should be some slowing down of the divorce process to allow mediation to take place to consider all the aspects? Would you also be thinking about looking at the whole emphasis upon no-fault divorce? Would you be looking at changes in that regard?

• 1220

I also have another question on the statement that parenting must be learned, but I don't know if you'd like me to ask that now or a bit later, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Would you ask both to this witness or to another?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: To this witness, yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): All right, well, ask them both, because this will have to be the last question anyway.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: All right, then.

You mentioned that parenting must be learned. Traditionally parenting is learned when we're children, from our parents and grandparents, and I'm wondering if you had something in mind as an amendment to the law or an initiative in the law that would support what you're saying.

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Carignan: In my opinion, there are presently no clear programs that teach anyone how to be a good parent. In the good old days, there were only two or three education methods and choice wasn't complicated. But educational methods have multiplied since then. Besides, our young people don't learn the same way anymore. You have to take into account the mobility or the diversity of families that have changed quite a lot. You might think that you learn how to be a parent by example, but if your own parents weren't good role models, it's game over, what can you do? I had a good mother and I'm able to nurture my children, adjust and so forth. If I hadn't had a good mother, where would I have learned? That's often the problem of the parents who show up at the Centre jeunesse de l'Outaouais or the ones who showed up at the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton where I used to work.

[English]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: To refer to the first question I asked about slowing down the divorce process for mediation to take place, I'm wondering if you could specifically refer to how you'd like the legislation changed for that.

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Carignan: I know that the Divorce Act comes under federal jurisdiction and that, in Quebec, we now have to consult a mediator in cases of divorce or separation. This approach has met with some success. Statistics indicate that 50 percent of the cases are resolved through mediation.

As for the idea of no-fault divorce, I think that we must refrain from playing the game of the parent who wants to blame the other. Instead, we must accept the facts and resign ourselves to the situation, say that it is no longer working out between us, that it did work once but that now it's not working anymore. We have to ask questions. What do we do? What strengths does the other parent have that I can use to benefit the children? As a parent, despite the separation or the divorce, what qualities do I have that will help my children? If we ask ourselves questions in this manner, we will do things differently and better meet the needs of the children.

We have heard about many situations where one parent blames the other. We find these situations very difficult, as youth protection workers. There is come confusion regarding the cause of behaviour problems. One parent tells us: “My child is having nightmares and pulled his pants down. He must have been sexually abused.” We see a great many things that could be associated with mistreatment, with normal developmental behaviour or with a normal reaction to two parents separating. This is a very difficult experience for children.

[English]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Perhaps to clarify, just for brevity, what I wanted to know is if our witness was suggesting that there should be changes to the no-fault provisions. If there are none, I'm happy to live with that. I think I understand what no-fault divorce means, yes. Thank you.

• 1225

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Carignan, thank you very much for your interesting presentation.

[English]

We would now like to come up to the table, please, from the Service Centre of Ottawa-Carleton, Katherine Morrison and Sandy Milne, co-chairs; and from the Family Mediation Centre of Peterborough, Patricia Houde and Drew McLay, mediators.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Perhaps Ms. Morrison and Ms. Milne would like to begin, and for the two groups, please take as short a time as possible, so that we have time for questions.

Ms. Sandy Milne (Co-Chair, Family Law Sub-Committee, Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women): Good afternoon. My name is Sandy Milne. I'm a social worker with Family Service Centre of Ottawa-Carleton, which is a family counselling agency accredited by Family Service Ontario and Family Service Canada. I work in the program against abuse, and I hold a Master of Social Work degree. In July 1997 I presented a paper at the International Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence.

I co-chair the Family Law Sub-Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women, a coalition of organizations whose mandate it is to end violence against women and their children. It is in that role that I am making a presentation today.

Other front-line workers, committee members, and those interested are also present. As a committee member, Joan Gullen sends her regrets.

Ms. Katherine Morrison (Co-Chair, Family Law Sub-Committee, Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women): Good afternoon. I'm Katherine Morrison. I'm here today because I've been working on the Family Law Sub-Committee for almost three years, and because I wish to put a human face to the issue we are addressing today.

In July 1994, my home burnt to the ground. My ex-husband, the father of my youngest daughter, was arrested. It took three and a half years for him to be convicted of arson and endangering life. This was our second fire. The first one happened 14 months previously and is considered suspicious by the police.

My oldest daughter was 12 and the youngest was 9 months of age at the time of the fire. As well, a friend of my eldest daughter, my elderly parents, and I were all in the house when the initial explosion occurred. Thankfully we all got out. Our family pets were not as lucky. Virtually nothing was salvaged.

I have brought with me today pictures of my daughters and parents taken by my ex-partner only a couple of hours before I believe he tried to kill us. He had also taken photos of our home and surrounding property. I also have a photo taken the day after the fire, which he had taken. This is all I have left of my daughter's memories before the fire.

After spending just one night in jail, he is now out and appealing his conviction and sentence. He continues to have excessive unsupervised access to our young daughter.

The effect all of this has had on me is devastating. I do not understand why this man, who I believe tried to kill us, including his own daughter, is permitted access to this child. I wholeheartedly support all of the recommendations of the brief Sandy and I are presenting today on behalf of the Family Law Sub-Committee. On a personal note, I plead with this committee to take violent acts very seriously. My daughter's life should come first, not her father's rights.

The Family Law Sub-Committee came together in 1992 out of deep concerns for the physical safety and emotional health of women and children in situations where there has been violence. It focuses on the experiences of abused women entangled in the family law legal system, particularly as they relate to custody and access disputes.

The Family Law Sub-Committee has been involved in a legal research program with the University of Ottawa, and has received funding to run a custody and access support group for women who have experienced abuse. The Family Law Sub-Committee's membership includes professionally trained counsellors, shelter workers, family law lawyers, and women who have experienced directly the court system. Collectively the professional counsellors who have contributed to this brief have worked with hundreds of families in the Ottawa-Carleton area when there has been violence against the mother.

• 1230

The purpose of the brief today is really to highlight the issue of violence against mothers as a critical issue in custody and access decisions. Today we hope to give the children's experience when there has been violence in the home and to make this a visible issue, because many times it's an invisible issue at the time of court and when custody and access decisions are made. We recommend legal change. We want to emphasize that violence is not in the best interests of children—safety is. And when there has been violence against the mother, children are at risk.

We also view violence against the mother as a form of child abuse. This use of violence puts into question the parenting ability of the father and can be seen as poor role modelling for the children, with long-term negative consequences.

We want to stress that violence can and does continue after separation. Many times it's thought that violence stops when the couple separates, but that's not been our experience when working with women who have experienced violence.

I'm briefing going to talk about the impact on children who have witnessed violence against their mothers.

For the past 10 years there have been therapy groups for children in the Ottawa-Carleton area. The behavioural and emotional effects are wide ranging. I'll provide you with the following examples.

I think one of the most disturbing things is that children learn that violence is an appropriate way to resolve problems. We see many children with a lot of acting out, aggressive behaviours, at home, at school, and in the community. Many mothers report ongoing physical and verbal attacks toward themselves, siblings, pets, and property and intimidation using kitchen knives, kicking, hitting, swearing, name calling, and punching holes in walls. Untreated, these children can become abusers themselves. There are many school-related problems and children suffer academically.

Children who witness violence against their mothers suffer trauma similar to the trauma experienced by those children who are the direct targets of abuse. Child witnesses may experience post-traumatic stress disorder. I can think of a family in which an 8-year-old girl had never been hit by her father, but had witnessed her mother being beaten bloody. Three years later, she still suffers stress, has nightmares and startle responses, and has a very difficult time at school.

Children suffer from low self-esteem and they present as depressed. Girls have been treated for ingesting paper clips.

Children's fears manifest themselves in physical ailments and chronic anxiety. A common fear reported by children is that their mothers might be killed and that there would be no one to look after them. Many children have overheard death threats. Even going to a summer camp poses great anxiety for them, because they're so worried about what is going to happen to mom when they're away.

These are the types of issues we see and want to bring forth to this committee, because they're so serious.

I'm going to turn it—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Are you coming to the end?

Ms. Sandy Milne: Yes.

We're just going to go over some custody and access problems and then our recommendations, which will be brief.

Ms. Katherine Morrison: Sometimes children should not see their abusive fathers. The prevailing ideology that children must have contact with their fathers actually hurts those children whose fathers are violent. Recurring behaviours by fathers demonstrate that patterns of violence continue long after separation and divorce.

Ms. Sandy Milne: We'll go now to the recommendations.

We believe a consistent child-centred approach should encompass the following recommendations:

The justice system must incorporate a protocol for dealing with violence against mothers when custody and access decisions are made. We recommend the following inclusions in the protocol.

• 1235

When there has been a conviction of assault or charges are pending, interim custody should be granted immediately to the mother as the primary caregiver and no unsupervised access should be granted.

There should no joint parenting plans, no presumption of joint custody, and no mediation where there has been violence.

There should be education for judges on the dynamics and impact of abuse.

There should be education for professionals, which must incorporate a protocol that deals with violence.

Child protection agencies should acknowledge that witnessing abuse is a form of child abuse and the priority is the children's safety.

The supervised access program should be expanded.

The legal aid program should have enough funding so that women and children are kept safe, because these cases are very complicated and legal aid runs out very quickly.

A national system of enforcement of child support and children's services should be made available.

That basically sums up our position.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Ms. Houde or Mr. McLay, please.

Mr. Drew McLay (Mediator, Family Mediation Centre of Peterborough): Thank you very much for inviting us here. My name is Drew McLay. My partner is Patricia Houde. We run the Family Mediation Centre in Peterborough. We are both family mediators, as well as single parents who have experienced the court system.

We are here today to propose that it is critical for parents who are going through separation, divorce, and custody battles to be required or at least encouraged to attend a parent education seminar, a seminar to spell out exactly what it is they're likely to experience as well as the true impact that the decisions they make at this critical time in their lives will have on themselves and their children in the future. Similar seminars have been proven to be extremely effective in different communities in the U.S. and Canada. My partner will elaborate on some of this following my presentation.

I'd like to give an analogy that I think will illustrate what separating and divorcing parents and children are currently experiencing. I call it the tragic journey.

Envision a parent and the children embarking on a journey. They may or may not want to take the journey, but it is necessary nonetheless and it has to be done. The purpose of the journey is to arrive at a distant country. However, in order to arrive at this destination it is necessary for them to travel through another country, which they are unfamiliar with.

The parent and the children are apprehensive, frightened, sad, confused, and perhaps angry that the journey is necessary at all.

The first thing they discover as they enter the unfamiliar country is that they don't speak or understand the language. Next they discover that it is possibly going to cost them a great deal more than they had anticipated to travel through the country and that in fact they may be destitute at the end of the journey. They then discover this journey will in all likelihood take much longer than they had anticipated, perhaps even several years. Then they find out that the laws in this country are different from those they are accustomed to. They discover that in this country it is possible for another person with a grudge against them to make allegations, whether true or not, with complete immunity.

All this places a great deal of stress on the parents and the children. As a result the parent may feel overwhelmed and start to make decisions that are not in the best interests of the children.

While the purpose of the journey may have initially been to benefit both themselves and their children, feelings of helplessness, anger, and fear may cause them to act irrationally. In an effort to protect themselves and their children, they may start making decisions that under normal circumstances they never would have made.

At one extreme they may attempt to escape the country and steal away with their children in the night. At the other extreme, feeling hopeless and defeated, they may abandon their children and run away themselves. However, a greater likelihood is that they will be in such a state of distress that they will adopt an adversarial stance.

They may begin to be less sensitive to their children's needs and fears. They may start doing and saying things that are completely out of character for them. They may unknowingly even start to encourage their children to do and say things that under normal circumstances they never would. They may start modelling behaviour that is unhealthy and perhaps even illegal.

• 1240

Wrapped up in their own fear, guilt, and anger, they may eventually find themselves having become completely insensitive to how the journey and their behaviour are devastating the children emotionally.

Their children may start demonstrating behaviour that is totally uncharacteristic. They will not understand the children's reactions or their behaviour.

The tragedy is that all of this could have been avoided if the parent, prior to the journey, had invested in a travel guide and a map. The guide would have explained, among other things, what exactly they could have expected while travelling through the other country, as well as some ways of avoiding some of the pitfalls that the inexperienced traveller often faces.

Also, it could have provided some travel tips and strategies to help the parent and children survive the journey when taking the route.

The map would have illustrated that it may have been possible to arrive at the ultimate destination without travelling through the hostile and unfamiliar country at all. It may have described a route that would have allowed the parent and the children to reach the ultimate destination with far less fear and anxiety than initially believed possible.

Ultimately, by using the travel guide and map, the parent and children would have had a far greater chance of arriving at their destination physically, psychologically, emotionally, and financially healthy.

As we're all aware, there are any number of marriage courses or seminars for those about to get married. These are an option; individuals are free to look into them or not. My argument is that in these situations it is usually just two adults who will be immediately affected by their decision to marry or not.

In the case of separating or divorcing parents, it is the children who usually suffer the most because of the parents' ignorance.

Consequently, I am arguing for either mandatory seminars for those parents about to separate or divorce, or at least seed money for organizations such as ours that have prepared programs to help get the programs into the community and hopefully help parents to avoid some of the common problems experienced by those embarking on this type of journey.

Finally, if we can help parents recognize that above all it is the conflict between them that is in itself a type of child abuse, rather than the separation itself, and which causes the emotional devastation to the children, I think we can accomplish a great deal.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Ms. Houde, did you have something to say? We have such a short time for questions.

Ms. Patricia Houde (Mediator, Family Mediation Centre of Peterborough): No. I did have a presentation, but...

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We do receive the presentations, so we have them available to read. Unless it's something radically new, I think I'd prefer to move to questions. Is that all right?

Ms. Patricia Houde: Okay.

Well, I'd just like to emphasize Drew's comment about parenting education programs.

I think it's really important that we recognize the value of what could happen as a result of parents going through the early stages of separation and divorce and being introduced into our court systems. They should be offered an opportunity, whether it's voluntary or involuntary, to attend parenting education programs.

In our work we recognize that many times parents come to this process not realizing the effects of their actions and the devastation they can cause the children, and often does cause the children.

I realize you're out of time, but this is a really important issue.

I would like you to consider the benefits of parenting education programs. They have been running successfully in the U.S.A. and some parts of Canada, and some very good studies have come out of them.

One of the U.S. bar association's studies indicated that it's more the conflict and the behaviour of the parent that affect the children in the longer term, as opposed to the separation itself.

In one study, in Utah in 1994, they surveyed 13,670 respondents to find that when the initial question was asked—were the respondents resentful about having to attend the course?—29% responded yes, they were very resentful. But at the end, when they were asked whether or not the parenting education program should be introduced to divorcing parents on a mandatory basis, surprisingly I think to the surveyors, 79% of the respondents responded yes, mandatory parenting education programs would benefit them and had benefited them.

• 1245

I respect your timeframe, but I think it is a really important issue and I would ask this committee to consider seriously the benefits.

Our Ontario Attorney General's office, as we speak, is in the process of implementing a pilot project out of Toronto. I sit on the Ontario Association for Family Mediation board. Drew and I, and other mediators, attended their AGM in Toronto just this past weekend. A representative from the Attorney General's office spoke to us and advised us that the pilot project is about to be launched in Toronto, introducing the parenting education programs.

Thank you for your time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: On the pilot project, what are the technical means to make it happen? Is it done through the court rules? Are you recommending perhaps some change to the act itself? We've heard a considerable amount of testimony on the advisability of education programs, but the question remains, what is the most appropriate way to make it technically happen?

Ms. Patricia Houde: That's a difficult one, Mr. Forseth, because there is probably a good argument on both sides. If we really were able to take the initiative and move to making it mandatory, in my estimation that would prove in the end to be valuable. Having worked in the social service field and in the criminal justice field for quite some time, I find there's always a resistance when we make people do things.

I can remember when they introduced anger management, drug and alcohol programs, and they were being made mandatory. And we all like to get our hackles up because nobody likes to be told what to do, even if it is in our best interest. In the long haul, in a situation such as mandatory parenting education programs, we would see the resistance dissipate, I would hope at least quickly.

And I think it would be really prudent on the judges' part to be educated. We have the luxury of working with some really—

Mr. Paul Forseth: Excuse me for cutting you off there. In your pilot project, is it voluntary or mandatory?

Ms. Patricia Houde: At this point it is voluntary. We're working with a senior family court judge and a general court division judge in Peterborough, and we're extremely lucky that they both see the value in it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you have jurisdictions where they've run pilot projects, but they have had it mandatory within the Canadian context. So you may want to look at those jurisdictions that experimented at the mandatory option.

Mrs. Patricia Houde: Okay. Thank you. We have been trying to do some of that research and we have been trying to find areas. I know in Alberta and Vancouver...

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you. So are there other questions?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Dr. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In terms of the research, one of the things we are hearing a lot about is the effect of witnessing violence on children and the idea that this is a form of child abuse in itself, even if the child's not hit. So your recommendations were that with the existence of violence in the home we would then set a separate pathway for divorce for those families.

Ms. Sandy Milne: That's correct.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: That's what keeps coming back to me. From the minute there's a marriage breakdown, if there's violence in the family they go down this path; if there's not violence in the family, then they can go down this other path that includes more mediation and ADR.

• 1250

Ms. Sandy Milne: That's absolutely correct. I've attached to our brief the Guardianship Amendment Act from New Zealand, which highlights and makes a special provision for dealing with violence within the Divorce Act. So that's something this committee could take a look at, to possibly incorporate it into Canadian law.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: One of the things we're encountering is that the whole child welfare system is impoverished. Whether you call it a child protection system, child welfare, or in some jurisdictions almost a friend of the court who could actually make sure that the best interests of the child... When you are saying there should be education for those people witnessing abuse or violence, you mean it is something these people should be looking out for and protecting the children against.

Ms. Sandy Milne: That's correct. Particularly judges and also family assessors quite often ignore issues of violence. I think it's one area that needs to be highlighted when looking at plans for these families and keeping children safe.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Obviously there are jurisdictions where the judge orders supervised access and there's no provision for supervised access in the province. Clearly there should be resources for that.

Ms. Sandy Milne: That's right, or it doesn't happen.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think the word you used was the “protocol” for violence. That should be multidisciplinary, in effect, from the judges to the lawyers to the mediators, and it should be broadly accepted. Do you feel that should be in the law?

Ms. Sandy Milne: Yes, I do.

Kay Marshall is a lawyer with the Family Law Sub-Committee, and perhaps she could address that more clearly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Could you please identify who you are for the record?

Ms. Kay Marshall (Family Law Sub-Committee, Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women): I'm Kay Marshall. I'm a family law lawyer. I'm a member of the committee, and I'm also a member of the National Association of Women and the Law. We've put in a brief with regard to those changes in the legislation that would apply to this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): You would support the recommendations.

Ms. Sandy Milne: Yes, and in our brief we did endorse NAWL's recommendation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Madame St. Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: First of all, I would like to thank you for your testimony.

If I understood you correctly, you work primarily with women who have been abused, although in some cases it is men who can be abused. Do you work exclusively with abused women or do you also work with men?

[English]

Ms. Sandy Milne: This presentation is to deal specifically with violence against mothers. So it is women who have been abused.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Okay. We have been told, during the course of the committee hearings, that sometimes false allegations are made. Since you work with women, I would like you to tell me whether or not the women who see you have made false allegations or, for the most part, if their accusations are justified.

[English]

Ms. Sandy Milne: We're not going to be dealing with false accusations today. With many of the women with whom we work, there have been convictions of assault and many of them have sustained permanent injury. So false allegations may happen, but predominantly when women come forth, we find the extent of the violence is actually greater than what was initially reported.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

I would like to thank all four of you for coming forward. I know it's a short time, but it goes on the record and we have your briefs.

• 1255

Ms. Sandy Milne: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Our next witness is Professor DeKeseredy from Carleton University. Please begin.

Professor Walter DeKeseredy (Professor of Sociology, Carleton University): Thank you.

Honourable committee members, it's a pleasure and an honour to be invited to speak before you. I realize you have a major task ahead of you, dealing with very sensitive issues, and the breadth of your work I fully appreciate.

I am a professor of sociology. I have devoted approximately 20 years of my life to studying violence against women in intimate relationships. I have focused extensively on violence against women in dating relationships, and also the pain and suffering caused by both lethal and non-lethal forms of post-separation woman abuse.

For the past couple of years—in response to two large national representative sample surveys that were commissioned by our government, and to other reports—we've often heard from many groups, “But women do it, too”; or there's the sexual symmetry of violence thesis that's presented; or the mutual combat thesis, strongly suggesting that both partners in an intimate relationship are equally violent.

Much of the empirical support for such arguments comes from anecdotal material presented in the media and other sources, and also from data elicited from the conflict tactics scale, which I'm sure you're familiar with, since Dr. Murray Straus presented here, as well as Reena Summers, so I won't go into much great detail about the conflict tactics scale. I also assume you have copies of some of the materials I've published and have read them.

The purpose of my presentation is twofold. First, I want to provide you with a comprehensive critique of conflict tactics scale data, which apparently show that women are just as, if not more, violent than men in intimate heterosexual relationships. Two, I want to provide you with national representative sample survey data that challenge the common and erroneous assertion made by several Canadian and U.S. scholars that violence in intimate heterosexual relationships is sexually symmetrical. Indeed, a central point to be made here today is that men and women are not equally violent in spousal and dating relationships.

I want to turn first to the conflict tactics scale, the conflict tactics scale-2, and their shortcomings. I have worked extensively with the conflict tactics scale in several capacities. This widely used measure asks you to report which, among a series of reported tactics that range from “discuss the issue calmly” to “use the knife or a gun”, were used by people during a disclosed conflict situation or a dispute. Again, these tactics range from discussing the issue calmly to using the knife or a gun.

Unfortunately, it is rare that a study combines the CTS with any question of meaning, motive or outcome, such as injury. Instead, all acts are counted equally. Thus, shoving someone down the stairs or shoving someone out of the way who is blocking your attempt to escape are counted as equally violent acts.

Further, conflict tactics scale-based studies that exclude context, meaning and motive measures in highly injurious acts typically show that women are just as violent as men. What you will typically see is sexual symmetry. When you ask women to report how many times they've done something, and ask men to report how many times they've engaged in violent acts, you will see equal rates, or slightly more women reporting violence than do men.

But do such data generated by crude counts of the conflict tactics scale data—data generated by Dr. Straus and others—really demonstrate that sexual symmetry or mutual combat exists? This is not by any means a trivial question.

• 1300

There has never been any question whatsoever that some women strike some men sometimes with the intent to injure. That there are battered husbands and battered male dating partners should not be the subject of disagreement either. Even so, highly problematic sexually symmetrical CTS data, such as those produced by Reena Summers and Dr. Straus, reviewed in the materials I requested be distributed to you, do not mitigate or change the meaning of the well-founded and apparently substantiated conclusion that women are overwhelmingly predominant victims of intimate violence in heterosexual relationships, for the following reasons.

For example, the conflict tactics scale alone cannot determine gender variations in intimate violence because, as several prominent psychologists have pointed out, males are likely to under-report their violence. This has been substantiated by very valid social desirability tests. The other thing that should be kept in mind is that the conflict tactics scale only measures conflict-instigated violence and thus ignores male assaults that come out of the blue and the fact that men are far more likely than women to use control-instigated violence, such as beatings in response to women's refusal to have sex.

If you look at the preamble of the CTS, it says that no matter how well a couple gets along, they occasionally have spats, disagreements, and so on. Couples are asked to please indicate how many times they've used these tactics to resolve these disputes. Therefore, many contexts are excluded.

While the new version of the CTS measures sexual violence, most of the research reported in the literature available today has used the old version of the CTS, which ignored sexual violence and other highly injurious acts.

In fact, the CTS and CTS2 ignore many types of pain and suffering endured by women in abusive relationships. Perhaps most importantly, the CTS ignores context, meanings, and motives of violence. For example, it does not measure self-defence.

In some, based on my analysis of the CTS anecdotal information provided by journalists such as Patricia Pearson and CTS data alone do not reflect the reality of female-to-male violence in intimate relationships. Of course women do it. However, rather than simply counting the number of times they do it or dwelling on sensational examples of female-to-male violence, such as the Lorena Bobbitt case, we should be asking why they do it.

This question was of paramount importance to me, Dr. Daniel Saunders, Martin Schwartz, and Shahid Alvi. We analysed Canadian national representative sample survey data to answer this important question, and I want to provide you with these results today.

Informed by several U.S. dating violence and spousal violence studies showing self-defence as a frequent motive for female-to-male violence, my colleagues and I hypothesize that much—not all, but much—of the violence used in Canadian post-secondary school dating relationships comes in situations in which women consider self-defence. We also hypothesized a very strong positive statistical correlation between fighting back—that is, responding to an attack—and self-defence, as found in Daniel Saunders' 1986 path-breaking U.S. study.

These hypotheses that I just reported to you were tested using data gathered from 1,835 women who participated in a Canadian national representative sample survey of abuse in dating conducted in 1992 by Katherine Kelly and me. This study was sponsored by Health Canada, and the results, including those presented here, appear in several scientific journals and scholarly books.

Like the male respondents in our study, women were asked to complete a slightly modified rendition of the CTS, which you're familiar with, and then in-between items—the first three items of the CTS are defined as minor violence, which I have a problem with because a slap can break teeth, a shove can push you down the stairs and cause a concussion and fracture your scull—and in between the minor violence and the six so-called severe violence items, we had questions on context, meaning, and motives.

Here are the questions we asked:

...what percentage of these times overall do you estimate that in doing these actions you were primarily motivated by acting in self-defense, that is protecting yourself from immediate physical harm?

...what percentage of these times overall do you estimate that in doing these actions you were trying to fight back in a situation where you were not the first to use these or similar tactics?

...what percentage of these times overall do you estimate that you used these actions on your dating partners before they actually attacked you or threatened to attack you?

• 1305

Following each of these questions, a continuum was presented in the form of a line marked with 0% at one end of the continuum and 100% at the other end. There were intervals at every 10 percentage points. The respondents were asked to mark anywhere on the line.

Several other variables were measured, such as psychological and sexual abuse, medical health and so on. However, time limitations today preclude a detailed description of how these variables—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Professor, speaking of time limitations, you're well over the five minutes.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Oh. I was told I had more, but that's okay.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We need time for questions.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Okay. I'll just summarize some of the points, and then that's it.

We found—and it's in some of the documents—that much of the violence reported by women was used in self-defence. Those who experienced the highest rates of victimization reported the highest rates of use of self-defence. Those who were separated were more likely to use self-defence as well.

At any rate, you have the material in front of you. The bottom line is that a different picture emerges when you ask about the context, meaning and motives. It is very dangerous to use just crude counts of behaviours.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You were in the room when you heard the previous testimony, which in essence recommended a separate legal track, separate dispute mechanism protocols and all the rest of it, as soon as so-called violence is in the equation. I'm really wondering if that is wise, based on what you're telling us.

Violence from anyone and used on anyone is unacceptable and deplorable, and part of our mandate is to have a more child-centred approach to minimize the manipulations and the games, which may include various forms of violence. I wonder if you could comment, based on your research, upon some of the testimony you heard by the previous presenters.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Here's my concern. I think we have to have legal protections, but I think all too often we rely on the law as the primary source of social support. As we know, despite the fact that we have mandatory arrest policies and other things, most police don't arrest. As well, I think women want to have the choice to decide if they'll leave or not, because it's not that simple.

I think one of the things we should be focusing on, if we're talking about violence—and most of it is directed at women, if you're talking about adult intimate relationships—is the ability to leave, the type of social support we provide by lawyers, and some type of economic independence. So I think we have to move beyond simply looking at criminal intervention or civil intervention. There have to be other types of social support that contribute to the decrease of violence.

We need a multidimensional approach rather than simply a legal approach. It's a very complex problem that requires many solutions.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We have a Divorce Act, a legal statute. We've heard testimony from every spectrum one can think of about cascading the act and about how this whole area of family law and dispute settlement mechanisms are terrible and bad, and children are not being served. We're struggling with trying to provide some theme and focus. At various times, depending on someone's point of view, they trot out various statistics and studies or whatever to say, “This is the truth”. We've had directly conflicting testimony at this committee.

We have to get directly to making some recommendations as to how we're going to perhaps amend the Divorce Act itself concerning the rules of dispute settlement and how we can be more sensitive to what children need and the dynamics around that.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: To address that point, first of all, separation is the most dangerous time for women. The rates of post-separation abuse of women are staggeringly high—staggeringly. In fact, here in the Ottawa-Carleton region we're having an epidemic of post-separation homicide and suicide following the killing of women and children.

• 1310

What needs to be done, perhaps attached to the Divorce Act, is a follow-up after any procedure that has been decided upon, any legal intervention, because during the process of separation, we are seeing an alarmingly high rate of violence and so on.

In addition to whatever decisions are made in the Divorce Act, we have to follow up with particularly the victims of domestic violence, especially if there is a history of it, because the rate of post-separation women abuse is three to four times higher than it is in marital relationships.

I am really shocked that policy-makers haven't addressed this. We talk about wife-beating, which of course is important. We talk about marital rape, which of course is important. But after leaving, regardless of whether it's divorce or separation, it is a very critical time, and as policy-makers, I think this has to be addressed and monitored very carefully. The follow-up after a legal decision is equally as important as what happens in the courtroom.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The thought that comes to mind is that when all other options are gone, we go to war. To make that analogy, if someone in their time of stress does not see any other option, no socially acceptable option, they go to the absolute extreme. I'm wondering whether the systemic problems of the system itself may be generating some of the violence we see.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: From my standpoint, in my opinion, the legal system is patriarchal to begin with. You see terms like “reasonable man” and so on used throughout the Criminal Code. I think the law tends to be very one-sided and doesn't provide adequate protection, especially for many female victims of violence.

Now, for many people, their choices are structured. It's not simply, “I want a divorce”, or “I want separation” and so on. Many people stay in abusive relationships because of economic dependence. They really don't have any choice. Then we turn around and ask, “Why does she stay?” When you have a couple of children and you're economically dependent and you see second-stage shelters being shut down throughout this province, no wonder people are forced to stay in a situation. It's structured choice.

So I think we have to be very careful about discussing what alternatives are available, because alternatives are more or less provided for us. We don't often have them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Senator Cools.

Senator Anne Cools: Thank you very much, Chairman.

I have a couple of questions, because I think you've raised some quite interesting issues.

I believe your study was financed by the Ministry of Health. Am I correct?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes.

Senator Anne Cools: How much did it cost?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: It cost them $250,000.

Senator Anne Cools: Okay.

In the preliminary statement you gave this morning, you said that most of these studies show symmetry, but we should be skeptical of those studies. However...

I'd like to ask a few questions, Chairman, with leave.

When you handed in your report some years ago to the Ministry of Health, did your report include any findings about violence by females?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Senator Cools, we submitted not one report but several reports. There was a series. The first one was commissioned and was a grant, not a contract. It was commissioned to look at the incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in dating. Several other reports came after, looking at different sources of abuse and so on.

Senator Anne Cools: I'm speaking to you about a peculiar one entitled “The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships: Results from a national survey”. I know your work quite well. This particular study is different, because this particular one is funded by the public treasury. So it's a slightly different issue here.

I'm asking you, when you first made your report, did you include any findings about female violence?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No.

Senator Anne Cools: You did not.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No.

Senator Anne Cools: Okay. Then perhaps I can ask you why.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Why? In response to that, when you have a data set as large as that, you can't provide all the findings in one 25-page report. That was not the final report we were asked to submit to Health Canada. We voluntarily submitted that. We promised them that as we went thorough the analysis of data, we would give them reports.

I don't know any researcher in the world, including Dr. Straus, who could provide everything he gathered from a national survey.

• 1315

Senator Anne Cools: He's answered my question. The answer is no.

Have you reported, and where have you reported, your findings on female violence?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: They have been reported in Sociological Spectrum, 17, number 2, 1997; “Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian national survey”; “Woman Abuse, a sociological story”, “Unsettling Truths; Battered women policy, politics and contemporary research in Canada”; the National Institute of Justice's electronic mail network, and several other sources.

Senator Anne Cools: Right. But would I be fair in saying these are all private academic journals?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No, and by the way, the data are in the public domain.

Senator Anne Cools: I will come to some of the data in a few minutes.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Okay. Sure.

Senator Anne Cools: You referred this morning to your findings of reciprocity and you've cautioned us about self-defence. Very well. I have an article in front of me called “Women's Use of Violence”, and it is dated 1997 from Sociological Spectrum. It relates some of the material that Dr. DeKeseredy has just told us about.

I'd like to read from page 204—and it's W.S. DeKeseredy et al, a collection of people:

Because not all women were expected to attribute their violence to self-defence, this study was also designed to explore the predictors of different types of women's dating violence, specifically to answer the question, what are the differences between women who use and those who do not use self-defensive violence?

Those are your words. Is that correct?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes.

Senator Anne Cools: Very well.

I'd like to go now to the three questions you outlined, and there are many who would say many things about these questions. I won't say anything about these questions.

The first question you outlined you just read into the record, so I do not need to repeat it. It's found at page 206. The question is: what percentage of times are you primarily motivated by acting in self-defence? Then you went down to the last one, which is initiatives.

The interesting thing about this same article is you anticipate that not all women will attribute their violence to self-defence, so you evolve questions that seem to get a response that seems to be looked for. However, over on another page when I look at one of your tables, I see a little sub-note that says 39% declined to give any of those three motives for minor violence, and 33% did not give any of those motives for severe violence.

Perhaps you could tell us, since you're speculating and hypothesizing and employing a fair amount of theory, why after your laborious efforts many women declined to use even those three categories.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Many people are reluctant to recall traumatic memories, fear reprisal, are embarrassed and so on. It's very hard, regardless of whether you're asking men, women, children or whomever, to get a 100% response rate. So this is not uncommon in any research on sensitive topics. It's not uncommon to see many people leave answers blank and so on. This is typical of any type of research, even if you ask people about their income and employment.

Senator Anne Cools: Okay. Finally, I noticed that in your article in table 1 at page 206, you found that 46% of females used violence. Could you compare your findings of the women's report in this paper to your findings of the report of men's abuse in your very first paper? Take us through step by step and show us where the differences were, if there were any differences.

• 1320

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes. In the men's reporting, we asked what events occurred in the year before the survey and what happened since leaving high school.

The article you have before you looks at the events since leaving high school. As mentioned, you provided the female figure. Since leaving high school, 17.8% of the men reported they used violence, which is not surprising. There's a big gender discrepancy and it's not surprising for several reasons.

Senator Anne Cools: The women's reports of what the men did to them—

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Are higher from crude counts.

Senator Anne Cools: If you could then refer to your own paper on the incidence and prevalence of woman abuse on table 9 and the exact same report by women in both instances, but one of violence against them and one of violence by them, and compare the two, that's what I'm speaking about.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Are you asking me why I didn't do it, or are you suggesting I should have?

Senator Anne Cools: No, I'm asking you to compare the two.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: I gave you the overall prevalence rate from the male and female ones. I told you 17.8% of the men reported using violence since high school. That's roughly 46% of the women—

Senator Anne Cools: I'm referring to table 1 of your article, where it says type of abuse to something. It's your work I'm referring to.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: I'm unclear about your question.

Senator Anne Cools: Let me just back up again. I'm talking about table 1 in your article, “The meanings and motives of women's use of violence in Canadian college dating relationships: Results from a national survey” and table 9 of your report, “The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships”. Table 1 is women's reports of their own violence against boyfriends or dating partners, and table 9 is women's reports. They are both women's reports of their boyfriends' dating violence toward them.

I was asking you if you could go through and relate the two results to the committee. I'd be quite happy to lend you my copies if you don't have your own copies available.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: The items you're asking me to report to the committee range from throwing something to using a knife or a gun. I assume you want me to read the figures.

Senator Anne Cools: I would like you to begin at table 1 and begin from the minor and come down to the severe, as we were talking about the severe and the minor in the same order, and just compare the two results of women's own reports.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: If we compare the two tables, we see that most of the violence committed against women and used by women are relatively minor. This is standard in the literature.

Senator Anne Cools: I'm just asking you to read the numbers.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: That's what I just asked you if you wanted me to do. Okay, here's the number for each item. Is that what you want?

Here's women's use of violence since leaving high school against dating partners: threw something—21%; pushed, grabbed or shoved—34.9%; slapped—23.6%; kicked, bit or hit with a fist—16.1%; hit or tried to hit with something—16.4%; beat up—1.3%; choked—1.1%; threatened with a knife or a gun—1.3%; and used a knife or a gun—0.1%.

• 1325

Senator Anne Cools: No, Dr. DeKeseredy, I was asking you to compare, so you have one, then the other. That way, the committee can hear a comparison. You've just read one column, and I'm trying to look at one column against the other.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Okay, so—

Senator Anne Cools: I would be quite happy to do it myself. I thought you would be happy to defend your own data.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No, I'm happy to defend my own data, I was just—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Can you? We have two more questioners.

Senator Anne Cools: Both are women's reports. So from one study, women reported that things were thrown at them 11.1% of the time; and 21% of the time, they threw them at somebody else. As for being pushed, grabbed, or shoved, women reported that 31.4% of the time it was done to them, while they did it to their partners 34.9% of the time. As for being slapped, women reported that 11.1% of the time they were slapped, while they slapped their spouses 23.6% of the time. In terms of being kicked, bit, or hit with fists, 8.1% of the time women reported that men did it to them, while 16.1% of the time they did it to their spouses.

I'll just continue. As for those who hit or tried to hit with something, that was 8.1% to 16.4%. Being beat up was 3.7% to 1.3%. Being choked was 4.8%—this is higher—to 1.1%. Being threatened with a knife or gun was 2.4% to 1.3%. Those times when a knife or a gun were used was 0.5% to 0.01%.

I would like you now, Dr. DeKeseredy, to compare the difference for us academically.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: The crude counts are different, but, Senator Cools, if you read the women's use of violence article, you know that when you introduce context, meaning, and motive a different picture emerges, maybe not in your mind but in the minds of others. The reasons for using violence are more important than just crude counts.

Senator Anne Cools: I quite agree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Are you going to go on more, because we do have another couple of questions?

Senator Milne.

Senator Lorna Milne (Brampton, Lib.): My comment is not so much a question as a concern. Professor DeKeseredy, you mentioned background material that you had given to the committee. All I have is this piece. Did you give us some of the statistical studies that you've been talking about?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes.

Senator Lorna Milne: The clerk tells me he did not receive them.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Okay. Well then there must be some miscommunication. Ms. Casavant contacted me to say that she had this book in the library and that she would photocopy chapter 6 for the committee, which includes the detailed report on the context, meaning, and motives of women's use of violence generated from our data. So I apologize if anything was in the dark.

Senator Lorna Milne: No, I just think that probably this whole context of what you were saying and these statistics that Senator Cools has quoted might be valuable for the entire committee to see. It should see the full context of these statistics.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Absolutely.

Senator Anne Cools: For us members of Parliament, perhaps Professor DeKeseredy would provide us with his entire work, including the data sets that were done for the Ministry of Health.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: You would like the data sets? No problem.

Senator Anne Cools: Whatever you have, give us the entire bundle.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Sure, that's not a problem. They've been available since 1992. They were in every university. Health Canada will give them to you.

Senator Anne Cools: We're members of Parliament here. That's a different kettle of fish.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We will get that.

Mr. Mayfield, you have the final question.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have a couple of questions, actually. One is related to age in your study. Is there any differentiation between the age groups of those who offend and those who are victimized? Is there any correlation between older to younger or younger to older?

• 1329

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: I talked about that recently. What we find consistently, whether we're looking at violence in intimate relationships or violence on the street, is that the group that's in the 18-to-24 category, with all types of violent crime, is at the highest risk. There is a maturational reform that occurs with all types of violent crime. As people reach their mid-thirties, the levels of violence decrease dramatically.

• 1330

What's interesting, too, is that when we're looking at intimate violence there's another factor that needs to be taken into account. The after-35 levels of violence—35 years of age—peter off because you tend to see an increase in separation as well. Marriages dissolve. As you go up the age range, say from 18 to 55, you'll find lower rates among the late thirties and above and you'll find higher rates below. It's consistent across the western world.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: These are all those who do violent acts, I presume. Would a younger person be less prone to commit a violent act against an older partner or an older person in that relationship?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No, they're more prone—the younger, the more prone. There is a very strong positive relationship with age. You'll find this in the United States as well. Regardless of the type of theoretical orientation you have, age is one of the most robust determinants of crime in general.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: A younger man would be more likely to do this even though, say, the woman was quite a bit older.

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: And a younger woman would be more likely to commit a violent act against even an older man. Is that correct?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I see. I was equally disturbed as I listened to you talk about the high rate of death and suicide following separation. Are you able to speculate on the reasons for that at all?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes, very much so. There's rich clinical research being done now in the penitentiaries in Ontario by several psychologists and there's also sociological work done by Dr. Desmond Ellis at Lamarsh Research Centre. The consistency between psychological and sociological interpretations is very interesting since they are often at loggerheads with each other.

What we often see—and police detectives will tell you this, too—is the attitude “If I can't have you, no one else can.” There are extreme levels of possession, jealousy and so on, as well as challenges to the masculine character. Leaving is interpreted by many men as a sense of failure, breakdown, and struggles for independence. You will see in homicide literature—and we have some of the most accurate homicide data in the world—that almost all the post-separation homicide—which involves suicide as well—is men tracking down women, killing them, their children and then themselves, such as the Sylvie Boucher case that occurred recently in the Hull area.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: There is one other thing I would like to ask. This is highly speculative on my part too, but I listen to men talk about the process in the courts and the division of the physical assets of the relationship and the difficulty in dealing with the spouse over parenting of children, the loss of visiting rights and this kind of thing. I almost hesitate to raise the question because it's so repugnant, but is there some speculation or some possibility that a person in whatever deranged way of thinking would think it's easier to do the other person in than to go through the stuff of sorting it out?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: No, not based on my interviews with extremely violent men and also my discussions with experts in the field and so on. They don't view it that way. What they are shell-shocked about is that the relationship has been destroyed.

The question of a divorce... Of course you're concerned about financial things, but the emotional break and the lack... Many of these men, by the way, who have committed this post-separation homicide are extremely emotionally dependent on these partners, extremely emotionally dependent, and what happens is that the loss, the leaving, generates this type of problem.

On the other hand, there is another group of men who have murdered their wives and children out of a sense of failure. They have lost a job. Many feel they are no longer men any more. They can't look after the family and they kill their partners, which is another form of control and so on.

The divorce issue doesn't come into play in the cognitive process. It's “She's gone.”

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Cools.

Senator Anne Cools: Can you cite some of these studies of these man-woman homicides in separations, because I searched hard for some of those studies and they're not easily available. As a matter of fact, the only comprehensive study I remember of homicidal spouses was Chimbos's. Perhaps you could give us a list of others.

• 1335

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Absolutely. There's a report available to everyone in the committee.

Senator Anne Cools: It's very important, but I think you must remember that we're talking about—and people don't like to hear these words—pathologies, terrible pathologies.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Do you have references, then?

Prof. Walter DeKeseredy: Yes, I do. There is a report that Health Canada commissioned that covers all the domestic violence studies done in Canada, and there is an excerpt from the Juristat done by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, two of the world's leading experts on post-separation homicide. Their data are provided there.

Robert Silverman and Leslie Kennedy—Kennedy is at Alberta, Dr. Silverman's at Queen's—have a very important book called Deadly Deeds. There are several sources I'd be happy to supply when I get back. I will mail the committee a list of these things and any other information they want.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Thank you, Professor DeKeseredy.

The committee will now break and resume at 3.30 p.m. today.

• 1337

• 1537

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.)): We have a panel that is to go for one hour. With us this afternoon we have a group called Advocacy for Kids in Care—PAIN (The People Against Injustice). Representing that group is Ms. Anne Marsden, who apparently is in the building but has not appeared yet. She may join us. We have from Ex-Fathers, Mr. Lloyd Gorling and Barry Aubin; and from Everyman magazine, David Shackleton, who is the editor and publisher.

We were also to have a representative, Mr. Nicholas Kovats, from Freedom for Kids. We understand they were on the Hill but they haven't arrived here yet. So what we will do is begin the meeting, and if they do arrive then they can join in.

Gentlemen, I hope you know the procedure. We ask that you speak for no more than five minutes. We do like to have question time. There are lots of questions to be asked.

Mr. Gorling, we'll begin with you, please.

Mr. Lloyd Gorling (Founder, Ex-Fathers): Thank you very much. I'm here with Barry Aubin, representing Ex-Fathers.

We are pleased to be able to respond to the committee's request to participate in the hearings. Ex-Fathers is a group of men and women who are concerned about the injustice of separated fathers and children. We operate principally in and around Cornwall and southeastern Ontario, although we assist people all over the country.

For your information, an ex-father is a man who's been refused the opportunity to raise his child. Ex-Fathers is a member of Equal Parents of Canada and generally supports its brief and recommendations.

I would like the committee to note that we are not professionals in any aspect of the social sciences, including the law. I make no claims in that regard.

We request the parliamentary committee to act on three recommendations, which I will outline.

The first recommendation states that fathers should not lose their children after separation. Children need the unfettered care, presence, and love of their fathers, and fathers want to have, care for and nurture their children after marriage breakdown as well as before.

Recommendation one: ensure that no father is deprived against his will of the opportunity to fully and completely parent his children, regardless of the father's marital status, unless the father has put the child's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted.

Recommendation one says that if you're a father before divorce, you're a father after divorce. This simple statement is not the reality for fathers today who are fathers before separation and ex-fathers after. Let the children out of their matriarchal prison. Give them their fathers again. Children need fathers, not visitors.

The second recommendation says that a separated father who wants to look after his child himself should not be expected to support the child's mother. Marital separation is the end of the conjugal and financial relationship between a father and mother. Here's the recommendation: ensure that no father who is willing to care for his child is required to pay for the cost of the child care provided by the child's mother while the child is in her care and not under his, unless the father has put the child's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted.

• 1540

No one would pay for a babysitter he didn't want. If we want fathers to support their children, we must give them their children. Real child support is a real father. The changes that result from this recommendation would mean that some mothers would have to start to accept certain responsibilities they have been able to ignore and shirk in the past. This is as it should be.

The third recommendation asks Parliament to recognize the androphobia of the family law system. Fathers experience misandry in the family courts of Canada and other institutions, which is depriving them of their children and subjugating them financially. Statutory recognition of these facts will reduce the burden of legal costs on families and the government, eliminate fatherlessness, cut down on self-destructive behaviour by separated fathers, reduce violence, and produce healthier and happier children with a greater sense of belonging and commitment to society.

Here's recommendation three: provide an apology to the fathers and children separated by the misandry of the family law system. It is high time to recognize the injustice and set the record straight. There is no way we can sit back and sweep the biggest human rights abuse in modern Canadian history under the rug.

The recommendations above are in a petition sponsored by Ex-Fathers, which is directed to the Ontario provincial government. The petition has been very well received by the public. We received over 500 signatures in our area. Both men and women readily sign it.

I believe these three recommendations support the reasons why men want to have and to raise children as opposed to the current practice of family law, which supports the reasons why men do not want to have or to raise children.

I would like to add one supplemental recommendation. It is my contention that time is of the essence. Events precipitating from the long oppression of fathers are reaching the point where many ex-fathers are going beyond struggling for justice in our courts. This has a high social cost. It's been pointed out to the committee, I'm sure. These costs are observed by the incidence of civil disobedience such as failure to obey court orders by ex-fathers, bankruptcies, by dropping out, particularly into welfare, and by violence.

So recommendation four is: I therefore beseech the committee to prepare and submit an interim report in the shortest possible time indicating your intention to propose that an apology be made to the fathers and children separated by the misandry of family law, as given in our recommendation three. I believe the release of such an interim report would prevent many of the unfortunate incidents I mentioned, while the committee and then Parliament proceed in their ponderous manner to correct the abuses of the worst human rights violation in modern Canadian history.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much.

Mr. Aubin, you're here with Mr. Gorley. Are you going to speak also? Okay, fine.

Mr. Shackleton, please.

Mr. David Shackleton (Editor and Publisher, Everyman magazine): First of all, I am grateful and honoured to be participating in our democratic process. Thank you.

The word “deadbeat” became common in the 18th century when failing to pay one's debts was seen as shameful, as unwillingness rather than inability. Righteous indignation at such scoundrels resulted in the clamour for punishment and debtors' prisons became the norm. However, we eventually realized that debtors were often victims of circumstance rather than immoral scoundrels, and that throwing them into prison both demotivated them and physically prevented them from paying their debts. By the turn of the century, debtors' prisons were gone.

Modern divorce law and practice bears a strong resemblance to 19th century debt law. Our wish for scapegoats has made us blind to the complex human issues of family break-up. Even the label “deadbeat” has been revived and recycled as “deadbeat dads” to justify our call for greater punishments.

Children need and deserve two committed parents. This is the norm in intact families, so why does it suddenly change with divorce? What is parenting about? For most of us, having children is a trade-off. We want the pleasure of helping a new life grow and take shape. We want to see the first steps, hear the first words, share the excitement of correctly tied shoelaces, wiping away tears and sharing laughter. We feel the sacred trust of a young life in our hands. We want to feel needed, to love and to be loved in return. That's what we do it for.

• 1545

In exchange for these satisfactions, we are willing to accept the duties. We're willing to earn the money for food and clothing and rent and piano lessons, to do the laundry, cook the meals, wash the dishes, and drive to Cub Scouts and Girl Guides.

What happens when a divorce comes along? If a divorce goes to court, then unless the mother is grossly unfit, she will be awarded the primary parenting role, and the father will be assessed for child support with visitation rights. What this means is that the mother usually keeps both the parenting pleasures and the duties. But for the father, the situation usually changes hugely.

Where there used to be a balance of power and influence between the parents, now the mother holds the upper hand. He, unlike she, is no longer trusted by society to provide for his child, but now is told how much and when he must pay. His ability to steer and influence his child's upbringing is vastly reduced and easily overruled by the mother. Even seeing his children is dependent upon her goodwill, because access orders, unlike support orders, are not enforced.

So in short, he has become a second-class parent who often feels manipulated and valued only for his money, and, let us admit, he has good reason to feel this way. The fact is that few people, men or women, can accept such vast reductions in the pleasures of the parenting they undertook and still carry out the duty side of the equation. But we as a society have become obsessed with forcing fathers to fulfil their duties, and we are ignoring, just like in 19th century debt law, how we are systematically demotivating and disempowering them.

Effective law and policy work with rather than against human nature. The emerging vision of shared parenting is that the pleasures as well as the duties of parenting will be shared by both parents. If divorce law and practice make this focus central, then we will see a great increase in the quality and commitment of post-divorce parenting.

Here are my recommendations.

One, encourage private settlement of post-divorce parenting arrangements wherever possible.

Two, require mandatory mediation before litigation. For the mediation to be taken seriously, litigation must cease to be a process that favours one gender or that can be manipulated by means of false allegations of abuse. There should be negative consequences in the subsequent court process for those who do not participate in good faith in the mediation process.

Three, alter the Criminal Code so that knowingly making a false allegation of a criminal offence is itself a criminal offence with penalties equal to the alleged offence.

Four, alter the Divorce Act to refocus the courts on achieving shared parenting wherever possible, where this means the parents share both the duties and the pleasures of parenthood.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much.

Finally, Mr. Kovats, you weren't here at the beginning, so I would ask that you attempt to limit your comments to about five minutes.

Mr. Nicholas Kovats (Freedom for Kids): Yes, thank you.

Hello, members of the joint committee. Thank you for allowing us to attend.

Freedom for Kids was conceived originally by Mr. Henry Richter and me, Nicholas Kovats, as a means to bring international attention to human rights violations in Canada, specifically the violation of the rights of Canadian children in the context of divorce.

• 1550

Freedom for Kids established a gateway to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva, reference number G/SO215/51, for the ongoing examination of Canadian case files—now numbering over 40—that involve systemic and bureaucratic obstruction within Canadian family law.

We currently have 250 members internationally, linked electronically through the global Wide Area Network. We assist children and their parents with their case submissions to the UN and provide immediate access to an international, national, and provincial network of professionals and other experts who are available for their information case needs.

As defined by the UN option protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR, we have “exhausted all national options” available to them in their ongoing and desperate attempts to assist their children. Canada has been party to the option protocol since August 1976.

In fact article 24, paragraph 1, provides that every child has “the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor”. Moreover, article 23, paragraph 4, provides that states parties to the covenant “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities” also at the dissolution of marriage, and that “provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children”.

The ongoing case submissions exemplify such details as: the international and local parental or system abductions of children across multiple jurisdictions; the refusal and obstruction by various provincial child protection agencies to assist Canadian children's immediate and ongoing safety needs, as documented by specific medical evidence brought forth by concerned parents; the ongoing discrimination due to marital status as experienced by divorced parents who attempt to access their children's school, health, and other government records; the wrongful conviction of Canadian parents due to perjured and falsified testimony as prepared by officers of the court; and the financial incentive to operate Canadian shelters for women as child abduction cells to inflate usage and service statistics to facilitate government financial requirements.

Here are our recommendations. While recognizing the international framework and long-term perspective of our operations, we wish to suggest recommendations that are within the national jurisdiction of the joint committee's mandate.

One, the automatic presumption of equal joint physical custody of biological children upon the dissolution of marriage should be entrenched in the federal Divorce Act. Children need this immediate assurance of their fundamental, inalienable relationships with both parents.

Two, allegations of abuse against a child's parent originating in family law civil proceedings should be specifically handled in a criminal court of law, utilizing its stringent rules of evidence.

Three, Canadian counsel should be held criminally accountable for regurgitating perjury that results in wrongful convictions of innocent parents.

Four, parents who obstruct court-ordered co-parent relationships with children should be held accountable in a criminal court of law.

Five, any municipal, provincial, or federal body contravening a valid court order and found to be an accessory to kidnapping of Canadian children should be fined, its government funding component stopped, and its director of operations charged criminally.

Six, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be clarified to eliminate discrimination against parents due to marital status.

Seven, the Canadian family law judiciary should be accountable to civil bodies composed of parents and suitable professionals experienced with children—for example, pediatricians—whose livelihood is not dependent on family law proceedings.

Eight, documented Canadian family law judicial activism in the lower civil courts in the form of non-recording of court transcripts, verbally abusive parents, and widely varying interpretations of court procedure should be held accountable to the previously mentioned civil bodies.

• 1555

Nine, this committee's final recommendations and subsequent implementation by the federal Department of Justice should be overseen by a special delegation of United Nations observers and other international organizations.

I have two conclusions. Communication between the federal Department of Justice and various Canadian divorce NGOs over the past 11 years has documented that department's exclusive focus on the financial components of post-divorce relationships irrespective of the full and unique developmental needs of Canadian children of divorce.

The means by which the Canadian judiciary and its associated principal players supersede the fundamental parental involvement necessary to maximize children's full potential as future and productive adults runs contrary to our basic human principles of the nurturing of our most vulnerable citizens.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much.

I thank all of you. You all were on time. It was in the five minutes, which is very unusual in this committee. I'll make that observation.

We'll start with questions. We'll start with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

A few moments ago, we heard a recommendation of an interim report. I take from this that what it's really saying is that you're implying a real sense of urgency. Then, of course, in talking about false allegations and the other issues, you certainly give us a feeling that the system itself is becoming almost characterized as an abuser who's creating unnecessarily new victims.

Here at the committee, certainly we're looking at a review of the operation, especially as it relates to the Divorce Act, to help the children involved and help the parents who are responsible for children to disengage, if they are choosing to divorce, and divorce with the least pain possible and be able to fulfil their parental duties.

In light of some of the specific recommendations that seem to be system oriented, do you have some specific recommendations to the Divorce Act itself that you would recommend and that we could actually put in the law?

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: The recommendations that I gave were stated in very general terms, and I recognize that. In fact, that was done because we believe it's wrong to do anything but a major rework on the Divorce Act, and indeed, for family law in Canada.

We particularly warn you against the use, for example, of the expression “the best interests of the child”, an expression that has been used by the divorce industry to oppress fathers and children to the extent that the term is now despised and used to mock and ridicule the legal profession.

So the main purpose, I think, of this interim report is to give some direction so that fathers and children are being heard by the committee, so that things can now start to settle down, so people can concentrate, in fact, on what the right way is to go about this. I think it's very important that you consider, for example, the idea of a statement of reconciliation, so that fathers and children will indeed be able to recognize that this has a finite end, that it's going to end at some point, that things will return to a just system, as they should, and they don't have to feel so desperate about what they're doing.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I agree with you that the term “best interests” has been certainly left in a fuzzy, undefined manner. After some of the testimony we've heard, it would be helpful to perhaps even list some qualifiers in the act that would indicate not necessarily an endless list of what would mean and constitute “best interests”, but something to try to define that in law a bit to give some direction. What do you think about that idea?

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: In fact, there is a relatively long list in different places. For example, in terms of being able to provide for the needs of the child, we find that this is not applied for fathers, it's only applied... Something else will always be more important than that.

In the list of elements, being the primary caregiver doesn't seem to apply for fathers. This system is such that it's difficult at this point to tweak it to make it better. That is my belief and our belief. I think it would be better for us to really rethink what we're doing with families in terms of the Divorce Act and to consider, first of all, an initial statement that it's recognized that the system is very much out of whack and that the change will come about, so that then we can work on it in a more positive way, rather than trying to just change a few things here and there.

• 1600

Mr. Paul Forseth: Your sub-statement really is that you're looking for equity and fairness and reasonableness and all that, yet you're saying it's not so much the law but those who apply the law. Then you paint it as way out of whack.

Then what's the problem? How did this system get so out of whack? What's wrong with it, if you're saying it doesn't necessarily need a major rework as far as the statutes are concerned?

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: It's not so much that the statutes are wrong. They could in fact be used the way they are if in fact the misandry in the system were not there.

But because of the problem that has developed and the way things are interpreted and the procedures and proceedings as they are currently followed, both in the courts and in the lawyers' offices and elsewhere, it's very important to make the major change that's necessary to give the direction to everyone as to what the right answers are.

I think the right answers are clearly that if you're a father before divorce, you should be a father after. You should not be an ex-father. You certainly should not become a pay cheque or a wallet, as the case now.

So I don't think the problem was so much the statutes; it's what happened to those and how they're being used. In order to correct that, it is my opinion that we must change the statutes very significantly.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll ask this one further qualifier. Then you must obviously have some assumptions or inferences about why it is the way it is, or why it is the way you say it is.

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: I'll say that I didn't come here particularly to talk about the history so much as the facts of the matter. I'm sure there are those people who would like to know the model for how we got where we are and who 's doing it and what the reasons are. The simple fact is that whether it was right or wrong...and I think it was wrong, and I think there are lots of statistics that show it's wrong. And it's unfortunate we have to use statistics, because really the first time it went wrong it should have been corrected, not when it becomes a major social problem.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. I was trying to peel back the layers of the onion to get at the core of the problem.

There has been some comment about the committee's mandate, that if we're really going to help kids across this country, maybe we're really looking in the wrong directions, and tinkering with the Divorce Act is not going to make any difference at all. That's some of the alternative testimony we've had. So I was trying to see if you had any further cogent things to say about where the real problem is.

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: Perhaps I don't have any cogent things to say about that, and perhaps I'm more optimistic about changing the Divorce Act than what you've heard.

I think it really requires a very clear statement about the relationship of fathers and children, about the importance of fathers in the child's life, and the importance also of the child in the father's life. If we start that way, with a clear statement that we recognize that things have gone wrong in the past and that we're willing to make the changes that are necessary to fix it, I think the change will come about.

I think it can come about quite quickly, because I think a lot of people need that direction in the work they do in dealing with family law and with families in general. I'm quite optimistic about that, in fact.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

Senator Lucie Pépin.

Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinigan, Lib.): If you don't mind, I'll speak in French because it's easier for me, so you'll need a translation.

[Translation]

One of you said that children needed both parents to raise them and that shared parenting was the best solution. I admire the fact that fathers want to play a greater role in caring for their children and in assuming their responsibilities, however, when children live with either their father or their mother according to a shared time formula, do you not think that the success of shared parenting, as we call it, lies on the shoulders of the children rather than on those of the parents?

• 1605

If you were able to come to an agreement, as you suggested, on a specific child custody plan before divorcing, would it not better for the child if he were placed with the better parent rather than sending him to live with his father for a certain period of time and then with his mother for a period of time? I really don't know and I'm wondering what is in the best interest of the child. Do you agree on a specific plan and is it the better of the two parents, or the one who is most available, who is given custody?

[English]

Mr. David Shackleton: It's clear to me that with law and policy, we cannot turn parents who care more about their own interests than their children's into better parents. We can't do that. We can't turn parents who are angry and bitter at each other because of a divorce into parents who aren't angry and bitter at each other because of a divorce.

What is the right parenting arrangement? I believe the essence of shared parenting is that the court or the mediator or whatever—or the parents working together, if they can—will find a way that will work for both of the parents and for the children. That means being willing to look at the unique situation. That's essentially why we have courts focus on a particular case; it's to be able to take the specifics of that case into account.

So I don't support a formal 50% split, where you go here for half a week, or one week at a time. I think a formal solution like that will suffer from the disadvantages that you've pointed to. What I am suggesting is that right now we seem to have some formal solutions in place, based on assumptions that, one, the mother is usually going to be the best parent. I think that assumption is false. We need to take that out. Although it isn't formally in our Divorce Act, it certainly is there in practice.

That notion in employment, that a man would make a better employee than a woman for the same job, is illegal in our society. It's illegal. But no such situation applies in family court. So we need to take that assumption out.

Secondly, we need to be able to look at the qualities of the parents without filters on, and recognize the qualities that men bring, that fathers bring, that are different in kind, very often, from the qualities that mothers bring, and stop valuing only the mother's approaches to parenting, and value the father's also.

So, yes, I want to see that informal shared parenting, which addresses the needs of the children and of the parents and provides a workable situation for both.

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: If I may address that—

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: I just wanted to quickly comment on one of the preliminary remarks in your question, that fathers basically want to take over more and more responsibility for the children, as if in the past fathers did not have responsibility for their children.

I would just like to say that it's my opinion that fathers have always taken a lot of responsibility for their families. The traditional family was in fact a very great load on fathers, an enormous load on fathers, and it made it very difficult, in the responsibilities they took on, especially in terms of the financial needs of the family, to do other things. Nevertheless, strong relationships between fathers and children were the norm in the past, and they're now, of course, not the norm because of the situation with family law.

I think it's important to realize that shared parenting is simply saying that now that you're no longer together, you're no longer a parent. Shared parenting says that if you're a father before you're separated, you're still a father after, and you will act as a parent afterwards, just as you would have acted as a parent before.

In terms of shared parenting, I think the whole concept of the better parent is something we really want to think very seriously about. First of all, not only is it almost impossible and extremely expensive to try to even come up with a decision about who's the better parent, but I'm sure it's almost always wrong. The whole purpose of shared parenting is to get away from doing that whole thing.

If you were a father before you separated, then you are a father after, and you shouldn't have to go through a test to prove that you're a father. You shouldn't have to go through a psychological or a parenting test or any other test. You've paid the price. You are a father, and you should be able to carry on as a father.

• 1610

That's what I would like to recommend as being the main method by which we solve the issue of how you deal with mothers and fathers after separation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask you, Mr. Kovats, if I heard you correctly. Did I hear you say that women's shelters were centres for child abductions?

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: Yes. That's been clear in some of the cases we have submitted to Geneva. Some of the shelters are being used as gateways where we have police as accessories to the actual removal of the child from the premises. First, the father is removed, and if the father enters the family shelter per se...

Specifically, at the Red Door shelter in Toronto there was a particular case of a family who had entered into the country as refugees from an Africa country. They were apparently counselled. Their length of stay was approximately 11 days. This particular individual found himself separated from his wife and child and was advised by shelter staff that he could not further communicate with the mother and the child.

Quickly the system was set in place such that officers from division 52 became involved and an investigation ensued, much to his confusion. He was subsequently removed from the premises with, I believe, one suitcase, and sat in the park for three days. He had no information as to the further whereabouts of his child.

Even though he was successful in procuring a very rare emergency interim custody order to stop the mobility of the child, he was not successful, and the child was removed from the jurisdiction with specific members of a police division. Apparently the social services ministry paid for a plane ticket for the mother and child to flee to the province of Nova Scotia, where she was subsequently awarded a contradicting interim custody order, and suddenly there was an interjurisdictional mess, with two court orders issued.

To no avail, this individual entered into the Nova Scotia jurisdiction himself to try to rectify matters, but the child was subsequently re-kidnapped to an African country once again.

Actually, from the evidence we have seen from American sources, the actual portal for a major abduction gateway is in Atlanta, Georgia. It's actually quite open. I have three public magazine articles with me here. Case files from the U.S. are hard to obtain, since the FBI has a jurisdiction, but the children's underground operates quite openly.

Apparently because of our high level of compliance, sympathy or what have you with the shelter systems in Canada, a lot of the American children who enter the system through Atlanta, Georgia, end up here. New identities are issued, new passports, etc., and it's quite a mess.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It sounds as though this is fairly well organized and includes not only contact between shelters but also intergovernmental involvement. Is this correct?

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: Yes. There are some provincial bodies—I call them lower-echelon bureaucrats—involved in the obstruction or facilitation of the abduction. You could say well organized but not well organized.

I do have an individual shelter's specifically tailored agreement with the local police force in northern Ontario. It sets up the framework that they're not accountable to any public body, really. Once the child is within that system, an attempt to extract them through normal legal means is almost impossible.

I just had a call from the New Jersey area. A sister called on her brother's behalf. The American citizen lost his Canadian child to a Montreal shelter, specifically. I suggested that perhaps they entered the system through Atlanta. That hasn't been ascertained, but he did locate them in the Montreal shelter, to no avail. He could not extract his child.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: But child abduction, even in these circumstances, would be illegal, would it not?

• 1615

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: Yes, it would. In the U.S. it's a federal offence. It is also a federal offence in Canada, I believe.

To answer the senator's question, the child in question was three years old, I believe, in 1995.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Madam Chairman, would my colleague find out what avenues were taken here in Canada in the Canadian system and find out why he had to go to the United Nations on this issue?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I would be interested in what the attitude of the Canadian legal authorities, the police and the courts, is towards this.

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: That's a good question. We do have some documentation, and in this particular case that I referred to previously, the first case, there is actually some component of Foreign Affairs involvement also.

It's rather convoluted, but dual passports were issued in Washington while negotiations were ongoing for the child's release. In the interim, Foreign Affairs negotiated an extensive deal with that country in regard to used war planes. I didn't expect to address this particular detail of abduction, but it's one of our concerns. Maybe it's basic government business to favour economic relationships with favoured countries over the welfare of a child. That's clearly exemplified in a lot of international child abduction cases originating in Canada. I've actually recently initiated something called the Freedom for Kids Abduction Group, specific to Canadian children and their parents who've lost their country outside...

It's not easy going. A lot of these parents are depressed. Typically the case can extend itself two or three years; there's no immediate recourse. Embassy staff can do some checks. Some parents, if they can exercise access, spend thousands to do so. And particularly if the child is taken to a Muslim country, it's extremely difficult to visit unhindered, etc.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So with respect to this abduction, crossing of international boundaries is a deliberate attempt to remove the child—

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: To terminate the child's relationship with another parent. It's one of the more effective methods of something called “parental alienation” of children, which I'm sure the committee has heard before in testimony, and it is very sad for the children.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll just add that our Canadian authorities, in a well-meaning way, get co-opted. For example, maybe a mother is fleeing to another country and she presents good evidence that her life is being threatened and claims that the father is a sexual abuser and so on. Therefore, through these stories, she gets to co-opt the Canadian system to do the good thing, but in essence it's a false story and the person who is claiming the resources of the government gets her way by storytelling and by manipulating the system and knowing what buttons to push to get Canadian authorities all excited about certain things.

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: It sounds like a means test, but there is no procedure for this. From what I know of the abduction gateway in Atlanta, Georgia, called the children's underground, admission is simply by a verbal description of your situation and in you go. Faye Yager is very open about it. She's all over the media.

Specifically, if you want to contact Barbara Snider of the Missing Children Society in Oakville, who is a special investigator in these matters, she has crossed paths with Faye Yager and her operations.

I would just like to put on the record the fact that the subcommittee for human rights within the House of Commons recently issued a report on international child abduction. I believe MP Beaumier, from the Mississauga area, is one of the people responsible for that report.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Kovats, is it your knowledge that people with children who are wanting to escape or sever relationships with the other parent are being counselled, advised and given information on how to do this in the manner you've described by the personnel within the women's shelters?

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: They're very open about it—to some degree. Yes, there is counselling within the shelter system. Investigation of a shelter's protocol is extremely difficult considering the times we live in. I actually entered the shelter premises myself to exercise a court order when I was looking for this specific child in the first case I mentioned. It took us about three hours to convince local division 55, I think, in the Beaches area, to take us seriously.

• 1620

We finally had an off-duty sergeant convince his field officers three hours later to attend to the matter. Once we entered the premises, one staff member was on duty. Predominantly, I only saw mothers with children. It was not a cohesive scene. We had to stand by—I did myself—and this particular father, with a police escort, searched the premises, but the child was not there.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I think I've heard you say that it is the policy of—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mr. Mayfield, I wonder if you could make this the last question.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: This will be my last question, sir. Thank you very much.

I just want to clarify this. It's my understanding of what you have told us is that it is a policy within women's shelters to individually, and in networking with other shelters, provide information that would assist people with children to do illegal acts to escape the custody of the child's other parent. Is that correct?

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: That's correct. One of the highest-profile cases that I can think of right now in the media is a major Time magazine article on a father—his name escapes me—from Philadelphia who lost his child to the Faye Yager system. That's as big as it gets—and very open.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mr. Kovats, you've referred to a number of cases. Do you have names or some sort of documentation on this that you can supply to us?

Mr. Nicholas Kovats: I do have specific case files and case numbers that I did not bring to Ottawa—another colleague has them at this time—but I'm willing to submit them as a brief to the committee, with specifics. That wouldn't be a problem.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you. Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I hadn't intended to pursue this course of conversation or exchange with the witness, but I feel that it's absolutely vital to understand that exceptional cases take place and that this is not cause for a black-brushing of women's shelters.

I find that it's very important to indicate the very important role that women's shelters play in the life of this society in those cases where there is a need to remove the wife and the children from a violent father or from a person who is attacking them or stalking them. In no way do I feel that this testimony and this witness change my view. Nor, I think, does it change the general societal view of the very important role played by these services.

Secondly, from international work I have done, I'm well aware of the fact that we have quite a number of cases of the child being abducted because one of the parents of the marriage is not under the responsibilities of or does not follow the laws of shariah, the laws which allow the parent—as a matter of fact, the father—to have the right to custody of the child, if it's a boy at age 9, and if it's a girl at age 12...or 7, 9 and 12. I've forgotten the exact three dates. So it is different from Canadian law.

If you live in Canada, irrespective of where you came from, and you're a citizen of Canada, the laws of Canada prevail. Therefore, abduction of children based on the laws of another culture is not, in my view, the way we run this country.

I would just like that to be on the record. There is no reason to put on some questionable approach to the way women's shelters are run across this country. I know two of them extremely well, and they're very fine. They're in Montreal and they're well run.

So to move back to what I really wanted to discuss, Madam Chairman, we've just come from a weekend where we heard international witnesses with respect to the question of what they call “residential and non-residential parenting” and the question of the role each parent has in their mutual responsibilities.

There, the major focus seemed to be on children whose fathers have not been identified. There are about 1.2 million to 1.5 million such children, where the father in particular, in these instances, has not been identified. That is their main focus.

• 1625

But in the course of the presentation, what made me very interested... I have a great interest in fathers and grandmothers and grandparents having access. I believe it's vitally important for children—and that's my focus—to have the opportunity to grow and develop with the parenting of both sides of the coin.

And I think it's very important that the cultural patterns, the family patterns and the family life continue as best as possible, given the circumstances of how the divorce took place, the level of trust that can be developed in the interests of the child by both parents, and the lack of using the child as the toy, as the decoy, as the penalty-taker, because two adults can't get along. I think it's very important to consider the proper upbringing of the child the sole goal.

So from a social behaviour modification perspective... And I think it pays us to think about history a little bit, co-chairs. Historically, if you look back, it was, until after the Second World War, for the most part, the father's role to earn the money and the mother's role to stay at home and look after the child, both of which were work. Working in the home is work, even if it's not monetarily recompensed, even if it's not working in the job force.

There has been a significant historical change in the behaviour pattern of this society, and you therefore see historical change in the pattern of involvement in the life of the child. And fathers—in my era, fathers never changed a diaper—are certainly very much involved, not only in diapering the children but also in caring and emotionally supporting those children other than on the weekends.

So I think it's vital for us to recall that the forgotten contribution to child development today is the father, and it's vital to recall that kids need much more than just dollar support. Children need emotional and developmental support and psychological growth and development from both sides of the spectrum.

It's my view—and I'd like to know what you think about this—that this situation basically is outside of the realm of legalistic matters. It is, in many ways, a personal situation. I would like to feel that public policy could do something about it and that public policy could reflect the change that has gone on over the last two to three decades. I would like to feel that this public policy can send signals to the cultural behaviour and the societal development.

The question is, after hearing the witnesses in Washington... The research shows that with respect to many of the most devoted of fathers, because of circumstances, after two to three years their interest in being the support father, the accessible father or the visiting father diminishes—and it diminishes in great percentages.

So do you believe we can legislate societal change? That's my question.

Mr. David Shackleton: I'd like to speak to that. I agree with you: the pattern is that the father's interest declines after some years. In my presentation, I tried to address what I think is really going on there. The fact is that we enter parenthood with certain expectations, and if those expectations are drastically changed, if our experience is drastically different from what it was that we anticipated and signed up for, then there are unavoidable consequences for our motivation.

My belief—and the way we're doing family law and policy today—is that fathers, after a divorce, find that most of the things they enjoyed in their parenting role have largely gone away. They're left mainly with the duties. Mothers after a divorce still have the primary parenting role. They have the responsibility of nurturance, of steering the child. They have the sense of connection and meaningful engagement with the child. That is the biggest satisfaction in parenting.

For fathers, I think the meaningfulness drops away. They feel like their say is second class, that it's overruled by the mother. If there's any conflict between the parents, the mother usually is able to have the child side with her. The child is much more dependent on her because she's been given this primary parenting role.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: But my question was—

Mr. David Shackleton: What can we do?

• 1630

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Our job here is to have some suggestions for the minister for consideration. What is your practical...comment on dit en français, pratico-pratique, TOT? What's your suggestion for change?

Mr. David Shackleton: I think the central, most important focus of the whole separation process, starting with mandatory mediation, which I believe is essential, and moving into litigation, if that's necessary, needs to be finding a way to provide both parents with long-term meaningful engagement, in terms that matter to them, with their child—not with each other, because that piece is finished. As a parent, they need to have a balanced, meaningful relationship with the child that matches or feeds them with enough of what they found meaningful and satisfactory in parenting. If they don't get that, and the pattern today is that most fathers don't get that, it's human nature that their motivation will drop away.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I find that a very moving response, except I don't find it practical. I'd like to know how you put it into practice.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mr. Gorling is going to tell you how.

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: I'd certainly be glad to try to tell you.

We are talking about practical things, and I'd like to make a very practical suggestion. We must start with an apology to the separated fathers and children. I beseech the committee to recommend we come forward with an apology, a statement of reconciliation, or some such recognition of the fact that what has been going on is wrong. It's been wrong from the first time. We didn't have to wait until we had the statistics we have today for how bad it is. It was wrong the first time and should have been fixed then.

If we come forward with the apology, we can start to work on the practicality of fixing the system by doing what I mentioned earlier in my first recommendation, which is simply to stop taking children away from their fathers. We must keep those children and fathers together. I think that's very practical. I understand there's a lot of concern about—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If you'd had a voice you wouldn't have had that problem, right? There's a reason for the breaking of the links between the father, the mother and the child. How do you come to answer your strong will to have this close tie? What do you think we can recommend for consideration, besides an apology, which isn't going to make things change, although it might make you feel better?

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: I believe it will make things change. The system is now poised for this. There has been a lot of action over the last period of time and I think people are becoming very much aware. Our petition is very well received in our community and we asked very specifically that fathers not be separated from their children. We asked very specifically that fathers should not be paying the mother of their child, and we ask specifically for the apology. It's recognized very clearly that it's needed.

The problem is that this hasn't got through to the people who are in authority, who perhaps have been there for a while and have been interpreting the laws, rules and procedures for a long time in a certain way. I believe if we give some direction—and I think that Parliament can give that leadership—there will be a change.

The answer to your question, beyond that, is shared parenting. I think that's well known and well understood. We have people in our area. We have one gentleman who works at the mill. He works 12-hour shifts for three days in a row. When he works at his job, he doesn't have his children. He does his job and works hard. When he gets off his job and takes his days off, he has his children. They have 50-50 split parenting. It works very well for the children and it works very well for the parents. I highly recommend that as a baseline solution to the problem.

Mr. David Shackleton: I'd like to say one more thing about that, if I may.

I've been sitting here thinking what exactly is the practical piece that needs to be put here. In a sense, it's like asking, “What is health?” Health is hard to define. What is a healthy relationship? It's hard to name because it's not symptomatic, like sickness.

I'm going to turn that around a little bit and ask what the symptoms are of things going wrong that we can take out. That's what I like to say. Right now, we have a system that is manipulatable by the party willing to play a game to manipulate it. It is more manipulatable by women at the moment because we're very sensitive to allegations of violence and abuse. So we have a system where one can make an allegation with a fairly high degree of impunity. The only mechanism we have in our system right now for punishing false allegations is public mischief, which is almost never used. It has to be laid by the police and it's virtually powerless.

• 1635

Let's make it clear people need to deal in good faith with the system in order to get to a solution that will genuinely work for both of them. As long as it is manipulatable and divertable so that one side is fairly sure they can get what they want out of it and they won't have to come to deal with the other side, then that's going to happen. I think that is a symptom of the fundamental problem right now and it can be addressed directly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

We have two very brief questions as I understand it. We started a little bit late so we're not over time yet, but we're trying to stick to our schedule. Senator Cools has one question and I think Senator Milne has a question.

Senator Anne Cools: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses.

I was very struck by the thought that Mr. Shackleton was expressing about law and in the administration of the law, the need for the concept and the principle of the trustful cooperation between the law and the citizen. I thank you for bringing that forward.

We had a witness in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. I believe her name was Mrs. Craig, a lawyer. She made a point that has been made on numerous occasions before us and I wonder if you could comment on her point.

Her point was that the divorce law as it stood was not such a bad law because it was never intended or expected to be disfigured as it has been by the lawyers and the judges. She made the point that we should be looking more to the culture around the operation and administration of the law. I think, if I'm not mixing up witnesses, she cited the fact that Parliament never intended the Divorce Act to empower any judge like Madame Claire L'Heureux-Dubé to employ her so-called feminist perspective and to come up rewriting the law, essentially stating, as she has stated on more than one occasion, that non-custodial parents are just interested visitors.

I thought her approach was pretty even-handed. And I should go back and reread the testimony because I may be mixing and merging certain ideas as panels appear, but I found her statements quite novel. She was saying the law itself was not so bad. Yes, it could do with changes, but she was saying it was the operation, and the administration and the culture around the administration of law...

I wonder if anybody could respond to that.

Mr. Lloyd Gorling: I think I mentioned earlier that I also don't think the Divorce Act in itself is necessarily the problem. If it were interpreted in the way that I think maybe it was intended, but certainly in the way it should be interpreted in these days, I don't think it would be a problem.

The problem is that all family law seems to make the basic assumption that you will decide custody for one parent and then you will go on from there. I think that's where the change has to come. We have to stop thinking that way. We have to stop thinking that children have one parent after they're separated. Children should have two parents.

At the present time, after you're separated you do have only one parent and then you have somebody who is perhaps like an uncle figure. Indeed, quite often people who are in the Big Brothers organization have closer contact with your child than you do. I think that's where we need the changes. And I think this is the basic underlying thought that should be in the Divorce Act but isn't there, which is basically what has gone wrong now. For example, having a presumption of shared parenting within the Divorce Act and within family law would perhaps solve that problem.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Senator Milne.

Senator Lorna Milne: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the best interests of the child—I was intrigued by what Mrs. Finestone was saying about the need for government to have something specific to work on. “In the best interests of the child” is such a difficult term to pin down and, as some of you have pointed out, has come in for a certain amount of opprobrium.

• 1640

Mr. Shackleton, I was interested in your approach to the whole thing and I wonder if you have a balanced model that you could suggest to us.

Mr. Gorling gave us one. I wonder if you have a specific suggestion that you could make.

Mr. David Shackleton: I don't know if I understand the question.

Senator Lorna Milne: A balanced model of how parenting should work between divorced parents.

Mr. David Shackleton: I don't have a formal model for that. I'm wanting to see balance in the system such that it's able to recognize the qualities of parents without being prejudiced around gender, without being divertable and manipulated by allegations made without sufficient evidence—things like that.

I also think that the act we have is not too bad. It's in the application that the problem lies, in my belief.

Senator Lorna Milne: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you. And I want to thank you all for coming this afternoon and contributing to the work of our committee. I know that for most of you it's your time to be here, so thank you very much.

Mr. David Shackleton: Can I say how important this work that you're doing is, and how absolutely vital. I really respect what I'm seeing in terms of the integrity and the effort that's being put in here by all of you people to address this issue seriously and come up with real solutions. Thank you for that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): I'd like Dr. Mahoney to come forward, please.

We have a half-hour session here. With us is Dr. Mahoney, who's from the Canadian Pediatric Society. Doctor, welcome.

Dr. William J. Mahoney (Canadian Pediatric Society): Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): You've been present, I know, so you'll know how we operate, and if you can limit your comments to five minutes we'd appreciate it.

Dr. William Mahoney: I'll make every attempt to do so.

I am here representing the Canadian Pediatric Society, which is the society that is the Canadian organization of pediatricians across the country. You may not be aware, but the physician is the health professional who most children see on a regular and frequent basis. In fact, 30% to 40% of pediatric consultation practice regards behaviour, developmental and emotional problems in children.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I would wish the consultation with the previous witnesses take place outside so we can hear this witness.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Gentlemen, and Senator Cools, since we have a witness, could you go outside and talk, please.

Senator Anne Cools: I was trying to get the name of the case that you were trying to get on the record, so that we could pull it and see the legitimacy of it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): I'm sorry, Dr. Mahoney. Go ahead.

Dr. William Mahoney: I recognize that the interface between health and social services and legal systems is difficult and this causes problems. We, as an organization, feel it's important to comment on behalf of children.

Separation and divorce always affects children, but the additional processes that occur add to those negative effects. From the children's perspective they see grown-ups who are disagreeing, fighting, arguing, angry and hurting. It's very difficult for children to deal with decisions that are totally beyond their ability to influence. It's extremely difficult for them to give an opinion that favours one parent over the other. These opinions can be affected depending on the age of the child by the day-to-day events and perceptions. The statements of children can be interpreted variably, depending on the orientation, biases and skills of the person doing the assessment.

• 1645

Children have needs, but they vary based on age, physical and psychological status of the child, and environmental issues. Sometimes parents, through lack of experience, training or education, may not be precisely aware of the particular needs of children. So the system therefore must be aware of these needs of children and include the consideration of these needs in the process.

Here are recommendations from the brief, in summary.

First, the system should discourage behaviour on the part of parents and their legal advocates that continues to cause stress for children. Since mediation has been shown to reduce stress and lead to better outcomes for children, clear guidelines that promote a mediation approach, with concrete incentives for it, will reduce the burden on children.

Children have certain generic needs. They include unconditional love, but also structure, stability, consistency, appropriate teaching, and opportunities to develop social and cognitive skills. Decisions must acknowledge and promote these generic needs as a first priority.

Children who have additional disabilities have a very comprehensive and coordinated system that supports them, often through their school and other systems involved in their community. Disruption of this system can lead to additional negative consequences for children that can affect their health, education and emotional status.

The identification of children's needs must be explicit and occur as a first part of the process. Recognizing that there is a significant emotional cost to children from the process of divorce and separation, the costs of treatment of the disorder should be a consideration that occurs as part of the process.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much.

We're going to proceed to questions, and we'll start with Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr. Mahoney. Those were interesting recommendations, and I have some quick questions.

We've heard a lot on this committee about hearing the voice of children. It doesn't pertain directly to your brief, but with your experience, how do we do that?

What I'm talking about is, you can hear the voice of a child but you don't know all the emotional upheaval in the life of that child, and if you take at face value what they're saying, it may not be in the best interest of the child to respond exactly on track with what child is saying. There are other pressures that are involved.

From your experience, how do we hear the voice of children in these situations?

Dr. William Mahoney: That was one of my reasons for referring specifically to what we know are the needs of children—issues like consistency, structure, maintaining certain environmental systems the same if possible. Those are the needs and the voices whereby children say, “This is what I would like to have happen.”

We know, for example, that 11- and 12-year-old children want to go to school and be with their friends. If you ask them what they want, they'll say that would be what they'd want. But they don't really have a venue with which they can say that.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I want to push this a little further and make it a little more practical for me, because I'm not a good abstract thinker.

For example, if we look at consistency and stability, there was a certain relationship in the home prior to the breakdown, and we've heard other witnesses suggest to us that this should be perhaps a starting point to establish the kind of arrangement there will be post-separation, post-divorce. That would seem to line up with what you're saying around consistency and continuing relationships, or continuing what the child is used to.

So I think that all lines up, but because of all this emotional stuff that the child is caught up in, we could have a child saying, gee, I don't want to go here or go there.

Which should we listen to? Should we go back to the consistency model you're talking about?

• 1650

I know I'm simplifying a complex situation, but I'm trying to get, from your perspective and a professional basis, an idea of how much credibility do we give to a child's voice in this whole debate—and I know, age varies, and things like that. I'm concerned that they're so caught up in the emotional upheaval and being used by one parent or the other that the child's voice can really mess it up worse than it was before.

Dr. William Mahoney: But that's exactly the reason for the recommendation for mediation, which tries to prevent the current process where the child gets caught up in the continued bad feelings in the contests between the two parents, because this is what continues to cause the stress for children, which puts them in the middle of the situation.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do you think they should have a voice in the process?

Dr. William Mahoney: Part of that has to depend on age and stage.

For example, an infant of six months of age cannot give a voice to the process. We're trying to come up with principles that apply across ages, and this is why—and I don't know whether this is a policy or a legal issue—the system has to recognize that development of children is a sequential process and that there are certain points in time where children are able to think in an abstract way and other points in time when they are not, and other points in time where they're not even really able to talk.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Should they have a lawyer?

Dr. William Mahoney: The child should have an advocate to make sure their needs are defined, but as to what's the best way to appoint that person or how that should occur, I would rely on the people who work in the area all the time to come up with the idea. But the child needs someone who speaks for the child, who also recognizes these variations and evolution of children's needs.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Dr. Mahoney.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Dr. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, I was asking along those same lines, that the whole idea of best interests of the child comes under some concern when it's not defined as to what that is. There seem to be some jurisdictions where there is actually a framework of questions that the judge is supposed to look at in making that decision.

Do you have any suggestions as to the kinds of things you would put in the act, things the judge should look at in order to determine that it is the best interests of the child?

Dr. William Mahoney: I'm perhaps not as able, because I don't know what should be in an act versus what should be as a guideline or a regulation, but issues such as children and any special needs need to be defined.

The support system the child has, which includes extended family and the roles they have, should be defined, because they are important. For example, if a child has an important relationship with a grandparent and that relationship is ended through passing away or through some other process, the child will inevitably be affected and will have to mourn that. So that needs to be considered in what's best.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: What I worry about is that unless we actually move to something that is along the lines of a parenting plan that has some flexibility and the needs of the child are continually updated, you end up with a kid missing a soccer practice in order to go to church. Maybe it's important to one parent that the child be at church for ten hours one day, whereas the other parent thinks the kid should get to the soccer game and the birthday party. Unless there's an ongoing evaluation of these kinds of things long after we've left the court, I don't know that the best interests of the child will be served.

Dr. William Mahoney: That's where, again—and I don't know if it's possible, but you state the ideal and then you see what's possible—the planning has to identify and recognize these changing needs of children and what is the best way to have that occur.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Sometimes a friend of the court, sometimes a child advocate—but it's an ongoing role.

One of the questions I have for you, along the lines of Mr. Lowther's question, is regarding the high-conflict divorces. Do you think there should always be a lawyer or an advocate appointed for the child?

• 1655

Dr. William Mahoney: Are you talking about where mediation has been tried and has failed?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Or even to make sure the voice of the child is heard at mediation.

The high-conflict ones don't tend to do so well at mediation. Senator Cools and I will debate the numbers, but whether it's 10% or 20%, a small number can't solve this themselves. Obviously I have a concern about the other groups, as to whether the kid actually gets what's best for them, but should we be recommending that there is a place for the voice of the child in all high-conflict divorces?

Dr. William Mahoney: I think it would be fair to say that where mediation has not been successful, where adults cannot at least agree on a situation that is in the best interests and recognizes the needs of individual children, inevitably that child will need a voice, because one side or the other can't be that.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And a voice with follow-up?

Dr. William Mahoney: Well, yes. That's implicit.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: My other question is around my concern about a kid who says they never want to see a parent again, or a kid for whom that has been decided. Do you feel there's a role for some sort of supportive therapy or counselling for that child, just on the basis of that assertion? Should we not interpret it as though one parent now dies?

Mr. William Mahoney: In a clinical sense, which is a hat I also wear, that's a very difficult issue to comment on, because children impetuously, depending on their age, say all sorts of things. How do you analyse a comment? Or do you try to analyse a pattern of behaviour? But that's where, if there's concrete support for the identification of what I'm defining as needs of the child, those issues would be elicited.

Just because a child said to a teacher, “Oh, I hate my father and I hate my mother because of this”... Inevitably the children are angry, they're upset, and they're sad anyway.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Don't they need support?

Dr. William Mahoney: They need support, and that's implicit. We know that 30% to 40%—and that's the reason for my last recommendation—will have some kind of emotional or behavioural disorder as an outcome of the process as it stands today.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And we should provide that support for free?

Dr. William Mahoney: Well, nothing's free, but support needs to be planned for.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The kid can pay for it out of his allowance.

Dr. William Mahoney: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

Senator Pépin.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Dr. Mahoney, could you tell us what are the major problems you see with children who are going through a divorce? What are the big difficulties they have to go through?

Dr. William Mahoney: I can tell you what occurs in the office.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Oui.

Dr. William Mahoney: There's open harshness between parents if they're both present. There's lack of communication if only one parent is present. So when issues go on in the office and certain advice is given, that may or may not be communicated to another parent. There's blaming of the behaviour of the child on the other's influence. For example, “Johnny or Mary really seems to react badly Sunday night and Monday, after this has occurred.”

The other is being able to identify and recognize the influence of violence, substance abuse, and emotional problems of parents on children. We come across situations where these things are occurring, and we have to confront that and say this needs to be dealt with.

Those are the things we see in the office.

Senator Lucie Pépin: How long does it take for a child to be able to overcome those difficulties?

Dr. William Mahoney: For many children, we're talking about measuring in years as opposed to months or weeks—that level. And these can be quite competent children who are affected to that degree, where it will take them years to get over it and be able then to incorporate in their mind the issue that, “I can't change, and now I'd like to go on.”

• 1700

Another thing is, if you ask the children, “If you had three wishes, what would they be?”, which is one of the things I ask children clinically, very frequently they say, “I wish Mommy and Daddy would get back together.” That's very difficult, because that's what they wish, but that's something that can't happen. They need support to get past that.

Senator Lucie Pépin: But what happens to the children who cannot talk—children who are too young, say two or three years old? I'm sure you must see those children in your office.

Dr. William Mahoney: Yes.

Senator Lucie Pépin: What are the difficulties with them?

Dr. William Mahoney: Well, so much of that is dependent on the issues, then, with the parent. How we interpret children's behaviour at that age is by what we observe in the child's behaviour and the issues that the parent brings to us. So if the parent is saying, “This is something that's happened; we have to work together in meeting the needs of the child”, then we can see some reasonably typical issues. Whereas if there's a lot of anger, antipathy, or depression in a parent, we often see problems with behaviour, and that's the reason they're sitting in the office.

Senator Lucie Pépin: I think we will have to take a decision regarding the custody to the best parent.

[Translation]

What are the most important points we should be focussing on, whether as part of the mediation process or not, when trying to determine who is the better parent in the case of children who are too young to talk, let's say children under the age of five? Or do you think that children aged 0 to four can adapt quite easily to shared custody?

[English]

Dr. William Mahoney: When you talk about “best”, you're dealing with issues of measurement. I think it would be fair to say that we don't have good measurement tools to measure good or not-so-good parenting. We often use values that people have and we imply that this measures good or not-so-good parenting.

I would suggest that there really are not good, scientifically developed tools that measure goodness of parenting, so we have to use other measures of determinants of emotional health. What are some of the things we look at that we know affect children's emotional health? It's interesting. One is parental income. We know family income is a determinant of health and that family income below a certain level negatively affects the health of children. Another is moves. If we look at predictors of negative psycho-social outcome, one of the better predictors is parental moves.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Moods?

Dr. William Mahoney: Moves—moving from one place to another.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Oh, okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much.

Once again, we're running out of time. This is only half an hour. Mrs. Finestone, perhaps you could ask one question, followed by Mr. Mayfield, who has one question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore I will ask you the following. Seeing as how it's often felt that the forgotten contributor to child development is the father and that children need more than dollars—they need parents and grandparents on all sides—what are fathers telling you when they come to the office?

Dr. William Mahoney: It's hard, because usually, because I'm a pediatrician, the father is there with the child.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Even a child of age 12?

Dr. William Mahoney: I see children up to age 18.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay, fine. Then we're interested in what you hear.

Dr. William Mahoney: But again, usually the father is there with the child. Often he's there because they have a working relationship that's fairly positive. More typically, if it's not, there's been a decision that the child is in the custody of the mother, who then would be the person who brings the child to the pediatrician. So I have a biased view of the sample.

But the frustrations of fathers again are lack of control, difficulties with communication—and this is for both sides, trying to come to agreement about rules and those kinds of things. That's my reason for emphasizing consistency; it is so important in child upbringing. So these are the things they are aware need to be in place.

• 1705

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can I ask a supplementary in terms of whether they had a parental plan or a parenting plan that you were made aware of when you got separated or divorced there?

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to know what the arrangement is when either the mother is the sole person to bring the child to see the pediatrician, or the father, and what kind of communications there are, because here we have a family practitioner or a pediatric practitioner... I think that's a pretty good indication of some of the problems they seem to face if they don't have parenting plans. I'm just curious, if that's all right with you.

Dr. William Mahoney: Usually, the only guidelines we have is what's involved in a court order. A number of physicians aren't aware that the non-custodial parent has the right to information. There's a disincentive to me, as a practitioner, to give that information because it usually has to be done over the phone, which is then not something I get paid for.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You're the president of the pediatric association—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay, I'm sorry.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Sorry. Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Mahoney, very briefly, you talked about child advocacy. In all the dynamics that exist between two people trying to get out of a relationship and still maintain a relationship with their child, how would you see the advocate for the child selected? Who would do that? Who would choose that advocate?

Dr. William Mahoney: The advocate has to be neutral in some ways and focused on the child. So how do we ensure that this occurs? It's really more a matter of the training of an advocate that needs to be in place, who then would be able to focus on and be aware of the different levels of development of children and what their generic needs are, and interpret that in an unbiased way, because that's what the person is doing. It is really looking at the needs of the child as the first priority.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Do you see this done through a judge's office or a social worker's office? Who would actually say you are the trained advocate and you will be selected? Who would make that selection and how could you...?

Dr. William Mahoney: One, parents could agree.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: They could, yes.

Dr. William Mahoney: Where parents disagree, then it would have to be done through the system that's in place. I guess it would be the court who would say this person would be the child's advocate. But ideally, part of the process of separations occurring and divorces occurring is that the mediation process is really there to help parents to agree, because that is what ultimately benefits the child.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much, Dr. Mahoney. On behalf of all my colleagues here, I want to thank you and the Canadian Pediatric Society for providing you to us. You know we have a medical doctor on this committee, and I must say it's kind of refreshing to get a second opinion here today. So thank you very much.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, I would like us to please obtain some information from the Canadian Pediatric Society and also the family practitioners. I would like to suggest that a letter be sent to find out what information or what guidelines are given to pediatricians and family doctors with respect to court orders and who has the right of access to information. It's a question I wanted to ask but I guess I went over my time. That doesn't change the fact that I do believe they should be aware that whoever has the right to have the information gets that information.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): If that's a request, I would ask if there is agreement and then we could have the letter sent. Do I have agreement?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

Dr. William Mahoney: May I answer that question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Go ahead, sure.

• 1710

Dr. William Mahoney: I believe there are actually two answers that I participate in. One is that I'm the chair of the psycho-social committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society and the mandate of our committee is to identify and communicate to pediatricians and family practitioners information about these types of issues. If there's a lack of knowledge about the issue, we will prepare an article that would go in a journal that would then be accessible. This is circulated to all physicians who deal with children in Canada.

The second is teaching in medical schools and in postgraduate programs, which is another thing I do, ensuring that the teaching is brought up to date and that it is clear to the practitioners that at that early age these are the principles they need to be aware of.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Except that you said you thought many doctors didn't know what rights they had, so therefore the teaching needs to be brushed up a little.

Dr. William Mahoney: That's another part of our mandate.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excellent.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): She always has a way of getting her own way!

Thank you very much.

I would now ask Mr. Rade, Mr. Bloom and Mr. Pierre Bougie to come up, please.

I know that some of our witnesses have been here today so they know the routine. We have one half hour, colleagues, so we'll start with Mr. Bloom, please.

Mr. Robert Bloom (Individual Presentation): Co-chairs and distinguished members of this committee, my name is Robert Bloom. I reside in Kingston.

On November 20, 1994, my life was drastically changed and so began my legal nightmares. The lawyer for my ex-wife immediately had me served with a restraining order stating that I was a violent man and that I was a threat to my former wife and her family. I was branded immediately in the eyes of all concerned as a violent man intent on doing harm to my ex-wife and children.

At my first encounter with my lawyer, I was requested by my ex-wife's lawyer to sign over my parental rights and all my other personal property acquired during our marriage and to leave the province and not attempt to contact the children ever again. For that I would be given $2,500 to start my life over and may or may not have to pay child support. I was also to leave the province.

I refused to comply with their request. I was then informed that my ex-wife's lawyer would make nasty allegations in court if I did not sign the agreement. Allegations were made but were unfounded.

On arriving home from work one evening, there was a “for sale” sign on the front lawn. When I contacted the agent, he informed me that the owner had listed the home and that I was to vacate the house immediately or he would physically remove me.

Then the issue of the family home was brought into the court. At that time the family court judge ordered me to reside in the marital home until it was sold. I had been threatened and intimidated by my in-laws on a regular basis, It would take more than five minutes to recount the nightmare my life had become.

Then the issue of child support was brought into court. Her lawyer demanded that I pay $1,500 a month. The judged ordered me to pay $800 per month to my ex-wife. Presently I pay $520 per month and I find it a real hardship. By the time I pay my mortgage and other household expenses, there's not much left.

I presently work at four jobs and have a boarder living in my home just to make ends meet. I am a diabetic and I find it quite stressful and difficult at times to purchase the basic necessities of life, including insulin.

I have an obligation to provide for my sons, but I feel the system should be fair and equitable and should not cause hardships for anyone concerned.

On my first contact with family support, I was called a deadbeat dad for no apparent reason, and there was no explanation as to why my entire pay cheque was taken. I had very little money left. I think it was $45 by the time they got done. How can you live on $45?

My ex-wife then filed a sworn affidavit with the family support system stating that I had not paid my child support, only to have them take my pay cheque again. I didn't see my sons for six months during that time.

Access was restarted and going fine until we started the custody and access issues. Again, my access was interrupted, this time for three months. This was due to the fact that I would not sign their previous agreement. In my opinion, those demands were not in the best interest of my sons.

• 1715

Again returning to family court, we renegotiated my visitations. I left family court with an order. It was not fair and equitable, but at least it spelled out when I would see my sons. That was wrong on my part.

In the last two years I've had only one vacation with my sons, as their mother is unwilling to be flexible even with 60 days' written notice, and it's in my court order. I have had my access refused about 40 times. I've filed numerous complaints with the police, and all they ever say is get a lawyer, take her back to family court and get a new order. They refuse to charge my ex-wife. If it were a man doing the same thing, the police would charge him. To me this is a double standard.

I already have a court order in place that specifically states when I am to see my children and for how long. Why must I spend more money on another order when I know it will not be enforced? I feel the Family Law Act, as it stands, is a vehicle for lawyers to abuse for their own financial gain.

I did not see my sons until May 19 of this year. That was my most recent visit. The last time before that was February 16, approximately 93 days ago, and I don't know when I'm going to see them again. My plans are to go back to family court, but this time it will be without legal counsel because I cannot afford a lawyer. So that's where I stand.

Unfortunately marriages break down, and ultimately we all become victims of the legal system and the lawyers who say they are acting on our best behalf. It is not who gets the kids but how one parent is made poor while the other one gets rich quick. I feel the laws of this land should reflect the views and needs of all concerned, that being our children.

Can I make my recommendations?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Yes, please do.

Mr. Robert Bloom: First, there should be no sole custody to either parent, only joint custody, unless one parent has been convicted of a child-related offence or there has been a death or serious illness. Lawyers should be made responsible for their actions, i.e. Senator Cools' Bill S-4.

There should be no primary residence. Make both parents responsible for the care and the well-being of the children. Child support should be paid by both parents, no matter who has custody. If child support is granted, the custodial parent must submit receipts for providing basic necessities of life, i.e. food, clothing, entertainment.

Child support should be based on your net salary and only after deductions are made, not on your gross yearly salary. Child support should be taxable. The recipient should pay, that being the children. This would give more money to the children.

A body or a directive should specifically be in place to enforce family court orders.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to present my brief.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you, Mr. Bloom.

Mr. Bougie.

Mr. Pierre Bougie (Individual Presentation): My name is Pierre Bougie. I'm a 38-year-old father of three and have been a divorced parent for approximately 13 years. All our stories are generally the same, so I'm going to try to skip a few details to make it a little shorter.

First I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before them to express some views, concerns and even recommendations on important issues relating to child custody and access.

Since the outcome of child custody and access arrangements is so critical to the psychological and moral development and overall growth of the children involved, I would like to expand first on the custody portion and then maybe follow through on the access side of the issue.

Let's not forget that in most instances the non-custodial parent often loses their right to influence the raising of their child on such things as which language they are going to learn first and which school they are going to attend, especially when both parents speak different languages. Once the parents have separated, whoever does not have custody of the children basically does not have the right to have any say in anything, and I feel that's important.

As for custody, I could never answer accurately to any of my children why it was decided and who decided which parent got custody; why they were not allowed to decide or partake in the decision; and why the majority of their friends are always with their mother and never with their father.

I don't know if these decisions were based solely on past practices, but we're approaching 2000 and the lives of everybody have changed. We have to create probably new committees and look at these issues from a different angle now because the times have changed and we have to adapt.

• 1720

As a quick example, 13 years ago I was told by many lawyers that I would not stand a chance of obtaining custody since my ex-wife and her whole family were reborn Christians and had considerable religious influence in the diocese. Because of this, evidently, my ex-wife got custody. I was told to leave the home. I lost the home. I left with my old Volkswagen van, one brass lamp, and my dog, that's it.

An annulment was also awarded and granted. I don't know why, as we had two children. I know why these days: responsibility.

I feel I was punished for a marriage breakdown for which I'm willing to accept 50% of the responsibility, but does this mean that because my ex-wife was a reborn Christian that she was a better person or a better choice to actually raise the child than I was, just because I didn't advertise a public display of worship and adoration like these people do? Maybe I have my own way and my own beliefs. Just because I don't do it publicly doesn't mean I'm not a better parent or as good a parent to raise the child.

Nevertheless, in the final outcome, I was cheated out of my right to participate full-time in my children's everyday life, and their joy and happiness, as well as the ups and downs of the best years of their lives, from diapers up to the adolescent and teen years.

I do believe in God. I do practise in my own way. I just don't feel that religion back then should have been used against me in the decision for custody.

So I therefore emphasize and reiterate that custody issues are extremely important at the time of separation and divorce, not one or two years later when the quarrels are finished. Basically, I totally support equality and therefore feel it should be considered and practised at all levels of life, not only in labour issues but also in the family law aspect especially at the time of separation or marriage breakdown.

These are all nice legal points, but let us not forget the anguish, pain, frustration, and health problems, such as depression, suffered by non-custodial parents who have been controlled and intimidated all the time by the custodial parent. Like a lot of the examples Mr. Bloom mentioned, a lot of them are similar to mine, so there's no use in repeating them.

Our children's well-being demands that we address this issue immediately, fairly, and with a lot more of a child-centred approach to family law policies and practices.

So basically, as a recommendation, especially on the custody portion, specific committees could be created to address each and every case individually. I know it's a tough job, but we're also always looking for ways to create work. I find that for issues as important as a child's welfare, general laws or generic formulas are just not a miracle cure for that. Each and every case must absolutely be looked at individually.

Obviously marriage criteria should be made stricter, in turn making separation and divorce more justified. Special conditions could be made imperative before granting divorces, especially custody arrangements. By treating every case individually, more custom or designer-type arrangements with regard to custody could benefit both parents and satisfy the affected children's needs in order to provide such children with the best possible life scenario for their future and development, regardless of their parents' childish behaviour patterns at the time of marriage breakdown.

By setting a criterion of at least one full year of regular counselling for both parents and at times with the children present, a more reasonable and fair solution could be reached.

This is just an idea, but maybe a committee could be formed. Then the second a marriage is starting to break down or is heading for divorce, anybody with that problem could be registered with the committee. They could then start with consultations for at least a year, 18 months, or whatever criteria would be set by the committee. This would then be reviewed and analysed throughout the whole year. Once that specific amount of time had been spent—attendance should be imperative also—then and only then could the decision be taken for custody and other arrangements.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Are you almost finished? Your time is up.

Mr. Pierre Bougie: Yes, almost. I was going to use another example, but I'll skip it and go straight to this.

All in all, I would like to thank the committee for its time. I know there are a lot of other issues, but I will be also reapplying to be heard again on other issues, especially the new child support guidelines, on which I totally agree with Mr. Bloom.

I'm going on my second personal bankruptcy right now. Although I proved in court undue hardship, I still lost. I still haven't seen my son. It has been three and a half years, and I have not seen my son yet. I still lost. Because she petitioned, I have to pay my lawyer to defend myself. I ended up having to pay her lawyer because she petitioned. I still haven't seen my son in three and a half years.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you.

I have one thing on a point of clarification. You mentioned that your marriage was annulled. Is that under canon law or under common law, statutory law?

Mr. Pierre Bougie: No, it was a Christian marriage.

• 1725

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): But was the annulment through the Catholic church?

Mr. Pierre Bougie: Yes, it was.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Oh, okay. Fine.

Mr. Rade.

Mr. Joe Rade (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, by the way.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee chair, Mr. Gallaway, and fellow members for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this critical issue of custody and access, which I respectfully submit is an issue that has destroyed more lives and parent-child relationships than the most dreaded disease.

There are many facets of the Divorce Act that in my submission need an immediate overhaul. However, with the limited time available, I will address one that has touched the lives of thousands of children and parents, including, unfortunately, my seven-year-old son Michael and myself. The issue I refer to is that of access denial, which has reached epidemic proportions.

I would like to apologize if I seem somewhat nervous. However, it's the first time I have made a presentation before such distinguished members.

I have attended numerous hearings of this committee as well as those on Bill C-41. I have sat on the board of directors of the Canadian Council for Co-parenting. I'm a member of the National Shared Parenting Association. I recently had several letters published related to this issue in the Ottawa Citizen.

But most importantly, I'm a father who, in large part thanks to the “mother knows best, father pays best” myth, has not seen his child for nearly seven months.

In October 1997, I went to pick up my child for a court-ordered bi-weekend access. My son and his mother were not there. This was not a surprise, as the mother had, through three previous letters, informed me that she would breach the order.

My counsel advised me to follow through with the customary exchange process. Otherwise, as has occurred before, the mother would claim that I failed to exercise the access. I filed a report with the local detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, who informed me that they would not enforce the order.

Subsequently, after learning via my counsel that the mother had unilaterally, without court permission, cancelled all access, did I, as recommended by counsel, seek a motion for contempt, which was the only legal avenue available to me at the time. The presiding judge dismissed the motion, citing among other reasons, mainly based on false allegations, that litigation is harmful to the child. Further, the judge cancelled all access and went to the almost unheard-of step, at least in provincial court matters, of awarding costs against me for seeking a motion to reinstate my access.

I ask the honourable members: what is wrong with this picture? To this day, I am still trying to reinstate my access with my child.

This scenario is not new to non-custodial parents, who are mostly fathers, as most of you are aware. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family reported in 1992 that “three out of four non-custodial parents experience problems in exercising the access with their children”. Is this in the child's best interests? I respectfully submit that it is not.

A United States survey by G. Walker in 1986, chronicled in his book Solomon's Children: Exploding the Myths of Divorce, also found that of adults whose parents had divorced while those surveyed were still minors, 42% of custodial mothers had tried to prevent their children from seeing their fathers. A similar United States study in 1980 by Wallerstein and Kelly found that nearly half of the mothers favoured discontinuing the father's visitations.

Access denial, in my submission, is one of the most damaging forms of child abuse. Yes, I said child abuse. Although society and the courts for the most part deal very harshly, as I believe they should, with individuals who perpetrate other forms of child abuse, they rarely, if ever, admonish custodial parents for their despicable and illegal actions.

On that note, I would like to commend the Honourable Justice Patrick Dunn, who recently took a courageous step in standing apart from most of his peers by ordering a Toronto mother to 60 days in jail following at least 40 counts of denial of court-ordered access.

The rationale behind the non-enforcement of access orders is that it's not in the child's best interests to experience such intervention. I couldn't agree more. However, at some point, the denial of access to one parent is also not in a child's best interests.

• 1730

Ironically, honourable members, the same academics who are behind this philosophy see no negative repercussions when police enforce custody orders. I am at a loss to explain this double standard, other than to say it is harmful to our child and it is clearly gender bias.

The effects on children as a result of denial of access are catastrophic and devastating. Children affected are more likely, as borne out in numerous studies, to have increased emotional and behavioural problems, educational shortcomings, and conduct disorders, among many others. A statistic from the United States commission on children sums it up quite clearly: single-mother families, less than 20% of all families, produce more than 80% of young criminals. That's a pretty staggering statistic, I would submit.

Honourable members, the time has come to act. Access denial is wrong, plain and simple. It is not—I repeat, not—in the best interest of the child. It must be stopped, and it must be stopped now; otherwise we will all bear the burden in our children's latter years.

To conclude, I would like to make several recommendations.

Number one, access orders should be treated like any other court order, deemed enforceable by their nature as a court order. There should be no need for special provision within the access order ordering the police to enforce the order, which is the current scenario.

Number two, custodial parents who deliberately and systematically breach access orders should, after three occurrences, face possible jail time. I submit that this would dramatically reduce the amount of incidents.

Finally, number three, where the custodial parent clearly and continuously hinders interaction between the child and parent, custody of the child should be reversed.

Thank you very much for your time, honourable members.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much, Mr. Rade.

We'll have some questions, starting with Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the witnesses for taking your own personal time to come forward and make an investment for other people and telling us your stories. You all did an excellent job. It can be a little bit intimidating to come in here and have us all stare at you while you do your best, and you did very well.

I have a couple of quick questions. First, clearly all three witnesses talked about making sure the non-custodial parent has access and that it's enforced, that it happens. That came through loud and clear. But I've heard testimony here from some witnesses that some parents who are granted access don't exercise it. In those situations, what do you think should happen? Not every father, for example, takes the time to go and see the kids. What happens in those cases? Do you have any ideas about what should happen there?

Mr. Joe Rade: I would submit that this scenario would be in the minority. I don't feel it is fair, because we all know there are bad people. Whether it be men or women, there are always people who are not interested in the lives of their children. I feel it's quite unfair for me, as a non-custodial parent, to be labelled with these other uncaring individuals.

In my own personal case, I didn't get into it as much as my friends here, but within the last six months I have been in front of—I won't mention the judge—six times to try to reinstate my access. In three of those instances, the judge awarded costs against me for seeking a motion to reinstate my access.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay, I got your position there, and I want to give the other fellows a chance to respond if they wish to.

Mr. Pierre Bougie: Basically the wheels are already in motion about so-called deadbeat fathers who don't pay their child support and who don't visit their children. Obviously their licences get revoked if they don't pay; it eventually catches up to them. So I find at least it's a start and something has begun. We should not stop there; it should go a little farther.

But as for choosing to see their sons or not, I don't know how we could address that. The parent is definitely defective in some way if he doesn't want to see his children. But something is already being done, at least.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Bloom, did you have a comment?

Mr. Robert Bloom: If a father doesn't want to see his son or his children, that's his loss. It's also the child's loss of not seeing the parent, and something should be done. The child has a right to see both parents, and if one parent doesn't want to see his children, then there's something wrong with that parent and something should be done. What, I don't know, but it's not fair to the child.

• 1735

Mr. Eric Lowther: Could I follow up with just a short second question?

Mr. Rade, you gave us your idea of what should happen—I think you did at least—if access orders are denied. That didn't come through quite as clearly for me from Mr. Bloom or from Pierre. Could you fellows tell us what you suggest would be the solution if access is repeatedly denied? Do you have a suggestion on that?

Mr. Robert Bloom: I was informed by an OPP officer that if it were a man denying his ex-wife access to their children, he'd be incarcerated and kept in jail until he could be brought in front of a judge and dealt with. The same thing should happen to a woman. If she's denying access to the other parent, there shouldn't be a male-female distinction; it should be non-gender. She should have the same punishment as the male. She should be incarcerated or at least have her custody revoked if she's the custodial parent. There shouldn't be any gender bias, and there is, and the police will tell you that very clearly.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

We've heard descriptions of deadbeat dads, but you, Mr. Bloom, have talked about the impoverishment of one parent while the other parent gets rich quickly; I think that's the way you phrased it. I would like to hear you describe that in a bit more detail for people like me. It sounds as though what you're saying is a lot more than child support is involved here. And perhaps not you, but I heard your colleagues say that the court costs of both parents fall upon the non-custodial parent. Would you like to go into a bit more detail about the impoverishment and the getting rich part that you told me about?

Mr. Robert Bloom: In my case, I make much less than my ex-wife, yet I pay approximately 50% of the child support. At one time I believe I was bringing in 40% of the household income.

I've not been able to take my children on a vacation. My ex-wife takes the children away quite frequently, for weeks at times. I cannot afford a big, lavish home. I have a very small, modest home. I can't afford to purchase or even lease a big, fancy car, and most people who are non-custodial parents can't do that. They drive second-hand vehicles, and very modest vehicles. Most of us work two to three jobs just to make ends meet, whereas the custodial parent, who's receiving child support, usually does not.

If I even suggest taking my ex-wife back to court, the first thing I get is a motion that they're going after more child support. In most cases that's what happens. As long as the non-custodial parent is kept in a very low financial status, they're quite happy. It just appears that you never get anywhere, except the other half gets farther along. You seem to stagnate. You don't grow, you don't get anything, you don't accomplish anything, and the other parent amasses wealth.

Mr. Pierre Bougie: I have a really good example of that. I was talking about standards of living when I went to court, and I proved that my standard of living was much lower than my ex-wife's. I live in a 20-by-20, one-bedroom basement apartment. I also have another 15-year-old daughter who comes to see me every second weekend. She's almost six feet tall, yet she has to sleep on a camping mattress in the middle of the living room. She's always asking me, “How come Mommy's always taking us out on trips and you never buy or do anything for us?” That I understand.

Also, the financial statements that the wife and the husband both give to their lawyers are never accurate. I looked over my ex-wife's financial statement, and it was ridiculous. It was in the red by $1,000 a month. So obviously she needed more child support, according to the financial statement. Yet two weeks later she's living, or she had already been living, in a three-bedroom duplex. She has two vehicles and a three-bedroom and she lives alone with her son, yet I'm in a basement apartment, I have two of the three children who should be coming to see me when they can, and they have to sleep in the middle of the living room floor. I proved this undue hardship and I still lost the case.

• 1740

Then I drive home a week later and see my ex-wife has a Bronco II—a nice truck—and a brand-new Honda Civic four-door that I never saw before. She also has $3,000 to $7,000 in RRSPs. And I'm in the red and on the verge of declaring bankruptcy again.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It's not my intention to pursue my questioning on a personal basis, but what I'm interested in knowing is this. Is your impoverishment and your ex-spouse's wealth because of the fact that they earn more or they have family wealth behind them, or is it because they're taking the money from you that you no longer have?

Mr. Pierre Bougie: In part that's it. For the first few months I was seeing my child, he never had any undershirts; he was always in rags. Yet I was giving her a considerable amount of money every month. I asked her what she did with the money, and she said she was keeping it aside for school clothes and stuff like that. I bought him a pack of 12 undershirts. Next weekend came along, and I never saw the undershirts again. So I don't know.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Are you suggesting there should be an auditing of accounts?

Mr. Pierre Bougie: Auditing, or at least, instead of having the onus always on the man to prove that his salary hasn't changed every year, I'd like proof that her salary hasn't changed next year. Also, if he doesn't go to child day care any more, why do I still have to pay child day care? There's no way the onus is always on the man to try to prove what he's making or not making, yet they have carte blanche on the other aspect.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So you're asking for equal accounting by both parents.

Mr. Pierre Bougie: Yes, general accounting and fairness on both sides, that's all.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Thank you very much. We're at the end of our time period here.

Mr. Rade, you wanted to refer to the name of a judge. You're quite entitled to do that here. We would ask that you tell us the file number and the court action name, but you're quite able before this committee to name a judge if you wish.

Mr. Joe Rade: Well, it's the Honourable Justice Renaud, Cornwall division.

Let me just state that I do not want this to go too far, if you will, since I'm at the pre-trial stage right now and I'm hoping to go to trial. However, Justice Renaud has seized himself of the file. As I mentioned, he's refused three motions to reinstate access and has levelled costs against me twice now. Last time I appeared before him, he ordered that I pay a part of those costs; otherwise he would not let me pursue any other legal matters.

If the honourable chair would allow me, I would just like to read a portion of the transcript from the May 13 motion. I'll be very brief. This is basically my closing summary to Justice Renaud:

I feel, for the record, that I have been unfairly treated. Not only have I lost my child; now apparently, I'm going to lose that portion of my life again. If that is what one human being deserves for loving his child, then I must not be living in Canada. I love my child and I will continue to fight for other children, for that matter. I will appear as I am appearing in front of the joint House-Senate committee on custody and access, because I cannot tolerate the injustice done to our kids. I will live through those years without my child. They won't be happy years, but I will live through them. But I cannot see other children going through events like this.

That's it, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway): Okay, thank you.

I want to thank you all, on behalf of the committee members, for coming here. I know these are very personal stories and you're doing it publicly, and we appreciate that you have done it and that you've added to the work of this committee. So thank you very much.

The committee will break for about 15 minutes. Colleagues, you should know there's going to be a vote in the House. Bells will ring at 6.30 p.m. If our 6.30 witness arrives, we might start a little early, if that's okay. Supper is here, so we will break until the witness arrives.

• 1745

• 1819

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Order. We will resume the hearings.

Mr. Cheriton, please go ahead for five minutes or so. Then we hope to get some questions in.

Mr. Glen Cheriton (Editor and Researcher, FatherCraft Canada): Thank you.

FatherCraft is essentially a support service for fathers and a publisher. We've been in existence since 1973 in various forms.

• 1820

I want first of all to thank the committee for its attention to this important issue and certainly thank the members for a lot of their attention to what is a particularly difficult issue.

I want to make essentially two points here. The first one is that the committee should look at this primarily as a question of the need of children for their fathers. This is particularly important after divorce.

Essentially what happens after divorce, in an overwhelmingly majority of cases—and I'm going to make the case in fact that this is getting worse and not better—children lose their fathers, effectively, as parents.

The second point I want to make here is that this is happening because of bias in the legal and social support system. This is not a natural effect. This is something that is artificially created by bias. I want to document that bias.

I have a list of recommendations. I won't go through those, but I wanted to jump, first of all, into what my experiences are. I started off primarily with custodial fathers, looking at single dads. This is a relatively small part of the population. They have not really been studied. The stories they were telling me—and I must admit, it took me a long time before I recognized what was happening—were so unbelievable that in fact I did the research and looked into what was happening. Subsequently, what they told me has been simply the tip of the iceberg.

If you look at what's happening with fathers, it's very interesting to compare what happens with single fathers versus single mothers. Looking into this and going back a little bit, the 1994 study of social policy in Canada by Human Resources Development showed that in spite of massive amounts of government assistance to single mothers, in spite of increasing wages to mothers and women, in fact there were more children of single mothers in poverty than there were 10 years previously.

We had exactly the opposite with single fathers. In spite of men's wages essentially being stagnant, increasing taxes, and men's wages being dropped, you discover that children of single fathers in fact are less likely to be in poverty. So you have a situation in which single fathers, in spite of less support and less attention in a non-traditional area are essentially doing surprisingly well.

If you look at the current longitudinal study of children and families by Statistics Canada and Human Resources Development, they have in fact looked at this and concluded that single-father families are so close to intact families that they have removed them from the results. Essentially, they've discarded the most successful form of single-parent family and are not looking at it.

It's my understanding that by the government's gender-based analysis policy, they're required to look at women and men and show the relationship between them and how they're supposed to work together, but in fact they've deliberately discarded this because of the success.

This doesn't make any sense. If you look at the studies in the States, if you look at studies everywhere in the world, in fact you see that families headed by single fathers are astonishingly successful.

I want to suggest a reason that this is happening, because it's a much larger problem than you people, or most people, realize. If you look at a family headed by a single father, and they go to daycare, it's almost exclusively women there. I've been on the head of a daycare. When he goes to the social service agency, again, it's almost exclusively women. In the first few years of school, again, it's almost exclusively women teachers. That single father almost always has his sisters, his mother, or perhaps a new wife or new girlfriend involved in the parenting. So those children do not lack for the female role model, but in the households headed by single mothers, almost always the males do not act as parents to the children.

It's not that single fathers are this fantastic solution to everything, but it certainly seems that the way society has structured this, it's almost impossible to replace the father in the family once that has been lost. This is why it's particularly relevant to the custody and access determination. Once you've lost that father, there aren't the resources to replace him.

Looking at this case of the effect of bias in the system, I wanted to make a particularly good case that the system was biased.

• 1825

There was a study done, based on 1991 data—this is the Finnie, Strippinis and Gilliberti study, of Justice Canada, and this is the one that was actually used in the Supreme Court action, the Thibaudeau case—showing that in fact a division of custody essentially came down to 76% sole mother custody and I believe 10% or 11% single-father custody and 11% joint custody.

In fact, at the same time, according to the Vanier Institute of the Family, 22% of lone-parent families were headed by men. This is astonishing. What is happening here—and it's only that I looked into what's happening with single fathers—is that about half of them were getting their children after they had lost a court case, that subsequently the mother ran into difficulties, economic, financial, or whatever it was, and turned the kids over to the father, or the children were causing so much difficulty as they got into their teens that the children wanted to live with their father, or whatever.

So what we have is a case where single fathers are in fact taking kids who, in a large number of cases, are problem children, and they're bringing them up to the standard of two-parent households. To me, this is really astonishing, because every other institution that tries to do this—our juvenile delinquency home, foster parents, all of these other agencies—with the massive funding they have, are not able to come anywhere close to what a single-father family does, take over a problem child later on in their life as they're hitting those early teens and are able to actually solve a large number of their problems.

Of course they're not perfect, but what I'm suggesting is we must look at single-father custody families and why they are being so successful, because you're not looking at what solves the problem if you're just looking at where the problems lie. A lot of the problems essentially are that the father is being cut out of the life of the children.

I looked into the whole question of child support. There is a very good example where you can document bias of the legal system. According to this Finnie, Strippinis report, 91% of mothers who got sole custody got a child support order; 30% of single fathers did. So essentially 70% of fathers got custody because they abandoned their rights to child support.

It's only 9% of mothers, and 9% of women not getting child support is roughly the same number of men in the society who have an income below the level at which child support kicks in, according to the child support guidelines. So that's not an unreasonable number.

But if you look at what happens... Now we put in this child support guidelines legislation. There is a study out of Edmonton—it escapes my mind at the present time—that was submitted to the child support committee on this...

Senator Anne Cools: Dr. Gardiner?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: The Gardiner study. He did a study in Alberta of a comparable number of cases, which looked at the division of custody. During those short six years, the amount of single-father custody went from 10% down to 4.5%. That's a huge drop. What is happening there is judges are saying we will not do this to women, these onerous child support obligations.

Child support essentially has skewed an already biased system in favour of excluding more fathers from the system. The system is not getting less biased; it's getting more biased against fathers.

Let me add another case. I've recently—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): You are taking over your time, so if you—

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I have one more point, and then I will wrap it up.

I've gotten the tax data from 1995, which is a breakdown of child support payments into income levels, division by provinces. What you look at there is how much non-custodial mothers and non-custodial fathers are paying at different income levels.

It turns out, below $10,000 the justice system treats men and women as non-custodial parents pretty well equally harshly, but the higher the income, the greater discrepancy between mothers and fathers. Actually, the higher you go, the greater the discrepancy. But in fact, between $40,000 and $50,000, a non-custodial father would pay five times the amount of child support as a non-custodial mother.

So the point in there is there is enormous bias in the legal system, and the result is fathers are excluded from the lives of their children.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: You've quoted some interesting information and you've done some study. Have you submitted any of this to the committee, substantiated any of the numbers you're quoting here with any of your research that we could refer to when we're drafting our report?

• 1830

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Yes, I have submitted my presentation in writing, through fax, to the committee. I can provide the documentation for this.

I do have the complete data here from the Department of Finance on the breakdown. I will provide this to the committee.

Much of the other data on bias does come from—and I will cite this study here—Access to Children Following Parental Relationship Breakdown in Alberta, a May 1992 study. I can provide those references.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Did you go looking for bias, or do you go looking and you found lots of it? How did that work?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Frankly, I started off with the fact that I couldn't believe the stories that these single fathers were telling me. I thought I could disprove what they were saying, but instead I found exactly the opposite. The situation is in fact much worse than they have said, and getting worse.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Cools.

Senator Anne Cools: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

I want to make the point that I keep making again and again. The study Mr. Cheriton referred to is a study by Dr. Barry Gardiner for I think it was the Court of Queen's Bench or one of the major courts in Alberta.

I keep saying again and again, perhaps our researchers could bring forth some information for us that we can all work with, but perhaps our researchers could look to the record of the Senate Committee on Social Affairs study on Bill C-41 and its implementation and bring forward the testimony of Mr. Barry Gardiner, who did the study Mr. Cheriton is referring to.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Senator Anne Cools: Maybe they'll do something.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Pépin.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Mr. Cheriton, you said single-father-headed families are more efficient than the ones headed by mothers. Tell me why, because I'm sure we want to find out.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Let me make an analogy here. It certainly seems to me that women in politics have had an impact on legislation in the government far out of proportion to their numbers. It seems to me that there is something similar happening in fathering. This is an area that a very small number of fathers go into, and those have to leap over quite a large number of barriers. So they are a very unusual group, first of all.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Glen Cheriton: No, they're not gods, mind you, but you know...

Partly it is that they are a select group; partly it is that they take it enormously seriously; and I think partly it is that their kids know, because they are not getting paid to do it. Overwhelmingly, our social policy says that fathers are not paid for fathering. The tax credits are directed toward mothers, so the kids know that the fathers are doing it out of love.

One of the problems you have, as soon as you get into custody and access, is that children start questioning: Is my mother doing it only for the money? Is my father not seeing me only because he doesn't want to pay the money? It hurts both mothers and fathers to kind of commercialize this into a job.

I think you have to look at parenting as a duty, as something where you're giving children values. That's one of the things that children mentioned they got from their single fathers, this sense that the father had values beyond it as a job.

Senator Lucie Pépin: My difficulty is—and maybe I don't understand well—I agree that the father has lots of qualities and things like that, but I have the feeling that you say that group of fathers did better than the group of mothers. I don't understand when you say the children feel that they are loved by their father But they also believe they are loved by their mother, even if their father pays custody.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: There is an interesting point here. There is this psychiatrist in Montreal who said that one of the differences between men and women, as parents, is that it is very common that mothers will complain, oh, he's getting too big, or she's getting too big. Fathers almost never do. He said he has never heard a father complain of that.

• 1835

The difference is that as soon as kids get up to a certain level—at least this is what he was saying... I think it's a case where as kids get to a certain level, a lot of the things that fathers do become of more interest to kids. I work a lot with visible minority men, and the gender roles are fairly well defined there. In most of these communities they have some sort of sense that at some point children must kind of break free from the mother—very much in the native community—and the father helps to bring them out into the world. As kids get older, there is a sense that if the kids have been totally connected to the mother they have to change custody and get that connection to the other parent, the father.

I'm getting too mysterious here, but if you want a good reference on this topic it would be Guy Corneau, the Montreal psychiatrist who wrote Absent Fathers, Lost Sons. He makes a far better case than I can possibly make for this.

Senator Lucie Pépin: There is another thing I would like you to explain. You said that non-custodial fathers pay a higher percentage of alimony than do mothers. Why? Is it because he earns more? Can you explain or give me more details about that?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: In fact that was the first explanation I got. I tracked the differences, which were a breakdown between men and women for four years. I could track it and discover these differences were large and getting wider. In order to eliminate that difference, I was able to get a breakdown according to income. I found if you got women earning between $40,000 and $50,000 paying child support and you compared them with men earning between $40,000 and $50,000, you discover there are huge differences. The man at the same income level, on average, pays five times as much.

I don't know what other explanation you could have other than the fact that there are two possible places for bias, and one of them is in the orders. In fact, from the data from Finnie, Strippinis it's very clear that the father pays much higher percentages of his income in child support at the court order level. However, that doesn't explain the entire difference. The difference is also—and this is one of the reasons I got involved in this—that the single fathers were saying that the provincial support collection agencies were simply not enforcing the orders. In fact the agencies were deliberately trying to reverse the custody. If a father complained about not getting paid child support, there would be efforts made to get the custody away from the father.

Senator Lucie Pépin: I know that in Quebec right now—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I didn't hear the source of your data. Could you repeat that name, please?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: There are several sources. There is a study by Justice Canada. I believe it was published in January 1995, based on 1991 data by Finnie, Strippinis and Gilliberti.

[Translation]

Senator Lucie Pépin: One moment, please.

[English]

In Quebec right now, there's a system where they have established des barèmes, and father or mother, depending on income, is on the same level. Even if you are a mother, if you have an income you pay a percentage and it's the same thing for the father. That has been done for a year or two now, and everybody is paying through the same system.

I'm ready to look into that, but... I'm listening to you, and as much as I want to believe and do believe that fathers are involved and are very good parents and things like that, I'm trying to find out if you're not biased also toward the mother. I say this because when you said that single-father families are more effective than single-mother families, I am not persuaded of that yet. I have to read the studies—

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I'm not saying we should... I'm not asking the committee to believe this. What I'm suggesting is that you cannot make a decision about this as long as Human Resources Development is saying, in their longitudinal study, that they will discard all single-father families. That's simply my point. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like saying we're going to look at industry in Canada and because the computer industry is a really tiny industry we can simply discard it from our calculations. It makes no sense at all.

• 1840

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Mrs. Finestone, you're next.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much. I have two things to raise. First of all, what you are saying indicates that support measures are intimately linked to access and custody.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: One of the reasons the legislation went through with the support orders, separate from access and custody, was to ensure that we removed one of the stumbling blocks to an effective placement of the best interests of the child in high focus. I think, therefore, you're suggesting we've not been successful in that.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: That's correct.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

Secondly, you didn't talk to the problem of getting to see your children or not getting to see your children. You talked about the fact that fathers are absent from children's lives to the extent that they would need them. Is that right?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Correct.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is this because of the courts, because of the judges' decisions? Is that where the bias is?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I am suggesting that a lot of the problems arise from the bias in the court system. However, a lot of the other bias also results from the parenting support programs that are around. Extensively, there is support for women. For example, in Ottawa—Carlton there is a custody and access support group; it's restricted to women only.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There's nothing to stop the men, as we can see, from becoming well organized.

However, my last question is are you aware of the fact that if the judge in the ordering of access orders notes in his judgment that the police are authorized to enforce this judgment, you do not have to go back to petition, that you can have the police enforce your orders?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: My impression is that the police are extremely reluctant to enforce access orders. It's also my understanding that the RCMP is starting to refuse to enforce access or custody orders in the areas—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Those were two things I wanted us to have on record, because it's important for us to look into that. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield, are you leaving now?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm going to put the question. Then I'm going to have to leave, unfortunately, because of the vote.

You made a statement that once fathers are removed from the family there aren't the resources to replace him. At the same time, you have said that there's a disproportionate amount of male income that goes to single custodial female parents.

Previously, a witness, a father who's no longer the head of his family, said that his experience is that the system impoverishes one parent while the other parent gets rich quickly. I'm wondering if you could clarify why you would say that there aren't the resources when there seem to be more resources flowing to...

I don't know if I'm going to have time to listen to the response or not; if I leave it's not because I'm not interested.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: There's an interesting reference in my submission to a study done in the United States. It looked at the amount of income women would have to get in order to bring their children—studying a lot of social indicators—up to the same level as if the father were there. They studied both single-father families and single-mother families. For the single-father family, it turned out there was a small difference, essentially about $6,000 for girls, but no difference for boys. But if you looked at the single-mother family raising a boy, that single mother would have needed an additional $52,000 in extra income to bring the child up to the same level as one being raised in an intact family.

Now, these are astonishing figures. It says that the replacement value of the father in an intact family, and most children are raised in intact families in Canada... I'm a father in an intact family. I've never been divorced. I've never paid child support or received child support. I calculated the cost, the contribution that fathers make. Essentially, it amounts to a half trillion dollars a year. That is the replacement value of fathers.

I don't think governments at all levels have a spare half trillion dollars to throw around to replace fathers. I didn't adjust for tax differences or differences in the American dollar compared with the Canadian dollar, but that's a figure that I think should scare anybody.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Excuse me, Mr. Cheriton, we have to now suspend the hearings.

• 1845

Senator Anne Cools: We absolutely support you on that, Madam Chairman, because there's not a member of the House of Commons here. That's number one. Number two, there are not six persons here; this committee should not be hearing witnesses or doing anything without six people present or without the presence of a member of the House of Commons.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): We're just suspending it until they return.

• 1846

• 1921

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Another five minutes.

Madam Pepin.

Senator Lucie Pépin: I'm going to speak in French because it's easier for me.

[Translation]

I would like to go back to your statement that men are more effective parents than women are. I'm going to play the devil's advocate a little bit. I wonder whether or not their success is due to the fact that most of the time, these fathers have a partner or a second wife who looks after the running of the house and who helps them with their parenting role, and to the fact that we are comparing them with mothers who have no partner or second spouse. As we all know, it is more difficult for a mother with children to find a spouse. She has to work outside the home, run constantly between the children, work and the daycare centre, all of this with a lower income. I would like to know whether the study took these differences into account and compared the situations. You can respond in English.

[English]

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Thank you.

First of all, the studies of single-father families were on single-father families and not remarried single fathers. So we are comparing single-father-headed households with single-mother-headed households, lone-parent families. But it is certainly true that a single-father-headed family has a much greater tendency to involve the women—his mother, sister, new girlfriend—in the parenting of the children. I don't think we should say that because the mother doesn't do this for whatever reason... I'm not making any judgment of her, but his success is his success, and if he does this by involving others in the parenting of his children then I think we should credit him with that success. If she is doing it through—

Senator Lucie Pépin: It's because I believe the situation is a little bit different when you look at both sides.

• 1925

Mr. Glen Cheriton: That is true. All I'm saying is that it is one thing—and I think this is my distinction—if the single father is involving, at no cost to society, no cost to the government, his sister, his mother, a new girlfriend, then we should credit him with that success, and not should be used to any—

Senator Lucie Pépin: But we have also to consider that the mother very often cannot get a boyfriend because she has kids also, and she has less revenue. That's all. I think we have to take things in perspective a little bit.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I'm not sure whether it actually is the mandate of this committee to provide boyfriends for single mothers—

Senator Lucie Pépin: That's not my point at all.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: However, my point is simply that there seems to be a suggestion that in fact single fathers, who are doing this by involving freely, at no cost to society, these other people in their parenting...whereas we have single mothers who are provided with enormous amounts of government assistance, women's shelters, parenting organizations, all of this costs large amounts of taxpayers' dollars.

There's a study from the Caledon Institute. I believe figures from it were published in the January 1995 issue of Chatelaine stating that the governments at all levels were spending $6.1 billion a year on single mothers. That's a pretty significant amount of money. To suggest that these women are involving day care and a lot of other support services, mostly taxpayer-funded... If a father can actually do a better job with non-taxpayer-funded support services he generates on his own in a non-traditional area, compared to an area that costs lots of money, let's give him some credit.

[Translation]

Senator Lucie Pépin: We're talking about two different things. Let's be very clear about this. It's all well and good to say that fathers don't use government money whereas the mothers are forced to do this, but very often, there are reasons for this. Their situation is a little bit different and the family is a bit different. Fathers have certain advantages, perhaps, that women don't have. I have nothing against that, but I would simply like to clarify things.

I would also like to know if

[English]

you know what the percentage is of men who want to be primary caregivers after a divorce. Do you have any statistics about that?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I don't have any figures on that. It's my understanding that in The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell publishes a figure stating that some 85% or 90%—I'll have to get the exact figure—of fathers would prefer to be home with their kids if it were financially possible. There was a study done by Dr. Leroy Stone of Statistics Canada of the amount of parenting and child care that fathers do within intact families. And it showed that in about 15% of the cases fathers were in fact the primary caregiver, and also that fathers, on average, did about one-third of the child care within intact families.

What I am concerned about is the fact that after divorce, the courts appear to be reducing that from 15% primary caregiver, or 33% of the child care, down to 4% or 5%. That seems to be clear evidence that the judicial system is in fact introducing a bias and disturbing what mothers and fathers view as being the ideal.

[Translation]

Senator Lucie Pépin: Do you mean that when divorce occurs, the fact that the fathers were the primary caregivers when they were married is not taken into account, and that custody is given to the mothers?

[English]

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Yes, I'm saying that there are a large number of cases where fathers are the primary caregivers and are losing to the mothers in court cases because of the bias of the system. I would point out that the Finnie-Strippinis study shows in fact that if you look at the custodial fathers, the ones who won sole custody, in fact their income in that study was substantially higher. So in fact what happens is that these perceptions may not be true that fathers always have this higher income and the higher income results in them getting custody of the children. The evidence, at least in Finnie's study, is exactly the opposite: that his high income actually means that he loses custody of the children.

• 1930

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): May I move on to Senator Cohen, please?

Senator Erminie J. Cohen (Saint John, PC): Thank you.

Mr. Cheriton, throughout these hearings, all through these last several months, we've heard many moving testimonies from fathers, and we've heard hostile comments from fathers about the whole situation of children and custody and access. And we believe that fathers count, and in the best interests of the child there should be contact with both parents. As one witness put it, just because mommy and daddy don't love each other any more, it doesn't mean that the child is not allowed to love mommy and daddy.

We've heard many allegations, also, about the gender bias in the programs and the dollars spent by government on women's programs, and women's research and support groups, and that no money is spent on any research, etc., on fathers. We've asked questions, and there really aren't that many statistics.

I notice in your recommendations—and by the way, we're not that far apart on many of your recommendations—in recommendation 9, you say:

HRD Canada should make a national study of fathering in all of its flavours: intact marriage fathering, divorced fathers, single dads, unmarried fathers, step dads & substitute dads.

I just wanted to say, because of the question marks, because of the concerns of so many witnesses who have come before us, and because we don't have the facts in all the cases to back up a lot of the concerns, that perhaps that might be a recommendation this committee could consider in a balanced judgment and being fair to both parents. So I just wanted to make the comment to you and have you react.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Yes, I think that's a marvellous idea.

One of the things I have some information on is that there have been a number of really interesting international conferences on fathering. In fact the United Nations has sponsored two of them. Canada has participated in neither of those two conferences. There wasn't a single representative from Canada. As far as I know, it's the only area of parenting, or involving the family, where Canada has been conspicuously absent.

I would like to point out another area, and that is when it comes down to Remembrance Day, in the ceremonies there's a Silver Cross mother and there's never been a Silver Cross father. So I think we have to have something not only of a practical research value, but there has to be something of symbolic value that says the government values fathers.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Isn't that because so many of the Silver Cross fathers were killed in action, because it wasn't the vogue then for women to be in the forces? So we recognize the woman as having lost her spouse, her son, or her brother?

Mr. Glen Cheriton: Yes, although it's generally what is a... Let's face it, it's a Silver Cross mother, so it is the mother of someone who has died in action. But let's not forget that in fact every child, every person who has sacrificed their life for Canada, in fact has a mother and a father. What we're saying is that loss is only sustained by the mother, it's not sustained by the father. The fact that we've never had one certainly indicates that fathers are viewed as being not part of the family, and it's the same thing in the Income Tax Act, where the Income Tax Act specifically states that the child tax credit is directed to the mother.

We have to do something practical. I think we also have to do something that shows to men that they are valued as parents.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Cools, did you have something you wanted to ask him to put on the record?

Senator Anne Cools: I had wanted to, but that was quite a while ago. I had wanted to clarify, but Senator Pépin tells me that clarification has taken place. I think it had to do with the use of the term “single mother” or “single father”. Single meant never married. A person who was married and divorced is not single, and there's a lot of confusion about it. Anyway, Senator Pépin tells me she is quite happy and satisfied.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Okay.

Mr. Szabo, we're already well over our time, but did you want a small question? Make it small, because otherwise we'll never get home, and we have another group to come.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I understand. I have one quick question.

The tone of your testimony has been, in my view, pitting men against women. I don't know whether you feel that is the way you came over. And I think that Senator Pépin's questions about are men better than women... I sense that members, and maybe the public at large, would like to get away from pitting men against women and try to address the humanity of the issues before us and what's right for children.

• 1935

I'd ask you to maybe just comment on my assessment.

Mr. Glen Cheriton: I'll certainly keep it short.

My intent is not to pit men against women. In fact I think a lot of the work I do is very much what I consider gender reconciliation, to get men and women working together. I find a lot of the work I do in supporting single fathers is very strongly supported by women. I got a lot of my references from women. I certainly do a lot of this to honour what I've learned from my wife and my mother about parenting. I also have three sisters. So if that came across, it certainly was not my intent.

I think there is bias in the system, and bias in the system is not an attack on women. The bias in the system hurts women as much as it does men, and it certainly damages children far more.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much, Mr. Cheriton.

Our three final witnesses for today are Mr. Brian Blak, Mr. Allen Crawford, and Mr. Marc Wickham.

Mr. Crawford, you may begin for five minutes, since we only have a half hour left now.

Mr. Allen Crawford (Individual Presentation): Yes, I understand. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I'm personally grateful for the existence of this committee and hold your objectives in the highest regard. I'm here to represent neither mothers nor fathers; I'm here to represent children.

You are in the laudable position of having an enormous positive impact on the lives of so many young Canadians. All too often divorce or relationship breakdowns seriously damage the children of those relationships. Why does this happen? How can we prevent it? This has been and continues to be the focus of my attention and my submission to this committee.

While I'm not an expert in the academic sense, I've had firsthand experience with divorce, both as a child whose parents divorced and as a divorced father. Unfortunately, in both cases the divorce had an immense negative impact on my life and the lives of my children.

It is too late for this committee to reverse or mitigate the damage done to my children. However, I urge this committee in the strongest term possible to use but one criterion to test each of your recommendations and the complete report: will this minimize the possibility of damage to the children of the marriage? I mean marriage in both the common-law as well as the legal sense.

Why does this damage occur? Contemplation of the answer to this question has led me to conclude that the only real reason behind this damage is the selfishness of one or both of the parents of a marriage. It really only takes one. The emotional pain and trauma suffered by one partner during many break-ups prevents that partner from maintaining a mature, responsible approach to parenting. Vindication becomes the goal of that partner, and the strongest weapon available for exercising that vindication is the children.

Certainly the Canadian method of addressing issues of divorce carries part of the blame as well. The judicial system, as it now exists, provides significant financial and emotional incentives to use the children as bargaining chips. I've struggled to understand how society can throw parents into an adversarial system and expect them to emerge as partners focused on mutually raising healthy, sound children. Therefore it seems to me our government has a responsibility to society and our Canadian children to change that paradigm. A paradigm shift is what brings me before this committee today.

Through my course work at university, I've learned that the more certainty there is in a person's life the less stress there is and lesser opportunity for conflict. Therefore my recommendations, which if given the chance I'd like to read into the record, focus on providing some certainty to the family's post-divorce paradigm. If this committee can frame a set of predefined conditions of divorce aimed at insulating the damage to the children, I believe the opportunity for conflict between the partners will be reduced and the children will benefit enormously.

I thank you for your time and consideration, and I pray that your work will successfully transform Canadian society and improve the lives of millions of our children.

• 1940

Now if you permit I would like to read the recommendations.

(a) Joint custody is automatically awarded to both parents.

(b) Sole custody shall be awarded only under one or both of the following conditions: that physical, psychological, or emotional abuse can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be exercised by the other parent; or one parent voluntarily gives up custody.

(c) Where practicable, dual residency for the children should be established. This will help equalize the time each parent spends with the child.

(d) Child support payments should be adjusted to account for the time spent with each parent. This will encourage each parent to spend as much time with the child as possible. In other words, the financial rewards are to spend time with the children, not the other way around.

(e) Family counselling should automatically be ordered by the family court for families who are breaking up and have children over the age of 12 still in full-time attendance at educational institutions. If the family is unable to unanimously agree upon the counsellor, the court shall appoint a counsellor. Family counselling shall continue as long as the counsellor recommends it. The cost of counselling shall be equally shared by both parents.

(f) Children over the age 12 who desire to change residency should be required to attend family counselling with the same conditions as above.

(g) Failure of a child to attend family counselling shall result in there being a reduction in the amount of child support being paid. Financial incentives to keep the children from maturing must be eliminated.

(h) Failure of a parent to attend the family counselling shall result in forfeiture of receiving child support and possible custody and access rights.

(i) Children over the age of 12 and attending an educational institution on a full-time basis shall be required to maintain an equal relationship with both parents. When a child fails to maintain a relationship they should be required to attend family counselling on a regular basis.

(j) To continue to be considered a child of the marriage, all of the following circumstances must be met. The child must continue to attend an educational institution on a full-time basis. The child must continue to maintain a relationship with both parents. The child must reside with at least one of the parents.

(k) Children who do not meet all of the above conditions can continue to be considered a child of the marriage, as long as the child meets all of the following conditions: the child suffers from a physical and/or psychological condition that in the opinion of the attending doctor deems to prevent the child from being responsible for himself or herself; the child receives continuous regular care for a physical or psychological condition; the child must continue to attend an educational institution, at least on a full-time basis; the child must continue to maintain a relationship with both parents; the child must reside with at least one of the parents.

(l) Parents of children of any age can be required by the court to attend family counselling upon application of the other parent. Such counselling shall continue until the counsellor deems a parent is no longer in need of counselling. Failure to attend such counselling shall result in the loss of receipt of child support and/or access rights to the child.

(m) If a counsellor determines that the parent receiving child support is exacting abuse, be that physical, emotional, or psychological, upon the child, the court may reduce the child support payments.

(n) At the behest of either parent or upon court order, an independent, responsible, and impartial representative of the children shall be appointed and heard by the family court. The cost of the representation shall be equally shared by both parents.

(o) No judge shall be appointed to the family court, nor be allowed to issue a judgment under family law, without first completing at least a minimum level of education in family studies and child psychology.

Once again, thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Mr. Blak.

Mr. Brian Blak (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I'd like to thank everyone for this opportunity to speak. I'm quite nervous. I'm sure that's very obvious. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

I used to be a proud Canadian, like most people in this country. I could never really put my finger on why I loved this place so much or what that all-elusive Canadian identity really was. I just knew this was the place to be and the best country in the world.

That's all changed for me now. Now I feel ashamed to call myself a Canadian citizen. I'm sick of the lack of leadership and common sense in this country. I feel this way because the system has broken down and it's not a pretty sight. It doesn't seem to offer much hope for the future. I feel this way because my two beautiful daughters, Sabina and Emily, don't get to see their dad much any more.

Why is that? There must be some reason, some dark secret. The trouble is, there is no dark secret. There really is no reason. The explanation for this is the system itself, the official and unofficial policies and practices of the judicial system, the Divorce Act, Bill C-41 and its guidelines, the legal community, and custody assessment practitioners. All of these representatives have one major blinding flaw: they do irreparable harm to thousands of children they so stridently claim to be helping.

How is this being done? It's being done by the divorce court system forcing fathers to prove their worth as caring, loving parents, to prove to the state that they raise their children in a way that is acceptable to the state, by judges who don't take the time to actually read custody assessment reports. That's something I'd like to emphasize: custody assessment practices in the divorce industry. These are a few of the skewed harsh realities predominant in the system.

• 1945

The bias in these reports is nothing less than shameful. When I can stand before you today and say that false accusations of child and spousal abuse levied against fathers is presented as factual in assessment reports, with no evidence whatsoever, what can you do?

When social workers' reports are given unread approval by judges, and psychologists' and psychiatrists' reports are ignored in favour of social workers', this is unjust. This is a form of misandry.

Myself, I never had a father, and I'm not looking for any pity because of that. That was a hard fact of my childhood. But I was very fortunate in having a loving mother who cared deeply for me, my brothers and sister. We were poor and raised on the system, but my mother taught us all well. Slowly but surely, I clawed my way out of the poverty hole. I went to college, I got a diploma, I began a career, and I've enjoyed and shared the rewards of that effort. I met a woman and we married. We planned our incredible children, bought ourselves a house, and everything was good—except that it really wasn't. The marriage turned out to be a bad match.

I'm not claiming to be blameless in the demise of my marriage. I wasn't perfect; we both weren't perfect.

I did everything society asked and expected of me, yet here I am. What was my crime? I work hard. I was not a person who ambled home late after a time at the local pub. I raced home to be with my kids. I've changed a thousand diapers, washed a thousand loads of laundry, cooked more than a few meals, and spent countless hours with my girls. Those hours flew by, those times are gone, and we want them back.

I'm not alone in this. I know by the records of this very committee that others have suffered false accusations and have stepped forward in their own attempts to right this wrong.

Bad marriages end and life goes on. Our children should not be suffering loss over the vast reductions in time they can spend with their fathers. Fathers are vital to children and to this society, and children should not be punished or used as pawns in some game of revenge. The cost is too high for all of us.

Every day now I live in pain because I miss my kids. Every day I live in fear that a check of my mailbox will bring another trip to the courthouse, another assessment or another false accusation.

I wish for what I've always wanted and once had: to be an active, involved father raising my children, whom I love, and I wish for the government of this country and its minions to desist from inventing and invoking policies that are intrusive far beyond reason into the lives of its citizens.

I want to live in the Canada that I used to know, a place where a person really is innocent until proven guilty, a place where everyone is truly treated equally under the law, and a place I can be proud to teach my children about.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you, Mr. Blak.

Mr. Wickham.

Mr. Marc Wickham (Individual Presentation): I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to share with the committee what my experience was with the divorce process, particularly with regard to child custody and access, so that you may gain a greater appreciation of the problems, inequity and unfairness of the current family law framework.

I've struggled to find the best form in which to present my major points concerning this complex, multifaceted and important issue, given the time constraint, and have decided simply to share my own personal story with you.

I'm a 36-year-old non-custodial parent of a seven-year-old daughter. I'm remarried and have an excellent relationship with my present wife, my mother and other women, and I have two additional children from my second marriage. I consider myself to be a person of integrity, well-educated, and brought up in an exceptionally good home. I did not at any time wish to end my relationship with my ex-wife. The decision to first separate and then end our marriage was made by her alone.

Because of the existence of no-fault divorce and the lack of emphasis on encouraging families to stay together, she was free to make this decision. I attempted to keep the family intact by organizing and attending family counselling, both in a first series of sessions prior to our separation and in another series of sessions following our separation. However, my ex-wife put only a half-hearted effort into this, preferring not to follow the advice of the counsellor, and terminated her attendance in the second series after only two sessions.

The first thing my ex-wife did was accuse me of being an abusive spouse and of abusing our daughter. It's notable that these facts never came out before, either in person or in counselling. My ex-wife never provided any details as to—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Excuse me. It's a little hard on the translators when you to speak so quickly. Just slow down a bit. Thank you.

Mr. Marc Wickham: I won't have enough time to go through my presentation. I do have a six-page submission.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): If you can skip a bit...

Mr. Marc Wickham: If it's considered anecdotal, and you need reference to the cases, I have all this information with me right here and I will be glad to provide it.

• 1950

My ex-wife never provided any details as to what the so-called abusive events were. These accusations had the immediate effect of alienating me from all of our previous friends and from her family. To this day, none of these people speak to me.

Every possible stalling tactic was used by my ex-wife and her lawyer in the legal process. First, they tried to dismiss my action on the basis of jurisdiction. Then they went on to discredit my character and accuse me of being an abusive father. I even had to spend three hours, at $200 an hour, to defend myself to my own lawyer.

I asked my lawyer what I could do about these false accusations and was told there was little I could do, and that should I wish to pursue this, it would cost significantly in terms of time and money, with uncertain results at best.

My parents and brothers were also accused. Activities and conversations I had with my daughter during visitation were scrutinized, and it got to the point where my family members felt seriously constrained in their dealings with my daughter, for fear of being accused once again.

After extensive reading and research, I realized that I would never gain joint custody of our daughter. The main reason was that in cases where the woman does not want to share custody—for whatever personal reasons she might have—the courts do not grant joint custody.

My ex-wife has since moved jurisdictions twice. Each time, the visitation rights have been amended significantly downward. My ex-wife told me that she always considered our initial agreement to be a temporary agreement and that she would not allow the extensive visitation that I had negotiated in the first agreement to carry on for more than one year. My ex-wife told me many times that she would prefer that I just abandon our daughter.

In the second amendment to the agreement, the false accusations started up all over again. This time, again without any supporting evidence, I was accused of being racist towards people of a certain ethnic group, the same ethnic group as that of the judge who was scheduled to hear our case that day, the same ethnic group my ex-wife's boyfriend belonged to.

My ex-wife's lawyer, who had never met or seen me, told me that a man of my character “did not deserve to get such visitation rights” as were being offered to me and that I should “just take what was offered and shut up”.

My rights to call my daughter daily were limited to a certain time of the day when my ex-wife and her new husband were not there, as the calls were considered disruptive by her new husband.

What has struck me throughout this process has been the complete lack of balance and fairness in the process. I have been falsely accused and denied equal rights to my daughter fundamentally because I am a man. I have had to suffer the majority of the negative consequences, the disruptions and the inconveniences of my first marriage's dissolution, even though I never wished to end the marriage.

My ex-wife unilaterally decided to end our marriage, showed a lack of cooperation in coming up with separation and divorce arrangements and maliciously utilized false accusations as part of a strategy to get me out of her life, while at the same time retaining all the benefits she could get from inside our marriage, including the benefits of living daily with her daughter and having access to quite a bit of support money, over which she would have sole spending discretion.

She has moved on with her life, having to bother little with the remaining negative consequences of our failed marriage. I, on the other hand, have to live daily with those consequences, and will have to do so for a large part of the remainder of my life. These consequences are very costly to me and to my new wife and family, as well as to my extended family.

I've managed to only touch on some of the major issues in the family law framework.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Senator Anne Cools: Madam Chair, do we have a citation for his case, since he refers very—

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Yes.

Senator Anne Cools: —particularly to certain events?

Mr. Marc Wickham: In regard to any agreements and amendments, etc., the first one was Superior Court, District of Montreal, 500-12-216-830-947.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): So-and-so versus—

Mr. Marc Wickham: Marc Wickham, plaintiff, versus Janice Gobert, defendant.

There were some amendments in the State of Michigan, 9th Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo, case number E960420TZ, Janice Gobert, plaintiff, versus Marc Wickham, defendant. And there was another one in the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo. Again, it was file number E960420TZ, at a different date.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Senator Pépin.

Senator Lucie Pépin: I want to thank you for your presentation.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, Senator—

Senator Lucie Pépin: It's okay. I don't mind.

• 1955

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I really wanted to point out that the same problem, which sounds very sad and very disheartening, of false accusation and custody and access took place in Canada as well as the United States, is that right?

Mr. Marc Wickham: That's correct.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Mr. Crawford, in your list of recommendations, there's one—I think it's recommendation I—in which you mentioned that children over 12 years old should spend equal time with parents. Could you read that one again? It's recommendation (i): a child over 12 years old should spend equal time with both parents.

Mr. Allen Crawford: It wasn't quite equal time. Perhaps if you were listening to the translation... It said actually in recommendation (k) and in other places as well, such as recommendation (j), that the child must continue to maintain a relationship with both parents. I was not necessarily focusing on time, I was actually focusing on a relationship.

Senator Lucie Pépin:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. Allen Crawford: Oh, did I? I'm sorry.

Senator Lucie Pépin: Yes, you said that was if they were 12 years old and going to school, or something like that.

My question is this. I do understand that it's very important for the children to see both parents, but when the children are becoming adolescents, if they were living with both parents together, maybe one weekend they would say that they wanted to spend some time with friends, and that would be acceptable. Now that both parents are divorced, sometimes they want to do that. But it seems that it's very difficult because one parent feels deprived. But put yourself in the child's place. I don't understand your recommendation very well because I think that at certain times, you have to let the children—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe recommendation (c) says “Where practicable, dual residency for the children should be established. This will help equalize the time each parent spends with the child”. That's just to clarify.

Mr. Allen Crawford: Yes. If I could provide clarification, I meant for that in the case of children under the age of 12 within the text of my submission.

I've broken the children down into three groups. Take children under the age of 12. Now in some jurisdictions, it's the age of 10. In essence, the court's ruling as to where the children should be residing as well who should have custody is typically 10 to 12 years old, and I drew 12 years. Those children should be treated by one set of rules.

As for children once they reach that age of 12 and until they are no longer children in the marriage, or until the age of 18, yes, I certainly do recognize the issues, as I've faced them myself.

I'm not focusing there so much on time, as about a relationship. I really don't want to drag my personal circumstance into this, because I'm not here representing myself, but I know the damage that has been happening to my daughter as a result of her not being required to have a relationship with me. The fact is that she's chosen, as an adolescent, not to have a relationship with her father. We don't allow children of that age to even vote for politicians and have one iota of an impact on their own personal lives in the lawmaking of society, yet we allow the children... In fact, we not only allow the children, but the court condones the support of a child who doesn't want to maintain a relationship with the non-custodial parent.

I'm not taking a gender side on this any more. The child should be encouraged at all costs to maintain a relationship with both parents. There should be incentives and an inducement of the custodial parent to ensure that the child does do so, because it's damaging to the child.

Senator Lucie Pépin: I agree. I felt that the onus was put on the child's shoulder for him or her to do that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Allen Crawford: Yes, the child should take some degree of responsibility. For allowing them to have the responsibility to choose which parent they want to live with should we not also then put on, with that same degree of responsibility, a responsibility to maintain a relationship and then to endure some consequences of failure to do so, much like we do as adults in our society. If we fail to abide by the rules of society, there are consequences of those behaviours. Unfortunately, in our society, under the family court law, that doesn't happen today.

• 2000

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you very much.

In your particular case, Mr. Wickham, with regard to the allegation, did you at any point determine or hear any allegations as to why the issue of allegations of abuse came up, or at what point in the proceedings was it brought forward? We're trying to understand a little bit about the prompting, if any.

Mr. Marc Wickham: They were used as procedural tactics in order to delay certain things, because my ex-wife had moved to various jurisdictions and hadn't had the residency requirements in order to move the jurisdiction to her jurisdiction, for instance. So they were used strictly in a procedural manner and also to encourage the expenditure of time and money, which then would entice us to negotiate out of court.

The process lasted 18 months in the first case, and the racist accusations were used specifically because we were determined to go in front of the judge.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Do you know what parental alienation syndrome is?

Mr. Marc Wickham: Yes, I do.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Was there evidence of that in your case?

Mr. Marc Wickham: No, there wasn't, because the accusations put toward me were completely wrong, and I have a very strong relationship with my daughter.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much.

Is there another question? Senator Cools and then Senator Cohen.

Senator Anne Cools: Mr. Wickham, in terms of the false accusations of which you speak, were criminal charges ever brought against you?

Mr. Marc Wickham: Never. It was just used in the court halls.

Senator Anne Cools: Does any of it show up in any of your documentation—statements of claim, statements of defence, notices of motion?

Mr. Marc Wickham: They don't show up in any of the actual documentation.

Senator Anne Cools: So these were actual threats.

Mr. Marc Wickham: Yes. You have to understand the legal process in divorce. Most of the activity in negotiation happens in rooms, in meetings with your lawyer, on the phone, etc. All these things happen outside of the court.

We only went in front of the judge when the agreement had been completed.

Senator Anne Cools: Good.

Okay, thank you, Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Senator Cohen.

Senator Erminie Cohen: I have a question for you, Mr. Blak. You had mentioned the whole procedure of forcing fathers to prove their worth. We heard from a witness in Halifax that he never had a chance to present his case in court. It was just cut and dried in favour of the other parent.

He had made a recommendation that in order to have a balanced hearing, if this has been the case, a history of the family relationship should be included when the court proceedings begin so that it would take care of that whole aspect of your case: Nobody listened to me, and nobody knew what a good father I was and how I love my daughter, etc.

That's something I wanted to present to you to ask you—any of you—if it would have made a difference in your court cases.

Mr. Brian Blak: I think it certainly would, and I still hope to be able to get to that point. I haven't actually managed to get to that point yet, even though I've been in this “situation”, if I can refer to it that way, for at least a year and a half. Things are ongoing for me, and I still feel I have not truly had an opportunity to be heard. I would very much like an opportunity to be heard.

I also would agree with your general statement that it would be very nice to have that process speeded up.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Thank you.

Mr. Crawford?

• 2005

Mr. Allen Crawford: I certainly very much support that.

Unfortunately, in the last case I went to, my wife chose to have my daughter enter an affidavit. It was entered at 3:30 p.m. on a Wednesday, and the trial started on Friday at 9 a.m. We asked for a recess in order to present evidence, basically filling in the blanks presented by the other side.

If there was a record of the relationship of both parents with the child—in my case, with both children—it would go a long way toward the court understanding a case.

One of the problems is the time judges spend on it. In my case, maybe an hour was spent judging my life and my children's lives with such a small insight into what happens. During the middle of my trial, my judge was interrupted to discharge a lien on a property. She seemed to exercise more concern for that process than the impact her judgment was going to have on my daughter—not on me. I'm not worried about me. I'm an adult. I'm worried about my daughter. I'm worried about my children. I can't do anything about them, but I can try to do something about every other child who's going to come through this whole process in Canada.

Senator Erminie Cohen: When you don't have a chance to be heard in court, or when you figure you have to prove your worth and nobody really is listening, or you feel that nobody is listening, do you think a history of your family relationship at the very beginning of your court procedures would have made any difference in the accusations—false accusations, as you say—brought against you?

Mr. Marc Wickham: Yes, but many issues come into play. My ex-wife happened to have her PhD in education. Her supposed credentials were never questioned. Whatever she said was considered the truth. I had many testimonials that could have attested to my good parenting, from friends, family, extended family, etc., but in a process that is rushed and where most of the action happens in back rooms, none of these particulars came out.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you.

Did someone else have a question?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm just curious as to whether there is a belief, from any one of the three of you, that if we removed much of this from the courts, established a proper kind of administrative tribunal, removed the lawyers from the scene and insisted upon mediation, things would have been different. Because I'm really interested in practical measures we can recommend. Poor law is made on exceptions. I think it's very important to have some basic and fundamental approaches to legal change.

So is it a change in the Divorce Act? Is it a change in the procedures of the court? Is it a change in the education and training of the judges? Is it a better type of mediation service, and should it be obligatory? Is it the nomenclature of custody and access that gives you winners and losers? Is it that nomenclature change?

What is it from your point of view, each one of you, that would improve the situation you currently find yourself in? Is it the impossible way the criminal court is struck, that you could be falsely accused and then suffer irreparable personal hardship and loss of friendship and family, that needs to be changed in terms of false allegations?

What is it that will allow you, Brian, to have access to those children?

Allen Crawford, I wouldn't buy your list for five minutes, but what is it that would make you feel that what you think would be good for your children would be the best thing to do?

Would you start, Marc, please?

Mr. Marc Wickham: Well, it's a lot of the things you mentioned, actually, but framing it in the right context. What do I mean by that? To have a presumption of joint custody in the first place would remove a lot of obstacles. If that were the starting point, then you could apply mandatory mediation, because there wouldn't be so much to fight for. There would be the implementation.

• 2010

On the issue of false accusations, there should be consequences to placing false accusations, because there appear to be none at this point. There are some, but they are costly and it's difficult to actually follow them through, especially when you're going through a major procedure. If there were some very strong measures discouraging false accusations, it would be very helpful as well.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

Mr. Brian Blak: I'd like to answer that question in terms of six recommendations I had written down but hadn't spoken of earlier. Hopefully they will address this issue.

I agree as well that there should be that a presumption, in practice, of equal shared parenting under the law. It should comprise equal responsibility in parenting time, health education concerns, all major decisions and financial concerns. Having that presumption there with the force of the law behind it might help to remove the incentive for false accusations to be made.

I believe as well that false accusations of abuse could be alleviated if they were treated as criminal offences and perhaps subject to the same legal repercussions as proven abuse is. Perhaps there should be a suspension of any representative's right to practise in their field if they knowingly present false or deliberately misleading accusations of abuse on behalf of those they represent. I'm not specifically referring to lawyers here, because I believe it would be helpful if that same doctrine were held to the social work industry, for instance.

If I can go on briefly, there should be a minimum legal requirement that custody assessment practitioners possess a PhD or a psychology degree. The establishment of a legal body under which social workers are accountable and liable would be helpful as well.

In my personal experience, I went through a custody assessment that was headed by two social workers with MSWs. I and many others, including those with psychology degrees, believe it was a very biased report. I think some accountability there would go a long way toward helping level the playing field.

One last point is that perhaps independent annual reviews of judges' performances would not be out of the question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: We haven't heard that one before. That's very good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Allen Crawford: I'm sorry you wouldn't buy my recommendations.

There are three points that need to be made. Generally, the first point is about mediation. We tried mediation. That was one of my first recommendations. Unfortunately, it didn't work, because all it takes is one party not wanting to exercise any degree of goodwill. It takes both parties walking in there with an attitude of wanting mediation to work. So forced mediation, without removing incentives to not make it work, will fail by itself.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do you believe in sole custody?

Mr. Allen Crawford: No, I definitely do not believe in sole custody. My first recommendation was presumed joint custody. Absolutely. I want both parents to play an equal role in raising the children.

The second point I want to make is also about family counselling. I really hate to make this on a personal basis, but today I seriously believe that both of my children would be much healthier if they'd had family counselling. My son today, thank God, is seeing a social worker, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist. He was a gifted intellectual student. He was a gifted child. He ended up living on the street for a short while, despite the best things I tried to do. He suffered from substance abuse. He is now a schizophrenic suffering from manic depression. He now has a wonderful team of experts working with him.

He chooses to live with his mother, despite the continued emotional and psychological abuse that is heaped upon him. I continually get calls from him—and I have them diarized—to help him get through those tough periods of time, with the sole recommendation to get his mother into continued psychological counselling, which is the same recommendation made by two independent psychologists.

I'm not speaking about this from a personal selfish point of view. I'm speaking about it for my children and to try to do something to assist other children.

• 2015

At the time of the break-up of my marriage I said to both children, “Get your own counsellors. This is something that goes on between your mother and me and there are three sides to this story. Don't ever listen to any of them if you can help it, but recognize that there are three sides: her side, my side, and the truth. And despite our best intentions to tell what we believe the truth is”—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think there are more than that. There's your view, her view, and your child's view, and then you might have the views of psychologists, sociologists, and all of the other interfering and helping professions.

Mr. Allen Crawford: Yes. Agreed. I think those other opinions tend to be biased on one side, the mother's or the father's, and that's why I bring the truth into the middle. But that's a moot point.

The point here is that I said to both my children, “Get a counsellor. I'll pay for the counsellor. You go on your own whenever you want, however you want. I'll never ask you about it.” Both my children were told by their mother that their father was the sick one, that I was the one who needed continued counselling. I can't tell you the breakdown of it. I don't want to go into the history of my case. But the point is that both my children would be much healthier today if there had been counselling.

Finally, I agree with a lot of what you had to say at the beginning of your recommendations. We could—I'll echo what Marc and Brian have both said—provide some certainty of what will happen after marital breakdown and say, “Look—if you want to break up your marriage, fine, but these are the conditions under which you will live.” It eliminates the opportunity for conflict between the partners. The more we can eliminate that conflict, the greater the probability is that our children will be raised by parents who are at least trying to work towards their common good.

So whatever recommendations this committee makes, eliminate the opportunity for conflict between parents. And in regard to mediation, unfortunately, my perspective is that it won't work.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, it often doesn't work. If there's no will in regard to the interests of the child and if there is continuing and ongoing bitterness that is taken out by injuring the children through nasty contacts between each other, certainly there's no way you're going to legislate that. But I think if it can give you some heart—or give all of us some heart—approximately 80% plus of all marriage and divorce dissolutions do work out.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that it's painful for all of you, and I personally thank you for coming.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Thank you very much, all three of you.

Senator Anne Cools: Chair, perhaps we could go in camera for a few minutes so that we can discuss our meeting schedule for this week.

The Joint Chair (Senator Landon Pearson): Okay.

Senator Anne Cools: We don't have a meeting tomorrow morning. We are concerned.

[Proceedings continue in camera]