[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 24, 1996
.1700 
[English]
The Chair: We're back for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-41.
On clause 1
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I would like to propose an amendment to clause 1, G-1. I think everyone has a copy of it and it's pretty simple. It's right there for everybody to read.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): Could you explain the background for why you need that amendment?
Ms Torsney: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary or the minister would like to comment.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): It appears this amendment is very self-explanatory. I don't want to waste the committee's valuable time.
The Chair: You might want to speak more slowly for Mr. Rideout.
Mr. Rideout: I don't understand it at all. Does the underlining mean anything?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 1 as amended agreed to
The Chair: There's a new clause following clause 1.
Ms Torsney: Yes, there's government amendment G-2. It's to add a paragraph. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to comment.
The Chair: This requires a judge to inquire if reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of a child and to stay the divorce until the arrangements can be made, putting the interests of the child first. Is that correct?
Ms Wendy Bryans (Counsel, Child Support Initiative, Department of Justice): That would be correct.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Shall the new clause carry? Any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): Clause 1 is definitely not carried, because the second amendment is on page 3. You are going a little quickly. In any case, it does not change much. I just wanted it duly noted that clause 1 was carried on division.
[English]
The Chair: That's okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: In sub-clause (4) of clause 1, there are the words ``may'' and ``shall'', with which I disagree. So the clause is carried on division.
And I see here you're adding another clause. That's nice.
[English]
The Chair: So the new clause carries, on division.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No. It's on clause 1.
[English]
The Chair: Let's go back again.
Clause 1 agreed to on division
The Chair: Shall the new clause carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No problem.
[English]
Clause 1.1 agreed to
On clause 2
Ms Torsney: I have some amendments:
[Translation]
G-2.1, G-2.2, G-3.1 and G-4.
[English]
To take G-2.1 first, it's just a change to the French. I think G-2.2 is also just to be grammatically correct in French.
Do you want to vote on those two first or do you want me go through them all?
The Chair: Why don't you just go through them all?
Ms Torsney: G-3 is rather lengthy, so I won't read it into the record. G-3.1 is for resolution in French and G-4 is new.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: After reading amendments G-2.1, G-2.2, G-3 and G-3.1, I have no problem with them. I imagine you agree as well.
However, I would like some explanation about G-4.
[English]
The Chair: So we would just vote on G-1 to G-3.1 first. Shall amendment G-2.1 carry?
.1705
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall G-2.2 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall amendment G-3 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall amendment G-3.1 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: On amendment G-4 we would like some explanation. Can the parliamentary secretary or one of the officials assist us?
Mr. Kirkby: It's my understanding that this amendment allows a spouse who initially may not receive spousal support...upon determination of child support benefits being paid, he or she can come back to the court to have spousal support awarded. It's just so they're not stopped from coming back and making application for that.
The Chair: Which covers the old common law problem that would have arisen.
Ms Torsney: Just to clarify, the current situation means you can't go back?
The Chair: What happens now in a divorce order typically is if you don't want to preclude the spouse from having support for the rest of his or her life you make an order for a dollar support, so there is something that can be varied. If you order is silent on spousal support you're out of luck forever. This gets rid of that problem where there's child support. Once the child support stops, it's considered to be reasonable grounds for the spouse to reapply.
Ms Bryans: The reason we did that is so you can come back. But this is also asking that they record reasons at the time for why there were insufficient funds to award spousal support, so you have a hook to come back on.
The Chair: Does that also then obviate some of the problems the Canadian Bar Association raised?
Ms Bryans: This is an amendment in response to the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau de Québec.
The Chair: Also to Ms Curtis earlier.
Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I know this amendment was introduced as a result of the comments made by the Canadian Bar Association. However, I would like to understand why it is necessary to clarify clause 15.3(2). I don't think this amendment adds anything. You are suggesting that we add the following:
(2) Where, as a result of giving priority to child support, the court is unable to make a spousal support order or the court makes a spousal support order in an amount that is less than it otherwise would have been, the court shall record its reasons for having done so.
What does that add? Does the court not do that normally?
Ms Lise Lafrenière Henrie (Legal Advisor, Child Support Team, Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice): That is precisely the point, the court does not usually do that. When the court does not make a spousal support order, it does not necessarily give the reasons for this in all cases. We would like the court to state that this is being done because the amount of the child support order was such that it was impossible to award a spousal support order.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I see. Could these grounds also be used to appeal the decision?
Ms Lafrenière Henrie: No not necessarily to appeal the decision, but when application is made for a variation order or for a spousal support order.
Mr. Bellehumeur: That's fine.
[English]
The Chair: So it provides a base for a variation later. It's a good idea.
Shall amendment G-4 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 2 as amended agreed to
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to
On clause 5
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): I move clause 5 be amended.... You have it. Clause 5 is fairly obvious.
.1710
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to confirm that the objective of this amendment is to make sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) cumulative.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall amendment G-6 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 5 as amended agreed to
Clause 6 agreed to
On clause 7
The Chair: The amendments to clause 7 are G-6.1 and G-7.
Mr. Rideout: I'll move both of those. We might as well deal with both at the same time, because they're tied together. These are just routine clarification amendments.
Mr. Bellehumeur: G-7 will be on division.
The Chair: Shall amendment G-6.1 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: And G-7 will be on division.
What's the problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Amendment G-7 is to clause 11, not clause 7.
[English]
The Chair: The only amendment to clause 7 is G-6.1, so that means clause 7 can carry unanimously. Right?
Clause 7 as amended agreed to
The Chair: For clauses 8 through 18 inclusive I see there are no amendments.
Ms Torsney: I have an amendment to clause 12.
The Chair: Can clauses 8, 9, and 10 carry?
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to
Clause 10 agreed to on division
On clause 11
The Chair: On clause 11 there's amendment G-7, moved by Mr. Rideout. Can G-7 pass on division?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 12
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
.1715
Ms Torsney: I'm not sure the amendment has been circulated. Basically it's to move on line 22, ``within five years'', down to line 25, I believe. This was to clarify the issue raised by NAWL and REAL Women that the justice department will continue to monitor and review the federal child support guidelines and make determinations, but that the report to Parliament is the thing that happens at five years. That will make sure people understand they are being constantly updated or there is a potential for update where there's a need, but it's the report to Parliament that's at the five years. I believe this also brings it into better line with the French version, which was clear that it was the parliamentary report that went in after five years.
Mr. Rideout: So is this a preamble to your amendment.
Ms Torsney: Yes, it's to tell you what it was.
I'm not sure the clerk has the amendment to read specifically.
The Chair: Yes, we have it here.
Ms Torsney: It wasn't circulated to the rest of us.
[Translation]
The amendment would change the English version only.
[English]
The Chair: So you see, it doesn't count in French.
[Translation]
Ms Torsney: In French, it is very clear.
[English]
The Chair: You don't have to worry about it, Michel.
Ms Torsney: It's not necessary in French.
[Translation]
Perhaps that is because it is more specific in French.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Wait, I will reread the wording.
[English]
The Chair: Time is up here. We're in a hurry. We want to get you home.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Okay - but on division.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 13 to 18 inclusive agreed to
On clause 19
The Chair: There's an amendment, G-7.1.
Mr. Rideout: So moved.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 19 as amended agreed to
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to
On clause 22
Mr. Telegdi: I have an amendment to make on clause 22. You all have it. If you want to look it up it's on page 18. It deals with the bottom two lines. Of course as I have the floor on this particular amendment I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary at what point we can examine the effectiveness of the enforcement measures, as the delegation asked us the other day. I think that's something that lies really at the very heart of dealing with child support and guidelines.
Mr. Kirkby: I think the department will be reviewing the effectiveness of this legislation, both the guidelines and the enforcement measures, on an ongoing basis, as was indicated by one of the hon. members. A report will be due to the House of Commons within five years, but before that an ongoing review will be made of both the guidelines and the enforcement provisions to ensure things are working. In the event that better ways can be found to ensure compliance with court orders, I'm sure those changes will be brought forward.
.1720
Mr. Telegdi: Could you make it nice and simple? When did you say we were going to do the enforcement measures - not at five years but before that?
Mr. Kirkby: The review of how effective enforcement measures are will be done starting as soon as the bill is passed and implementation and usage of the act begins.
Mr. Telegdi: And this committee will deal with it when? We can deal with it before five years.
Mr. Kirkby: This committee can deal with it tomorrow if it likes. The review will be done by departmental officials commencing immediately upon its passage and its use.
Ms Torsney: I wonder if the department officials could explain how this clause will work. Would the order to take away the passport be issued by the Department of Justice, or can I instigate, to have my support orders paid, a motion to have this passport revoked?
Ms Marilyn Bongard (Legal Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice): It's done upon application from the provincial enforcement director. It's accompanied by an affidavit that sets out that all the statutory provisions have been met; in other words, that he's in persistent default and that all the other statutory conditions have been met. As soon as we get the application and it meets all the proper statutory requirements the Minister of Justice must inform the relevant ministers responsible for issuing the licence to deny them.
Ms Torsney: Is this a change from the current practice?
Ms Bongard: There is no licence denial scheme. This is brand new. It has been done at the provincial level with drivers' licences. This is our attempt to do what we can at the federal level with licences that are issued federally and to show some leadership and encourage the other provinces that haven't yet come on board to do so.
Ms Torsney: So in my case, as one who lives in a province that does not have a provincial enforcement body -
Ms Bongard: There aren't any. They all have them.
Ms Torsney: What if I can't get my provincial enforcement body, because they're overworked, to act on this? Does this need to be changed in the legislation, or is it an administrative process? If we see that it's not happening, that they're not using one of these tools, could we work on a new system without making changes to the legislation?
Mr. Kirkby: I think that sort of thing would simply be part of the ongoing review that would be done by the department. If there are areas where it's found things aren't working, steps will be taken to improve the process.
Ms Torsney: But would the legislation have to be changed, or is it an administrative function?
Ms Bongard: We have no information at the federal level about default. That's all done provincially. That's why this application is required: to let us know there's a persistent defaulter out there. There's no enforcement agency at the federal level, and there doesn't need to be, because there's one at the provincial level in each of the provinces. It's dependent on their making the application.
The answer is that if you want to make sure, you have to go to the provincial enforcement agency and remind them of this provision. They will be aware of it. We've been told they plan to make use of it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 22 as amended agreed to
.1725
Clauses 23 to 31 inclusive agreed to
On clause 32
The Chair: Amendment G-9. Who will speak to that?
Mr. Rideout: So moved.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr. Rideout: This is a very important amendment and I hope you will all support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: What does this amendment add? What did you forget to state in the bill?
[English]
Ms Bongard: This is an amendment to the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. It's required to respond to an amendment that was recently made to the Public Service Superannuation Act. GAPDA allows for garnishment of pension benefits. A new pension benefit called a ``transfer value'' has been added to the superannuation act. We want to make sure it will be diverted for support enforcement purposes, and that's the purpose of this amendment. It was put in subsequent to Bill C-41.
Mr. Kirkby: I was just about to bring that up.
Mr. Rideout: Oh, right. If you had done your homework you would know that.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
Clauses 33 to 38 inclusive agreed to
On clause 39
The Chair: Amendment G-10. Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: That's just to correct the language.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 39 as amended agreed to
Clauses 40 to 42 inclusive agreed to
The Chair: I see there's an amendment to the schedule, G-11.
Mr. Rideout: So moved.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry, on division?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I've a question for the parliamentary secretary: did you find your work difficult this evening?
[English]
The Chair: I need a motion that the bill as amended be reprinted as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: I need a motion that the chair report the bill with amendments to the House as the third report of the committee.
Ms Clancy: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Can I just say to these officials how pleasant it was to work with them. We appreciate your assistance. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.