[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 3, 1995
.1107 
[English]
The Chairman: I think we had better get started. We've taken a long five minutes. We took a metric five minutes.
This morning, again continuing with Bill C-232, we have Nancy Wooldridge as our witness. She is the president and founder of Canadian Grandparents Rights Association. Seated with her is Daphne Jennings, the MP who introduced the bill.
Ms Wooldridge will be making the presentation and there will be questions after. Please proceed.
Ms Nancy Wooldridge (President and Founder, Canadian Grandparents Rights Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe we have presented the letters to you and so on, so I'm just using these as a deliberation. There are a few points I would like to talk on.
The first is the Canadian Bar Association letter from Steven Andrew. I'd like to say that in my opinion he only represents a very small number of people, roughly 10 people. It is not the association itself. Actually, he's been looked into, with his comment to Mr. Allmand. It was written to him. I think you saw this the last time I was here. There are lawyers in British Columbia who have really taken up this cause and find this man is incorrect. I believe there are letters that have been handed out to you stating that.
I'll do a little bit about the Grandparents Rights Association. I believe I have 15 minutes, so I have to do it fast.
The Chairman: You can take what time you have to.
Ms Wooldridge: Thank you.
The Chairman: You can take more than that. It'll just cut down the questions and answers after that.
Ms Wooldridge: I formed this association in 1984. We became a society in 1986, registered provincially. In 1990 we became federal.
In 1985 we, as a small group, were the ones responsible for amending the Divorce Act, that any third party could apply for access, visitation and/or custody. That was our first step into protecting our children, the best interests of the children.
The best interests of the children are to be able to see their extended family, whether they have grandparents, aunts and uncles, or whatever. So this was protecting us, but we had to take leave of the court after the Divorce Act. And I might add, the Canadian Bar Association knows this clause is in the Divorce Act, but how many times do they tell laymen like myself that this law is in in Canada, in the Divorce Act? They don't tell us at the time of the divorce, or separation, or death, or whatever. So we have to go back to court and make another application. This can cost up to $30,000 to $50,000, and I have proof of this. I'm not exaggerating.
.1110
Grandparents today do not have that amount of money. The majority of us don't. There are a few affluent ones out there. I, for one, do not have it. It cost me quite a bit for my court case. This is why I started this organization, because there are other people out there who need help. This is what we are trying to avoid, the cost of this litigation to actually see our grandchildren. It should be a right, not a privilege.
Going back to starting this association, we started out with 30 members. Now we have thousands across Canada. We're affiliated with the 50 states in the United States that have laws concerning grandparents similar to the one we're asking for. England put a law through not too long ago. In 1994 New Brunswick passed a similar law, and Halifax is working on one.
If this goes into the Divorce Act, which is what I'm asking for on behalf of all these grandparents and grandchildren, it is in the best interests of our grandchildren. Let's work on that. It is not for lawyers and not for grandparents, but in the best interests of the children, for their hereditary rights, stability and the unconditional love that we can give them, plus the financial help.
This is a very important bill to put through. We have been working on it for six years. I cannot see why the legislature will not let it go through, when they did the course before in 1986 when the divorce law was amended. We're not asking for the sun, moon and stars. We're asking for the right to be told if there's going to be a divorce and an action to be taken for custody and/or visitation.
I've addressed this bill so many times I can't understand.... Most of us here are maybe not quite seniors or are seniors. Maybe some are grandparents. Until you actually experience being a grandmother, lived through cancer, as I have, survived to see my grandchildren, lived through the death of my husband, lived through the death of my mother - all this and now I have nothing left but my grandchildren. That's all I have now. It's wonderful, but I had to fight for them.
Now I'm a great-grandmother. Thank goodness I lived long enough to see that. I may go tomorrow or six weeks down the road, or maybe I'll live to be 90. Who knows? But if you have not experienced being a grandparent, it is not fair to judge this situation.
Thousands of petitions have been sent in over this last year. Please adhere to them, because we are grey power. People out there are upset that we are not getting what we need for our children.
The scope of the problem in Canada is wide, very wide, through drugs, alcohol and abuse. Mental, physical and sexual abuse is very widespread among our young people today. We are there to bring those children out of that situation if possible.
Not one of us wants to be a second-time-around parent, believe me, but we're living longer, we're younger and we know what the problems are out there. We try to protect our grandchildren from doing the same things their mothers and fathers have done.
I don't have in front of me the statistics for all of Canada, unfortunately - I didn't have time for that - but in B.C. alone in 1994 there were 4,400 divorces. Of those 4,400 divorces, three-quarters of them were in custody orders. Not one lawyer or judge asked if there was a third party interested. Usually it is the paternal side that is cut off from seeing their grandchildren, so we had to go back to court. We had to go and fight again, which costs a lot of money. However, if you amend this and this law comes in, then it gives us a right to have a standing in the court.
Yes, there are about 5 million grandparents raising grandchildren in North America. Those are the statistics I have. We have an organization in Vancouver, B.C., called Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and we have probably about 22 grandparents just in the Vancouver area alone raising their grandchildren.
.1115
It's not that we wanted to do this, but it's necessary. We do not want our children to go to foster care. We don't want them to go to some strange home, because the statistics we have prove that when they do go into a strange home or away from their extended family they end up out in the streets, on drugs, into alcohol, prostitution, and crime.
I live in Ladner, British Columbia - Delta. I spent one year on the family youth court and family court in Ladner last year. I attended the court as a friend of the court. The children who came into the courtroom.... We did a small research project on the ones who came in. Quite a few of them came in in the Delta area. We asked afterwards, do you have your grandparents around, or your aunts and uncles? Oh, yes, we do, but I can't see them. Why? My mom won't let me. They're having a fight. They're arguing this and that.
This is why these children are out on the streets today. We could prevent a lot of this crime if we could keep our status as grandparents, because we will teach our children what is right and wrong. Parents don't have that time today. We all know the kids have lost respect, or a lot of them have. They're out there fighting each other in gangs, killing people and so on and so forth. We don't want that. With us being able to have access to these children, we can help them.
But the fact that we are being cut off...then the children think we have abandoned them, and the children think we are no good, because their little minds have been poisoned. In fact we have probably been the mainstay of their whole life from the time they're born. We're the best resource a parent can have.
Yes, if there are disputes and arguments in the family, fine, they can overcome these. There's mediation. But we have found in most of our cases...and last year in British Columbia we had 87 successful cases of grandparents obtaining access or custody.
Most of these grandparents are footing the bill to raise these children, or they look after the children anyway, if they just have access. They pay for taking piano lessons, schooling, private schools, or whatever, and they pay for horseback riding lessons, dancing, and so on and so forth. So we do take a lot of the stress off the parents.
So there were 87 successful cases in 1984. Most of the cases...because you do not have statistics on all of these - I do, because they came to our association - because they go unreported in the courts. They're not all reported issues. Some are in family court. Even the ones that go through the Supreme Court aren't always reported. It's hard for the lawyers here to obtain a lot of this information, but if they'd like to get it from me, I can give it to them. I have it.
The main issue is access and visitation. Custody is a different thing. It should be in there, because there are times when both parents are deceased and children have been left orphans. I'll give you a for instance.
We had one grandparent who went to get custody of four children because the mother and father beat up on the children constantly. The father is now serving time in jail. He almost killed his daughter. This is in the courts and it is reported; it was in the newspaper. The mother was in the bingo hall all the time and on drugs and alcohol, cheating on her husband, going out and not coming home at night, leaving the kids alone. Finally there was a separation. This mother had taken the children herself, but she still left them alone until a neighbour complained.
Then they got hold of the grandparents. Fortunately the neighbour knew the grandparents.
It took over a year for the grandparents to be able to get custody of these children to protect them, because they were apprehended by the ministry and put into foster care. All four children were separated into four different foster-care homes. They all felt nobody loved each other; two girls and two boys, brothers and sisters - all these siblings. They cried all the time. They screamed. They wanted to have their grandmother. They wanted to have their brothers and sisters. Nobody would listen to them. This occurred two years ago.
.1120
Crystal is the young girl. I'm going to say her name because she's very proud. She sent me pictures. She's given me pictures of her brutality. Police took pictures of her in the hospital. This little girl - she's only 11 years old - is very mature for her age. She was beaten so badly you couldn't even recognize her. But after a year the grandparents were able to step in, through very costly litigation, and get custody of these children so they could all come together again.
This is our issue. We want to have access, visitation and, if need be, custody. There are times we have to step in to get custody because of drug and alcohol abuse. It's worldwide. In the United States, fifty states have a similar law. I can't see why Canada cannot make this universal. I'm glad fifty states have this law.
My mother lived in the United States as a Canadian. Her grandchildren, her great-grandchildren and her great-great-grandchildren were here. We have people living in Canada who have grandchildren in the United States. We have grandchildren all over the world.
England has now recognized this. Why can't we have a law like England's? We've been under English law for many years; we should have the same thing. The only ones who do not recognize it are our federal government members. I think it should be changed. There are many upset people out there and there are a lot of upset children.
Grandparents do not really want to raise their grandchildren. We'd rather see them, have fun with them and take them to a movie or out to a park. We don't want to blow their runny little noses and all this type of thing - we've gone through this - but it's necessary, because of what we have out here in this world. None of you here, unless you understand, know what the real world is until you get into a situation like mine. I go deeper than the lawyers. I go right into the hearts of the children and their grandparents. I see what's happening. Nobody here knows what the real world is.
You come into this building and you sit here and listen to me and to other witnesses; you go out again and you go home. What's out there is very bad. The whole scenario out there is not good. As we all know, if you read the newspapers, the drug and alcohol and abuse is so bad amongst families. I hear it from thousands of grandparents a year. There are grandparents in this gallery behind me today who have heard it all too. I'm affiliated with every grandparent organization across North America and Europe. It's worldwide. It's a very serious thing.
If we do not get this enacted in this bill, it's not going to help us or your future children at all. We would like to be able to protect our future children. Some day we'll be grandparents. We want this law so that they know we are there for them and so we won't have some custodial parent say that because a son divorced her, he's no good and the grandparents aren't wanted.
We don't divorce our children. We do not divorce our grandchildren. And the grandchildren do not divorce us.
We've had so much input in their lives from the time they're born, when there's a special bonding. I visualized in my own case, when this happened to me, that my grandchildren were the love of my life and they loved me. All of a sudden the new stepfather said I was no longer going to be the grandparent. This happens many times.
So in order to save this new spouse from telling these grandparents on the paternal side that they cannot see their grandchildren, let's put it in the law first. Let's protect these kids first. It's very important.
In the case of my grandchildren, it cost me thousands and thousands of dollars out of their estate money, but I went to court and won the first case in Canada. I'm very happy because it set a precedent, but it's only as good as the paper it's written on. We have to have it in law. It has to be mandatory.
It could happen to any one of you here. You don't know when. You can't predict your children's future when they marry. It's very hard when you hold a brand-new baby in your hands and you know that that's your grandson, to whom you helped give birth, and five years down the road some person is going to say you can't be the grandparent.
.1125
It's blood and family. This is what it is. You can't change the blood. You might change the name or send him away or hide him somewhere to keep him away from us and think that we're the bad people, but you can't change the blood. They have to know their hereditary roots. They have to have that stability and that unconditional love, and we must be there in case they need us.
My granddaughter just produced my great-grandson in May. She came to me at the age of 13 and said ``Grandma, I understand you fought for me in court. Am I ever glad you did that. I love you so much.'' She said, ``That proves to me how much you love me, Grandma, that you went into court and fought for me.'' And I said, ``Yes, and I'd do it again and again if I had to.'' If I had to.
Now, I believe you have a copy of the letter from Mr. Culhane of MacQuarrie Hobkirk.Mr. Culhane is on our board. He is a seasoned lawyer. This is a very wonderful and upstanding firm that has taken on our cause in British Columbia. And Sheila Keat from Campbell, Froh, May & Rice - I don't know if you have a letter from her. She also is a grandmother.
Mr. Culhane is a grandfather. He raised five grandchildren, and he obtained custody of his grandson only after he came to one of our meetings to ask us if he should do this. He has said that after he retires, which is not too long from now, he will continue on with our cause until we get this law passed.
The majority of lawyers in British Columbia want to see this law passed because taking these kinds of cases into court is not really necessary. We are fighting over human beings. We're not chattel. We're not a piece of baggage or luggage. It's a human being that we're interested in, in the best interest of our children. The human being is our child or children.
Most of the lawyers in B.C. - and I can state this for a fact - do not want to have this type of thing in court, nor do the judges. They would rather have it done as we are requesting now so that at the time of a divorce or separation we can have continued access and visitation rights.
Somewhere down the line if something happens to the parent or parents, we may have to go for custody. We really don't want to, but the provision is there for us to do it now - to go for custody. But it's the access and visitation that we need. It is so important to keep our family units intact.
Last year was the Year of the Family and the federal government sent me a beautiful plaque in appreciation for the work I had done in helping these families get back together. I was hoping last year when we had this bill going through, before Mrs. Jennings put it in, it would have passed in the Year of the Family, but unfortunately it didn't. Hopefully it will now.
I can't express how important it is - if you can get out there and see the real world and mingle a bit amongst people and children - that we keep our family units together. If we don't keep these children together we're going to have a worse mess out there.
The Chairman: Ms Wooldridge, I'm sure you want some questions from the members of Parliament.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
The Chairman: Before we start with ten minutes with Madame Venne, I will simply ask you one matter. You have indicated that 87 have applied and received access and/or custody in B.C.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
The Chairman: I take it that it's under the existing B.C. legislation that deals with access and under the Divorce Act with custody, or the provincial legislation with custody. Can you just, in a nutshell, tell us how this legislation would change that situation or not? How would it improve the situation as it exists now in B.C. where 87 have received access or custody?
.1130
Ms Wooldridge: We, as grandparents, would have to be notified immediately if there was a divorce or separation in which there is a custody problem. When someone goes in for a divorce or for custody, the onus would be on the lawyers or the judge to ask whether or not there is a third party with interests. It would be mandatory that we would be notified. We could then go in with the divorce action, have the lawyer present it at the same time, and just ask the judge that there be a continuation of access and visitation unless it is otherwise proven that the grandparents are not fit - and there are some grandparents out there who are not fit, I suppose. But the onus would be on the parents to then justify why they do not want the grandparents to see their grandchildren.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms Venne.
Ms Venne (Saint-Hubert): You mentioned a number of times that we members of Parliament live on another planet. You mentioned the real world outside. I would like to point out that, despite what you said, we do have private lives and we frequently do things away from the committee.
I would also like to tell you that the Toronto Star of September 20 mentions that letter from the Canadian Bar Association's family law section and says:
[English]
``The association said the bill will do nothing to benefit the children that Jennings seeks to protect".
[Translation]
I would like to know what you think of this. Don't you think it is the grandparents' interests that are being protected by this bill, and not the childrens'?
[English]
Ms Wooldridge: Madame Venne, we cannot speak for our children, and we aren't speaking for our children. The grandchildren do not have a voice for themselves, especially when they're two or three years old, or five or six. They can go to their mother or father and say they want to see grandma and grandpa, but if their mother or and father says no, they can't do it. So we are going to be the voice for our grandchildren. We have to call it Canadian Grandparents Rights Association. I realize what the bar is saying - I saw that notice, and I also have the letter here - but they are incorrect.
There are seasoned lawyers out there who know different, who have handled many of these cases. Some of the lawyers who may be in this room and who have been speaking are young and may not have had many grandparent cases or many divorce cases. The bill, as you asked me, will help protect our grandchildren, help them to know their hereditary roots and to have that stability. That is why we need this bill.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: As Mr. Bodnar said earlier, in proceeding by petition, grandparents can now be part of the litigation.
.1135
Don't you think that Bill C-232 is redundant and is likely to cause more congestion in a system that is already overloaded?
[English]
Ms Wooldridge: The system has been proven and we also have statistics, if you readMr. Culhane's letter. He has done all this research. Fifty states in the United States have not had extra litigation since this has been going on, nor has England or New Brunswick. It will not clog the system.
It allows us to let our children - not our grandchildren - who are divorcing know that we have a standing with them to keep having visitation and/or access. It will not clog the courts.
Right now the courts are being clogged with litigation because we have to apply after the fact, which is very costly, as I stated before. We have to go to court after the fact of the divorce. Right now if we get this bill through it will give us standing.
As Mr. Ramsay said, Quebec's Civil Code is what prompted us, when I did all my research many years ago in the law and legal library looking up different articles and saw this grandfather clause in Quebec. It is very distinct, as is Quebec. At one time we tried to have this applied nationally for every province. When Dr. Stan Wilbee was in Parliament, he spoke up for us, but there were too many other things happening - referendums and things - and it was just put on the back burner. It got shoved away twice, as a matter of fact.
Thousands of grandparents across our country and many lawyers and mediators in the profession feel that if we are given leave at the time it would save a lot of litigation; it would save extra heart-break. Seniors shouldn't have to go into court for the first time in their lives to fight over their grandchildren. Lets face it; they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us. We gave birth to our children for them to have children. It is not necessary for us to have to go into court to fight for human beings. It is crazy, it is ludicrous.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: Don't you think that the parents of divorced children should have more rights than the grandparents in families that have not divorced? Because of the wording in the bill, as was mentioned before, the parents of divorced children will be entitled to information to which the others are not entitled.
[English]
Ms Wooldridge: Madam, you see, the other grandparents are intact, the family is intact. They are going to have that information anyway.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: Not necessarily.
[English]
Ms Wooldridge: Not necessarily?
Ms Venne: No.
Ms Wooldridge: I think they can probably go to court and do what they want to do if they don't have that information. I won that in court. The judge gave me the right to know about the well-being, the phone number and address of my grandchildren at all times. He made that an issue.
Today is my grandson's 21st birthday, and I am here and not celebrating with him, and tomorrow is my birthday. My grandson has epilepsy, and he got it from his second father as a result of brutality and trauma. Thank goodness the judge gave me the right to know where that child was and be able to find out about his health, schooling and well-being, because I am able to help him. I help him with my love, my kindness and my finances. He has lost his grandfather, but that's okay; I carry on the name for him there too.
Thank goodness the judge gave me that right, because as long as I am alive my two grandchildren will be protected from whatever is out there. I will always be beside them. There are many grandparents out there who want to do this. As I said, it is a right and not a privilege to be able to see one's grandchildren. If the family isn't intact or if there is a feud or dispute, they have to settle that.
.1140
I would also like to state that as a result of the 87 cases we had last year I have 87 letters, 87 pictures of grandchildren and 87 drawings all over my walls. These children contact me to thank me for helping their grandmothers and grandfathers so they can be back in their lives. These are in my office. You're free to go there to see my walls. They are covered, because we brought these families back together. I need a bigger office.
But I can't keep doing this. I'm getting old and tired and I need to retire. But I want this in the law so people are protected and we can go on with our lives.
Out of these 87 grandparents, I happen to know that the custodial parents have made amends with close to 60 grandparents. It's wonderful because they're no longer fighting, they're no longer unhappy, and it has brought them back together again. That little child in the middle has brought back the happiness that was once there. In some of these cases, we've even seen where the father and mother have become friends because of the grandparents and the grandchild in the middle. But we still need the law passed so we can be informed for access and visitation purposes. Custody is another matter.
The Chairman: When a question is asked, could the witness just stick to answering the question? That ties into the time, and members are limited in the time they have for asking questions. Straying doesn't help the member get the answers.
Madame Venne, you still have a minute, if you wish it.
[Translation]
Ms Venne: I would just like to say to Mrs. Wooldridge that the legislation has already been used. Of course, she does not agree, because we are not on the same wavelength on this point. I will let her think what she wants, but unfortunately I cannot share her point of view. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you for your presentation today.
Were you present here when the other witnesses from the justice department testified this morning?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Did you hear them state that there was the potential for highly disruptive consequences as a result of the passage of this bill into law?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you have anything to say about that?
Ms Wooldridge: Right now we can take the leave of the court, and I don't think there'd be any more disruptive problems within the family unit or the courts. I think it would solve a lot of problems. It should not be in the courts. This law is important.
Mr. Ramsay: How would it do that?
Ms Wooldridge: For instance, if I were divorcing, my mother would be notified. I could live in another part of the country and she could be a long-distance grandparent, or I could live next door. She would be notified that there was going to be a divorce and a custody hearing. Some children don't tell their parents they're divorcing until the last minute. That would give me the right to go into the court at the same time as the custody hearing to retain my access, without having to go into costly litigation. This is what's happening and this is what this law will prevent.
I have attended many court cases and I've heard judges say this should not even be in family court or in the Supreme Court. Why can't you people decide it outside by yourselves? No...you can't do it.
Mr. Ramsay: In the majority of the cases you've experienced in court, do the grandparents simply request access and visitation rights, or are they asking for custody rights?
Ms Wooldridge: They're not asking for custody at the time of the divorce. We have been asking for access and visitation when there has been a divorce and we've had to go in after the fact.
Mr. Ramsay, no grandparent really wants to raise his or her grandchildren; we've done all of that. This only becomes necessary when there has been sexual or physical abuse, brutality of some kind, or where drugs and alcohol are involved and the mother and father are not capable of looking after the children. That's the only time you really step in, but not through the divorce action.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any statistics? In what percentage of these cases have the grandparents been successful in their application for leave where they have asked for custody, in comparison to those who have asked simply for visitation rights.
.1145
Ms Wooldridge: In all the cases we've handled over the years, the majority of them were just for visitation rights.
Mr. Ramsay: How high would ``the majority'' be?
Ms Wooldridge: Last year, the statistics show there were 87 cases in British Columbia alone. I would say probably about 90% were just for visitation and access.
Mr. Ramsay: You also heard the scenario that was developed this morning with the witnesses from the justice department concerning a kind of extreme situation. If a standing within divorce proceedings was granted, then there would be kind of an extreme situation in which six parties could be there applying. Did you hear that?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes. As a matter of fact, the maternal grandparents of my grandchildren supported me in court. We had two sets of grandparents having to go to court to get access or visitation to their grandchildren, but it's very unusual to have six sets of grandparents going to court. I think I've heard of three times since 1984 - I'm one - in which two sets of grandparents went into court together.
In Squamish, B.C., there are two grandparents, maternal and paternal, but both the mother and the father were killed in an accident. They had to go to court - they got joint custody - because they didn't want their grandchildren taken away and put into foster care.
But that isn't the issue here. This issue is for ongoing access and visitation.
In his papers, Mr. Culhane says it is right and fitting to give formal recognition to grandparents. After all, we are the - I was brought up this way - seniors in the family; you should be looking up to the elders.
Mr. Ramsay: All right. You understand that there is some concern over possible frivolous and vexatious applications made by some grandparents. There would also be, I would imagine, cases in which some grandparents would not be worthy -
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: - of having custody or even visiting rights. Are you aware of cases such as these, in which those kinds of grandparents, or grandparents in those situations, have attempted to gain either visiting or custodial rights?
Ms Wooldridge: No. I'm aware that there have been false accusations made against grandparents, and they have gone to court to prove they are innocent. Once it's been proven by a court of law that they're innocent, they then go back and apply for access and visitation.
Of the thousands of grandparents I know of, I have never come across one who is an abuser who has gone to court to apply for access.
Mr. Ramsay: May I ask you this? This will be my final question. The law as it is now in some provinces allows courts to make these decisions. From your experience, do judges make sound decisions when the facts are placed before them? When the application for leave is granted, do you feel that decisions that are just and in the best interests of the child are being made?
Ms Wooldridge: No, not always. It depends on the judge himself. It depends on what type of day he has had, how young he is, and how seasoned he is. If he's in turmoil himself, no, you're not always getting....
I said we had 87 cases; those were successful ones. We had probably about 200 cases that didn't make the grade in the courts. We had to go back and back again.
Mr. Ramsay: Why would that be?
Ms Wooldridge: Because the judges felt it wasn't.... They don't want to -
Mr. Ramsay: Was this for access and visiting rights?
Ms Wooldridge: For access.
Mr. Ramsay: So out of 287, there was an estimated 200 in which the judge felt that the grandparents should not -
Ms Wooldridge: Did I say 200? I should have said 100.
Mr. Ramsay: Then, in over 50% of the cases, the courts ruled that the grandparents ought not to have visiting or access rights.
Ms Wooldridge: No, no. They still left it up to the discretion of the parents. It was hoped that they would get together somewhere.
They weren't all to do with divorces, by the way. There was common law, death, remarriage, apprehension, the ministry, and so on.
.1150
Mr. Ramsay: Let me ask you this. Do you believe that grandparents should have, in law, the right of access to their grandchildren now, before a divorce?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: But we don't have that right in law.
Ms Wooldridge: No. Quebec has it, but we do not.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
Ms Wooldridge: Mr. Ramsay, thank you for that very good and important question. It's a right, not a privilege, to be able to see our grandchildren and for grandchildren to be able to see us.
Mr. Ramsay: Let me just finalize this line of questioning.
There are four children in my family. The grandparents on both sides are still alive. My mother is still alive.
Ms Wooldridge: That's wonderful.
Mr. Ramsay: My wife's parents are still alive. Of course, they live for their grandchildren. They want to see them all the time, and they complain when they don't see them.
If they began to interfere, whether it was the religious upbringing or the cultural upbringing or whatever, I would want the right to say that I want to bring my children up in this way. I want to tell them they're interfering and that I don't want this interference. Should I not have that right to say whoa?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes, you do have that right, but I don't think many grandparents are going to interfere that way. We don't have that much time left, Mr. Ramsay, and usually, if it's spiritual or religious, we've instilled that into our children to teach our grandchildren. There might be a few cases in which grandparents interfere, but they usually get their knuckles rapped.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but that is now. They do not have the right of law to do that. But if we grant them the right in law, then what protection do I have from my grandparents doing that very thing?
Mr. Wooldridge: Sir, all we are asking for is access and visitation. That's all. We're not asking to interfere.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay, thank you.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you for appearing before us today.
I would like to add a little bit to what Madame Venne said. Not only do we - I am referring to members of Parliament - all have our personal lives and the things we did before we came here, but we also see a lot of people in our constituencies. Some of them would be people similar to the cases you're talking about. So we really aren't living on another planet and unaware of things of things that are going on in this world.
I looked at this bill fairly carefully. I thought that we - this means grandparents - would automatically be notified. I'm sure I must have missed that part of this bill in which it says that grandparents would be notified of the time of the hearing of divorce.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings, MP (Mission - Coquitlam): Having a standing in the court means that you would be notified. That's what the bill does. It amends the Divorce Act.
Ms Phinney: So anybody named in the bill would have to be notified.
Mrs. Jennings: Grandparents. Remember, it's just grandparents.
The Chairman: I've checked with legal counsel on that. Legal counsel indicates - she can correct me if I'm wrong - that having standing allows you the opportunity to go in and have the right to make the application; it does not give you a right of notice. Notice is not a condition of standing.
Mrs. Jennings: It is my understanding, having worked it out with legal counsel on the Hill, that this is exactly what it would be doing: they would be notified. That's the intent of the bill.
The Chairman: That may be the intent of the bill, but that's not what the bill does. Standing does not say one must give notice. Believe me, Mrs. Jennings, that is the case.
Mrs. Jennings: That may be the case, but I'd have to take it up with legal counsel.
The Chairman: Perhaps you should.
Mrs. Jennings: Our intent of the bill was discussed with legal counsel. It's been presented four times in Parliament. I have to trust the legal counsel on the Hill.
Ms Phinney: Is it your wish that this should in here if it is not in here? Is it your wish that the notification be automatic?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes. Notification should be automatic.
Mrs. Jennings: If that is the case, in fact, then an amendment could be made. It's the same as that which we've already made clear: we were more than willing to drop the clause that asks for an automatic inquiry into health and welfare, which was discussed earlier. Both could be amended.
.1155
Ms Phinney: I have another question on the 87 cases you've been talking about. I would like to know where they come in the court system. Are they under the Divorce Act or are they under child protection legislation?
Ms Wooldridge: They'd be under family court, Supreme Court, divorce, separation, apprehension.
Ms Phinney: Would this be under child protection legislation?
Ms Wooldridge: No.
Ms Phinney: Would it all be under the federal Divorce Act?
Ms Wooldridge: Where any third party can apply for access and/or visitation, yes.
Ms Phinney: So all 87 of these cases are under the federal act.
Ms Wooldridge: They're not always under the federal. It could be under provincial, too, in the family courts.
Ms Phinney: Do you know how many of the 87 would be under the Divorce Act and how many would be under the child protection or some provincial act?
Ms Wooldridge: No, I don't have the statistics on that in front of me. I will have them, but I don't have them now. I would say it would probably be about half.
Ms Phinney: You've been referring to a lot of things besides access, such as custody, that don't come under the Divorce Act, so I was just wondering.
So maybe half of them would be under the Divorce Act?
Ms Wooldridge: Maybe half, yes, in my opinion.
Ms Phinney: May I give the rest of my time to Mr. Gallaway?
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I wanted to know a little more about what you've referred to as the facts, because so much of what we've heard here this morning is anecdotal. It's based on an example or a particular case of which you're aware.
You've talked about this being in fact the law in other jurisdictions. You mentioned England. You mentioned fifty American states. What evidence do you have to support that it does in fact work in these other jurisdictions? And what is the difference between this law that we're examining and the laws in general in these 51 other jurisdictions?
Ms Wooldridge: Do you have the letter from MacQuarrie Hobkirk?
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
Ms Wooldridge: It's all written in there.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay. That would be your reply.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Culhane is a practising lawyer, and he deals with these cases every day. That's his letter to the justice committee to let them know that in fact it is occurring in the United States and there is no extra litigation on it.
Mr. Gallaway: How do the American laws, then, differ from the one you've proposed?
Ms Wooldridge: They're very similar. They're different in every state, but they're very similar. On the back of my brochure we state - and we have to have the facts to state this and hand it out - ``Fifty American states now have similar legislation''.
Mr. Gallaway: In those American jurisdictions, then, are the grandparents notified of the divorce action?
Ms Wooldridge: No. In some cases yes, but not in all states. Every state is different.
Mr. Gallaway: In those American jurisdictions, do the grandparents have the right to apply for custody?
Ms Wooldridge: Not under their acts, no; just access and visitation. Custody is a separate issue.
Mr. Gallaway: In the British example, is it only access and visitation?
Ms Wooldridge: Barbara L. Baird, who is a lawyer from New Brunswick, has made a few statements, but the -
Mr. Gallaway: Okay, I won't worry about that. Maybe we could pass on then.
Can you tell me when the British law was enacted?
Ms Wooldridge: No, she doesn't state here when it was enacted, but it says:
- This paper will examine existing legislative models in this country as well as some in the United
States and Great Britain. It will also draw on recent caselaw to illustrate some judicial attitudes
on the subject, and finally, there will be a suggestion with respect to legislative change.
Mr. Gallaway: All right.
Do you know - and I'm talking now about empirical evidence - of any studies that have been completed in the United States that would indicate that after this type of law was enacted in fact the type of litigation that occurred at the time of the divorce changed in any respect? In other words, were there more grandparents intervening, did the average case last longer, etc.?
Ms Wooldridge: I don't have any facts on that.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay, so it's strictly on this letter, then, that we will -
.1200
Ms Wooldridge: Yes, he handles most.... There are several lawyers on our board who take up the cause for grandchildren. They believe in the rights of the child to be able to have their extended family. They have facts more so, I think, in their files, but can't release them all to me because they are confidential.
Mr. Gallaway: I understand.
You've mentioned seasoned lawyers, seasoned judges. I'm wondering what you see as the hang-up, if I can call it that, with judges, seasoned or otherwise, with respect to the application of the existing provision wherein a grandparent might apply for leave.
Ms Wooldridge: I see the difference when I go with one of our members to court, and I go to court all the time to help them. I sit beside them. I guide them. I see the difference between a seasoned judge or lawyer or whatever and the younger ones. They have not experienced or had this feeling that we do when becoming grandparents. The seasoned judges and lawyers...most of them are grandparents or close to it, or hoping they will be, anyway. So that's where the difference is. They're more understanding, the seasoned lawyers and judges. They have more feeling for the child issue and they're not looking at it as a dollar sign type of thing. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr. Gallaway: So you would recommend that if a person is making an application they find a grandparent on the bench.
Ms Wooldridge: Oh yes, I wish that were the case. I wish we could.
Mr. Gallaway: One who's preferably not divorced.
Ms Wooldridge: Right. Yes, with 4,400 divorces in B.C. last year, I'm sure there are some judges there, too.
Mr. Gallaway: What I'm trying to get at is -
Ms Wooldridge: We can't pick our judges.
Mr. Gallaway: No.
Ms Wooldridge: We can pick our lawyers, but not our judges.
Mr. Gallaway: Some lawyers try to pick the judges, but -
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.
As for the letter you were referring to, I'm wondering if you could make that letter available to the clerk so he can have it copied and circulated.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: What letter are you referring to?
The Chairman: She was referring to some legislation, including -
Mrs. Jennings: It's from Barbara Baird, who is a family lawyer in New Brunswick who is dealing with this all the time.
The Chairman: Can that letter be made available to the clerk?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a point. Either in that letter or somewhere...if there's references to that letter it'll certainly make it easier. But there must be some system where we can get a copy of the other 50 laws and British laws and see where their laws are different from our laws and so on. I can't imagine that there have been no studies done in the U.S. legal system that have not computed the information that would help us.
The Chairman: Perhaps legal research can look into some of these matters and advise us.
Ms Torsney: That's sort of a double negative, but -
Mrs. Jennings: Perhaps I could just clarify a bit. I did contact and talk to two lawyers in the United States. They informed me that it varies from state to state, so it's very difficult to get any constant statistics. They just cannot do it at this time. That's one of the main reasons for having a federal law, so they won't be jumping all over the place with different rulings.
The Chairman: [Technical difficulty - Editor] ...and we'll proceed. There is no one here from the Bloc. We'll proceed, then, with Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Five minutes.
Mr. Regan: I have a quick question, actually - I think only one.
Ms Wooldridge, you referred to a case where there were four children. My impression from what you said was that both parents were abusive in that case, so they weren't being divorced. Is that right?
Ms Wooldridge: They are divorced now.
Mr. Regan: They are now, but at the time they weren't being divorced.
Ms Wooldridge: They were separating.
Mr. Regan: In a case where the parents are abusive of the children but they're not divorcing, this bill wouldn't help them. Isn't that right?
Ms Wooldridge: You'd still have to go for leave of the court for that.
Mr. Regan: That's under the old system.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes, under the old system.
Mr. Regan: It depends on the provincial legislation, I guess.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes.
Mr. Regan: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I have one extraneous point I want to make.
When you refer to the real world, you're talking about the real world of custody and grandparents and so on. Now, I haven't dealt with that. Your comments with regard to that really hit home with me. I know what you're saying and although I have grandparents and my children have grandparents and there's that interpersonal relationship there, I have not gone through what you're talking about or what I thought you were talking about when you said that we sit here and listen to witnesses who have experienced some of these things. I have not experienced that, so I just thought I'd make that point and put it on the record.
.1205
Ms Wooldridge: Thank you.
Mr. Ramsay: And I think others would share that. Yes, we're in the real world, but we haven't experienced all things. So I just make that point.
Ms Wooldridge: I wasn't saying it, Mr. Ramsay, to be smart or anything. What I'm saying is that you have to be out there to see it as I'm seeing it. I sit in the courtrooms. I see what's happening with these grandparents and I see grandchildren running into the courtroom, ``Grandma, Grandma, Grandma, I want to see you''. That is reality.
Mr. Ramsay: I will support this bill, with amendments if amendments come forward. I have some concern about whether there is sufficient support for it on the committee here and in the House, but nevertheless I will support this bill with amendments, whatever they might be. But I do know this: if we are to save our children from the kinds of things that are happening in society today -
Ms Wooldridge: In the real world.
Mr. Ramsay: - we need not only grandparents' input but we need the whole of the extended family, which includes cousins and aunts and uncles.
I want to thank you for coming forward and I want to thank you for the love and concern that you've expressed through your efforts for the subject, for the children, for your own grandchildren and for mine. I appreciate that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: I guess I feel some obligation, as probably the youngest person around the table, to make some comment about ``seasoned'', whether or not it gives you the right perspective or whether it gives you a different perspective. While I personally do not have children, I certainly have parents and had grandparents, and from a different perspective from yours I have a lot of friends and constituents who have been there, either as the child of divorce or the grandchild of divorce or as someone who has children and is in the process of a divorce.
One of the things we have to do and the reason we're asking some of the questions is that we can't just weigh your particular situation or mine; we have to think about the variety of combinations and make the best law possible. Sometimes when witnesses come they feel frustrated, as we sometimes do, by our particular experience and the difficulty in making some of those decisions.
Do you think there is value...? Since there are already provincial jurisdictions that are different, there are currently rights on the books for all grandparents to seek leave to have standing in the courts, do you think it might decrease the difficulty that grandparents are currently experiencing if grandparents knew their current rights under the laws in the country, if there were some kind of education program or some kind of booklet, so that when you're seeking in the courts to have a divorce you could know that here are the things you might want to consider, or whatever?
Ms Wooldridge: Thank you, Ms Torsney. We will get that booklet out if this law is passed. Believe you me, it will be one of our fund-raising books that will go out and tell every grandparent that they have the right.
Ms Torsney: But they do have the -
Ms Wooldridge: They're not told today. What happens when there is a divorce is that you go to a lawyer. I'd like to know how many lawyers have asked if there is a third party interested. They don't ask that. So we have to do it after the fact.
Let me put it this way. When a parent is going for custody, then it would be in the law, the Divorce Act. The judge or the lawyers, if they're handling the custody situation outside the courtroom, would ask if there is a third party. It would be there.
Ms Torsney: They might ask if there's a third party, but they're under no obligation to seek out third parties. Third parties have to identify themselves. I could be involved in a legal case, I could have rights in a legal case that is currently before the court somewhere in Canada right now that I wouldn't know about. That's my point.
.1210
There are current laws that would help grandparents today, without making any changes, that those grandparents need to know about, because most of them do know that their children or grandchildren are involved in a divorce settlement right now. Most of them have some information.
If, through the Canadian Association of Retired Persons or the reporters who are reporting on this hearing today, we and our householders could educate grandparents about their current rights that are in place and would help them, don't you think that would go a long way to addressing the difficulties that currently exist?
Ms Wooldridge: Yes. Really, it would be wonderful to be able to address our grandparents and let them know. They do have the right to obtain custody and visitation now in the province of B.C., but not in every provincial area here in Canada. But you have to initiate costly action, and it's too costly. As I stated before, some of the cases I have proof of go up to $50,000 to $60,000 or more.
Ms Torsney: It is partly that the more acrimonious the divorce is, the more costly things are.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes, but this is after the fact, madam.
Ms Torsney: Of the grandparents you have spoken with, most of them have been dissatisfied with the access, and that's why they've sought leave. Was that apparent at the time of the divorce, or did most of those problems become exacerbated or did they arise or did the realization come at some point in the future?
Was it today that your kids are getting divorced and you realize they're not letting you have access? Or is it usually a year down the road when you say, listen, I've been asking to see my grandchild for a year and no one will let me have access to them - in which case there are current provisions for access?
Ms Wooldridge: Ms Torsney, it happens either way. I can't really give you statistics or anything on this. It happens at the time of the divorce, before the divorce, when there's a separation, and it happens way down the road, too. It will happen any time; we just don't know when it's going to happen. But if you have a divorce and that law is in there and we apply it at the same time for ongoing access, there's no extra litigation and it's already set in force so that we're protecting the child.
Ms Torsney: Could I just put one other statistic on the table for those of you who may not know?
Currently some 70% to 80% of children in Canada and in North America are living in two-parent families, so we are talking about special rights for that 20%. Those of us who have two parents who are in intact families would have no.... I would have no right to see my grandparents and vice versa, except if my parents became divorced. So we'd actually be giving more rights to -
Ms Wooldridge: Do you mean if your parents are arguing or something and you can't see your grandparents?
Ms Torsney: Yes, arguing with my grandparents.
Ms Wooldridge: Yes, that's right. We find in a lot of cases those things sort of clear up after a while and the children can speak up for themselves.
Ms Torsney: But that's not in the law.
Ms Wooldridge: No, but we can't -
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Wooldridge. It has been a pleasure having you here this morning.
My speaker list is exhausted.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, I'm wondering if the committee could have Mr. Culhane appear as a witness. He has brought up a number of issues that in some ways rebut the kinds of concerns that the witnesses from the justice department raised, and I think they raised some legitimate concerns.
The Chairman: Even though our steering committee has determined the witnesses, I'm wondering whether this is a matter that we'll raise and discuss at the next steering committee meeting.
We have the report of the steering committee this afternoon; it will be discussed and we'll raise this matter at that time.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Mrs. Jennings: I'd like to thank you and everybody on the committee.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Jennings, as well.
The meeting is adjourned.