Patrice Martin, Clerk

Patrice Martin, Clerk

Committee on Justice and Human Rights

House of Commons

180 Wellington, Room 622

OTTAWA, Ontario

K1A 0A6

Dear Sir.

I, the undersigned resident and taxpayer of Canada, ask that the Minister of Justice act in the best interest of all Canadians by repealing the proposed Bill C-22 and that he revise the Canada Divorce Act in a manner that truly reflects our commitment to the future of our children.

Parents divorce each other, children do not divorce their parents. The people of Canada have told the Minister in no uncertain terms that only shared physical custody of the children, after their parents have decided to lead separate lives, will be in the best interest of the children. Anything else will only benefit a vindictive parent who wishes to use the children as mealtickets and weapons against the other parent.

In 1996, Bill C-41 established the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a system of calculating child support according to a set of tables. To pass Bill C-41 in the Senate, the then Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, agreed to form the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access at the end of 1997.

Bill C-41 established the support according to the principle that "the child will live at the same standard of living as the custodial parent because they live in the same household" This would, by default, be inclusive of the new partner, and his/her dependants, of the custodial parent.

Madam Justice Abella, OCA, said: "Households tend to function as integrated economic and social units. This makes it more reasonable to determine what standard of living the household as a whole is entitled to enjoy"

The guidelines allow the custodial parent to receive full support for the same child from multiple payors. The amount of support is calculated according to the payor's income, the income of the support receiving parent does not enter the equation, nor is the support receiving parent accountable how much of the support is spent on the target child and how much of it is spent on other members of the household who may or may not be related to the child for whom the support is intended.

On December 9 and 10, 1998, after it held 55 hearings across the country, and heard testimony from over 500 Canadians, and received written submissions from many others, the Committee released it's comprehensive report entitled "For the Sake of the Children" to both Houses.

The two cornerstone recommendations of the Special Joint Committee's Report, both on shared parenting, are Recommendations 5 and 6, being:

Recommendation 5. This Committee recommends that the terms 'custody and access' no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term 'shared parenting', which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms 'custody and access'.

Recommendation 6. This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to repeal the definition of 'custody' and to add a definition of 'shared parenting' that reflects the meaning ascribed to that term by this Committee.

Public opinion surveys also expressed national support for the Committee's perspective and approach to parenting after divorce. The Compas poll for Southam News published on November 23, 1998 found that:

89% of Canadians believe the stress of divorce is more severe now than a generation ago; and that 70% of men and women say that courts do not pay enough attention to the needs of children;

62% of men and women feel the courts pay too little attention to the needs of fathers; and that 80% of Canadians believe that the children of divorce must maintain on-going relationships with their non-custodial parents;

65% of Canadians feel it is a priority that the Government should protect rights of the children to relationships with their non-custodial parents, and that no custodial parent should be allowed to bar this access.

In May 1999, the then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, gave the Government's response to the Special Joint Committee's Report "For the Sake of the Children". In her response, "Strategy for Reform", under the heading "The Government of Canada's Response: An Overview", the Minister stated at page 2:

The Government of Canada is committed to responding to the issues identified by the Committee Report. The Special Joint Committee Report's key themes, concerns and recommendations provide a foundation for developing a strategy for reforming the policy and legislative framework that deals with the impact of divorce on Canadian children.

The Minister also stated that her strategy would include integrated legislative action on both child custody and access and also the Federal Child Support Guidelines by May 2002, a full 3-1/2 years after the Special Joint Committee's Report. Bill C-41 had established May 2002, as the statutory review date for the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Minister of Justice's own report, by Earnscliffe Research & Communications dated September 2001, of a quantitative survey using focus groups on the need for change in the divorce law regime found that 65% of responding Canadians believed that significant change is required in the legal system governing child custody and access when parents are divorced. It also found that 62% of all Canadians felt that "mandatory shared equally" parenting was desired.

However, in May 2002, a new Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, without consultation with Parliamentarians, chose to ignore the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee, the opinions of the majority of Canadians and the findings by the Ministry's own surveys.

On December 10, 2002, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-22 as the Parliament recessed for Christmas. He spoke to it only when the House resumed January 27, 2003.

This bill, in its proposed form, fails to correct the existing problems, and may create a host of additional problems. Sole custody continues to be sole custody no matter whether it is called "custody and access" or "parental responsibility", i.e. one parent has the right, now called responsibility, for residence, the other has the responsibility for financial support.

Bill C-22, as proposed, will:

replace the terms, but not the concept, of custody and access

will encourage one parent to use the children as pawns in negotiations between the parents by using the threat of false allegations and/or withholding visitation if his/her demands are not met and thus can not be seen to be in the best interest of the children

Based on the above, the Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, has abandoned the concept "best interest of the child" and reneged on the commitment made by the Parliament to the people of Canada.

Sincerely,

Signature:

Name:

Address:

City:

Province:

Postal Code:

Date: