children born in and out of wedlock, with a few exceptions relating primarily to cases where it was difficult to establish paternity. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not specifically refer to discrimination on the grounds of marital or family status, and the Supreme Court had not yet had an opportunity to pronounce on the matter. 84. priority processing abroad of the &pendants of immigrants had been initiated and was speeding up the resolution of cases in which family members residing in their country of origin were enduring life-threatening situations or where minors were allegedly being abused or left unattended. In the past, certain indigenous children had been sent to residential schools outsiae their communities, where they had been cut off from their families, culture and religion. Currently, however, there were 280 band-managed schools providing education to 36 per cent of indigenous students. Efforts were under way to establish additional agencies designed and managed by indigenous people, which would provide services to all indigenous children and their families in their own communities. 85. The purpose of the recent amendments to-the Divorce Act was to avoid the application of undue pressure on a spouse to obtoin the latter’s agreement to an unfair divorce settlement in order to conform to the dictates of a religion. Allegations to the effect that the Canadian immigration services had threatened foreign families and civilians were unfounded. If such threats were ever made, corrective action would be taken, and disciplinary measures and civil liability would ensue. With reference to article 18 of the Covenant, some parents had sought court rulings in cases where necessary medical attention had not been administered to a child because of religious beliefs. The courts had dealt with those cases by endeavouring to strike a balance between the right of citieens to freedom of religion and the need for the State to protect members of tire community, particularly those in a situation of dependence. . . tiaht to !?=%u.wate in the conductoP . 8G. In connection with that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether the decision in Q&grne v. The W applied to public servants in general or was restricted to a specific category of public servant; whether that case had any bearing on the right of a public servant to stand for election; and whether a public servant was required to resign in order to become a candidate. Clarification was also sought as to the compatibility with the Covenant of the decision in mer v. Puuice Gteffu B$!, in which the Supreme Court had held that limits might be imposed on the right of a public servant to speak on public issues in the interest of maintaining an impartial public service. n7. In his reply, the representative pointed out that the absence of political partisanship, provided for in section 33 of the Public Service Employment Act, was a convention adhered to by all public servants to ensure the neutrality and professionalism of their work. Public servants other than deputy ministers could, however, apply for a leave of absence in order to seek electoral office. In practice, leave was generally granted and the applicant allowed to return to public service if his bid for election was unsuccessful. The Supreme Court was currently examining existing legislation to determine whether it was adequate under the Canadian Charter and article 25 of the -21-