CONTENTS
Tuesday 2 April 1991
Child and Family Support Statute Law Amendment Act, 1990, Bill 17 / Loi de 1990 modifiant les lois relatives aux obligations alimentaires, projet de loi 17
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP) for Mr Winninger
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Mr F. Wilson
Also taking part: Cunningham, Dianne E. (London North PC)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff:
Revell, Donald, Legislative Counsel
Roux, Denis, Legal Advisor, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1557 in room 228.
CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LES LOIS RELATIVES AUX OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES
Resuming consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.
Section/article 3:
The Chair: When we adjourned we were discussing the Progressive Conservative motion on page 32. Do we have any suggestions as to how to proceed at the moment?
Mr Wessenger: I am wondering if we might stand that down just for a moment. There is a minor technical change that has been recommended by ministry advisers which is not controversial and I wonder if we could just, with unanimous consent, move to that and get that out of the way and then we could go back. Is that agreed?
The Chair: The request is to stand down the motion on page 32 until Mrs Cunningham arrives. Unanimous consent?
Agreed to.
The Chair: And do we have unanimous consent to enter the slight change to subsection 3d(10)?
Mr Poirier: I have a question. Do you have the agreement of the Tory party?
Ms S. Murdock: Mr Harnick said that Mrs Cunningham was going to be in presently.
Mr Wessenger: This is an amendment that has already been passed, Mr Poirier, and the words we put in have created an ambiguity, according to ministry staff, and I think it is so --
Mr Poirier: I have no problem with what you want to bring forward.
Mr Wessenger: Unfortunately, I do not think Mr Harnick has been given a copy, has he?
The Chair: As soon as Mrs Cunningham returns, we will return to page 32, the motion.
Mr Poirier: Okay.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 3d(10) of the act, as set out in Mr Wessenger's motion of 26 March 1991, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(10) An order suspending the operation of a support deduction order does not affect the payor's obligations under the support order nor does it affect any other means of enforcing the support order."
Any discussion of this change?
Mr Wessenger: Just to clarify the fact that when a support deduction order is suspended it does not affect any other rights to proceed to enforce the obligation.
The Chair: Any further discussions? All in favour of that?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Any areas where we can proceed in the absence of the third party?
Mr Poirier: I do not feel I am in a position to answer on behalf of the third party, but I have never seen a committee myself -- the clerk may take exception or find another excuse, but I have never seen us proceed with just two of the three parties before. What did you want to proceed with right now, the PC motion? Did you want to stand that down, go to a government motion or what?
Mr Wessenger: We have already stood down the PC motion until Mrs Cunningham shows up so that we can resume debate.
Mr Poirier: I do not think it would be fair to proceed without the third party.
Ms S. Murdock: I would like to hear from the clerk. Given that the majority of us in this room at the present moment have never been on a standing committee before, was it the norm in previous standing committees that you proceed with all of the parties present, or was it legitimate to proceed with one of the parties not present?
Clerk of the Committee: Technically, a committee can proceed at the time that it is started unless somebody brings the lack of quorum to the attention of the committee. Committees generally, though, wait until there is one person there from each party, although that is not a requirement in the standing orders.
Mr Poirier: Not in my six years have I witnessed that.
Ms S. Murdock: Which is what we did when, actually, your side was not here one day and we waited.
Mr Fletcher: I would suggest, then, that we recess until there is a member from each party here.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham.
Mr Fletcher: That is a fast recess, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I suggest that we move back to Mrs Cunningham's motion on page 32.
Mrs Cunningham: I am changing gears in my head.
The Chair: When you are ready, Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. It does get a bit embarrassing some days coming in late. Are the Liberals not here either?
Mr Harnick: Here he is.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, as soon as you are ready, please.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. I think we were speaking to the amendment 3d(10) that was put forth by the members representing our caucus, Mr Harnick and Mr Carr. The reason that we put this amendment forth was based on -- and I say this sincerely, Mr Chairman -- the public hearings. It was not until they were completed that we in fact sat and analysed the input to this committee on behalf of the public that in fact this new government said it would listen to.
The problem with the former government -- and I say that with affection some days and not affection the others, but today since I am in a good mood I will say it with affection -- is it listened but it did not do anything about it. That is going to be one of the great concerns that the public is going to have at the end of the term of office of this government. This particular bill is one that they are going to have to live with for a long period of time, I feel. Because if you take a look, Mr Chairman, yourself at the work of the legislative research service -- which in fact we pay to give us advice -- in the final summary of recommendations dated February 1991 -- Susan Swift did the work -- this one includes all the submissions received as of 20 February 1991. If in fact there is another one -- which I may have missed only in the last few minutes, not because I did not read it -- it would only give further evidence to support the real desires of the public.
The subheading is "Support deduction order." It says in that support deduction order section -- I hope the members of the government committee have got this document and are paying close attention -- "A support deduction order should be made only in the event that there has been a default under the support order." I suppose it is mundane for me to have to go on like this, but we are very serious about this amendment. "Bazeley, Boyd, Burns, Dupperrault, Porter, Sweeney, Descoteaux, Martens, Pearce, Ross, Ryan, CMA, Lerner, AD, Axhorn, Fisher, HEART." I could go on to tell you what the alphabetical titles mean, but I believe most members of the committee would know what they stand for. They are large associations that have consulted with their own groups that they represent and they have come before this committee after very serious consideration and given their points of view.
That is not to talk about the letters we all received that went on to support this particular resolution -- or amendment, I should say -- and I will repeat it: "A support deduction order should be made only in the event that there has been a default under the support order." Why do I say this so strongly? It is because I think that all of us heard representation on behalf of members of the public, representation on behalf of families. I think the underlying concern in these very difficult times, and it has become even more difficult over the last few months, has been the survival of families. I am now talking about family members, even as they live apart, supporting one another.
One of the greatest concerns as we take a look at the challenges of everyday family life, first of all, is to pay the rent and pay for the food. Children want to become part of all of the extracurricular activities. We heard the one father talk about how he tried to give his ex-spouse, the mother of his children, the money for the music lessons. Do you remember that, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: Very well.
Mrs Cunningham: Was that not a joke, the fact that he tried to give her $20 more? In today's system, this bill is not going to help that. But it is such a joke that we are sitting here and we have got an institution of this government set up, called SCOE, which has been asked to do something, and that is collect the money and hand it over to the families that need it. We have got so many laws, so many rules, so many regulations, so many directions, that the people who are working in the offices cannot even keep up with them. We do not give them enough people to do the work. They do the best they can.
I know my colleagues in this very room spend a lot of time in their constituency offices talking to people who are not only victims of circumstance some days and victims of society as it stands -- young children, I am talking about -- but their mothers and their fathers -- no matter what their state of marriage might be, they are still their mothers and their fathers -- have to go through public institutions where in fact somebody withholds $20 and puts it in the bank and at the end of 10 months sends back $200 to the father and he finds out through this office that the mother did not receive the money for the piano lessons. I think we all felt sick about it. I do not think he was saying anything except that the system is not working.
To add that kind of another little direction to SCOE would give them one more thing to worry about, but to give it the kind of support it needs to do the job -- the agency itself now -- I think, would be a more responsible way of dealing with the issue at hand. Just fixing up what we have got right now that is not working would be a great step in the right direction. Many of us could go to our constituency offices on Fridays knowing that our family members have been dealt with, so that they are not sitting at the end of telephones waiting for people to return phone calls. That is part of it. The Workers' Compensation Board is the same.
We think if we write things down on paper, something is going to get fixed. Well, here is something that is written on paper that is not going to fix a darn thing. This automatic deduction -- and yes, I know, there is a philosophical argument around the fact that if two people agree you do not have to do the deduction at source. In the real world, when people are unhappy with each other and they are having to go through courts and lawyers, and where a lawyer is giving sound advice to his client, he is going to say, "Here's the tool, let's use it." Most people, the minute they get angry about something, are going to use it, even if they have not been advised; that is, people who in fact have a good track record of paying may at some time, for whatever reason, be advised that now they will be deducted at source.
1610
Three things happen when you are deducted at source for no reason. The only reason ought to be is that you do not pay, but if you are deducted at source because someone has used this ridiculous law three things happen.
First of all, the parent who is being deducted becomes angry. They may be angry anyway, but most people who are trying to be responsible parents and supportive of their children try to keep their personal anger away from their children. In my work, I see the 20% or 30% of families that are not able to do that, they are just simply not able to do it, but there is a great proportion out there who are. So the father is angry or the mother is angry, really angry. They are angry because they were willing to pay, or they had already paid, and now somebody tells their employer that they are having to have this money deducted from their paycheques, which is work.
Second, and more important, I think, to the person who is being deducted, he has to share a part of his life with his employer. I do not know how the people around this table feel, but this whole issue of confidentiality around anything any more is a serious one for the public of Ontario. So one more reason: Your employer finds out something else about you, something you have already been embarrassed about, and so many of the witnesses who came before this committee talked about this very issue, having to describe to their employer the fact that they are separated, the fact that this is the amount of money that must be deducted. Sometimes, I suppose, given the way the systems work, the employer may find out before anybody even has a chance to go and talk to him. So that is the second thing: You lose your self-esteem, even though you are well-intentioned and have a good track record. You are angry at the spouse.
Third, without even speaking about it, the children then have another reason to be angry at mum or dad that day and become even more confused than they already are. I just think this is an irresponsible piece of legislation in that regard. There are parts of it that I like, but that one point I just do not like and I say it as a person who has worked with families which are separating, families which in fact have lived apart for many years; and I say it with even more concern now and, I believe, with more confidence, having sat as often as I could as a member of this committee, because I was interested in what the public said as they came before the committee. So all I can say is that if you are not going to listen to this one, you will certainly be hearing from us down the road and I will remember it in the next campaign.
Having said that, and not wanting it to sound like a real threat, I think that if the members of this committee jointly go to the minister and talk about what you want, based on what you heard, you just might be able to make a difference. I say that because I sat with that minister on other committees, on other justice committees in the past, and he was noted at that time for his ability to listen to the public, not just to his caucus colleagues or his cabinet members or people who sit on either side of us. We are here to listen to the public. That is why we have public hearings.
I made some comment with regard to SCOE. Again, I think all of us were made aware of some work that the members of the administration here in this Legislative Assembly, and certainly in the minister's office and in the clerk's office, provided us with. I get sick some days of all the work they do and nobody paying any attention. I hope that, aside from legislation, given the piece of information called "SCOE Caseload per Office and Enforcement Staff" -- I bet my friend Sharon Murdock paid close attention to this one. Remember this one, Sharon?
Was it not shocking? Case load per enforcement staff, Ottawa, 828; registered cases, 13,253; enforcement staff, 16. Give me a break. Windsor, case load per enforcement staff, 585; registered cases -- can you imagine? Just think of these numbers -- 5,265; enforcement staff, 9.
When you start deducting people at source, people who have already paid, maybe we will take a look at this sheet a year down the road, right? Would it not be fun to look at this? Fun for us, because I know we are right, but sure as heck not fun for families that we are here to represent.
London, registered cases 8,601; case load per enforcement staff, 860; enforcement staff, 10. I am embarrassed to say that this family member is still asking me to see if we in fact could help this person with his case or with his presentation, or speed up the response that he may have had, or could we talk to his lawyer. Most people out there, the system is so complicated, they are just really reaching as far as they can reach for our help. And we are advocates on behalf of the public, and that is our job here, to be an advocate, not to muck the system up even more.
This one really surprised me. Oshawa, registered cases, 15,943. Can you believe that, in Oshawa? Is that where you live, Gord?
Mr Mills: Yes; well, near there. There are the oil factories there. A lot of people work in there who probably fit into this category. I do not know.
Mrs Cunningham: Case load, 797.
Ms S. Murdock: That is fewer than in your riding.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I know, but Gordon is just learning and he will be much better at helping them out down the road. I am getting to be pretty much a pro around this particular office, but it took me a couple of years.
Enforcement staff, 20. So the case load is a little bit less, but maybe there is a little bit further to drive. I keep justifying that. In London, geographically everyone lives pretty close to the office.
Sudbury, registered cases, 7,637; case load per enforcement, 849. Thunder Bay, 2,207 registered cases in Thunder Bay; case load per enforcement staff, 552. Hamilton, 17,557; case load per enforcement staff, 836.
Do you remember the worker who came from the city of Hamilton? He was a construction person who was pretty grateful that he still in fact had a job, but the job was going to wind down at the end of March. He came into this committee room -- I can still see him sitting back there -- and when it came his turn to speak he was shaking just a little bit in the beginning, but then as he got into it he became more comfortable. I think most of the committee members were treating him with a great deal of respect because we were really curious and interested in why he was here and if he could help us in our deliberations. In the end he got mad at Mr Sorbara --
Mr Mills: Well, that is natural.
Mrs Cunningham: No, he did not get mad at him for the right reason. I thought that he felt pretty good about the hearings myself, but I did feel that he was a bit confused as to what was going to happen next. And I think any one of us, in our job of representing the public, when you see something like that, any one of us, if it is convenient, we should never let anybody walk away from these hearings confused, because they have to have confidence in the system. They have to know that we are listening.
He was so mad that even when I said, "Excuse me" -- he was walking fast. I had to practically run to catch up with him, and I said, "I will answer your question and tell you what's going to happen next." At that time, with due respect, Mr Chairman, I thought I knew what was going to happen next. Like you, I am not sure what is going to happen next right now, but I still have confidence in this system, and certainly in the members of this committee, who have a great deal of influence -- Mark, you should be sitting up and listening carefully, because you do. You do have a great deal of the best information to offer your colleagues.
1620
But he was mad at Mr Sorbara because he thought that Mr Sorbara had told him that you people were all going to vote the same way and in fact he would not have the opportunity to change anything. He was speaking for himself then -- and I always have a joke with Mr Sorbara, because I say: "What's new, Mr Sorbara? After all, you wouldn't know, Mr Sorbara, because you were the minister. You didn't have to sit here and listen, but I sat on the justice committee." You know what minister he was, do you not?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. I do.
Mrs Cunningham: But, you know, I am being fair here. He was mad at Mr Sorbara because he thought that what he was wanting -- and that was he did not want his employer to know in fact that he had to pay support payments, because he said it was one more thing for this employer to do and to use against him and he said, "This job is going to be finished at the end of March and I want to be on the next job." He said: "You know how you get my job, Mrs Cunningham? You line up. You show up, and they pick the workmen to do the next task, and I want to be employed." And you can remember -- I mean, I could go get the Hansard, but I do not have to repeat all of this -- how he was making ends meet? He was actually making his support payments -- do you remember? -- even when he was not working. He found ways to make his support payments. And I think he is more typical of the people who are caught in the system than what we want to believe.
Now, he had a very different reason for not wanting to be deducted at source; he did not want his employer to know about it. He was also the person who went on to say that his spouse had been remarried and was living very comfortably, and he himself did not really think he should have to make the support payments to the extent that the support order had defined, but he was not willing to go back and have it changed. He would rather pay it because he wanted to be a good father to his children. And he told me in the hall that is what he lived for.
Now this is not fair not to give a person like that the opportunity to pay. So you guys have got a job to do. Derek, I will be judging you on your ability to get this job done. We sit on the airplane together, so we know who works and who does not. I am now talking about my friend from Middlesex.
But the point is, we have a job to do in this committee, and that is not just to take directions from the cabinet. Unfortunately for the minister, he may be getting some very strong direction from people other than the political arm, of the work that gets done here, and I have no idea why. I mean, this sounds like a great thing to do if you are in favour of families that have not been getting support payments that they deserve; and for all these people who escape without making payments, this sounds like a good thing to do, but it is not. It is just one aspect of it that turns people off.
The other group it turns off are people who are already -- probably the ones who will get away with it most are the ones who have ways of getting away with it now. We are not going to catch them with this law, and that category will become bigger. I am now talking about independent business people. They are their own employer, they can do business in Ontario or they do not have to do business in Ontario; their address can be almost anywhere. This is just another reason for them to avoid their responsibilities within their own province and close to home, and we had a number of them come before the committee. You know who they were. They said, "We'll just go somewhere else." You can remember that.
Anyway, it would be remiss of me to not mention the city of Toronto, which has 13,298 registered cases now at the SCOE office, almost the same number as Ottawa, and they have 21 enforcement staff, but their case load is a little bit less, 633. You do not think that is political, do you?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mrs Cunningham: I just think it is because there are more needy people here.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I see. No, that would not be true, would it, because the case load is higher in Ottawa.
Ms S. Murdock: That is what I mean.
Mrs Cunningham: Some 828 as --
Interjections.
Mrs Cunningham: It says 828 on here, but it may have gone up. All you need to do there is get rid of one person and you have gone up another 100 cases, you are right. So all I can say is, these are not statistics that we should be proud of, and I am not meaning to make light of them, but I am trying to help the government with its legislation, as someone in fact who has been very much a part of this work over the years.
When the Canadian Bankers' Association appeared before us, they were trying to give us some good advice with regard to mailing out these notices of a support deduction on behalf of the courts and they wanted the time frame lengthened because of the computer, but we dealt with that one. That is not the reason. I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I picked up the wrong letter here. Can you just wait five seconds until I get myself organized here? Do not panic, I am not going to read through that whole thing. Here we go. I just had the wrong file. Somebody asked me for one of the papers that I had read into the record last week, one that I hope the government will pay special attention to, and that is the report on mediation.
This letter was sent to yourself, and it was from a mother. Marianne Karklins was her name. She is from Dovercourt Road, and she said:
"As a divorced mother with one son, I wish to express my displeasure with aspects of Bill 17, which is now before your justice committee.
"My son currently lives with his father. I have had the good fortune of having an ex-husband who does not object to me having ongoing contact with my youngster, Alexander. But many divorces are not so. Too often children are used as weapons when the access parent is denied visitation and/or contact.
"Your New Democrat colleagues have just destroyed Bill 124, which was designed to ensure that children can see both parents after separation. Now you are pursuing only the dollar through the enforcement of support payments.
"If I had an ex-husband who had interfered with my contact with Alexander, it is beyond belief you would come after me for child support payments, yet permit my ex to deny a relationship with my son."
She goes on to talk about the whole issue of access, which I know is not part of this bill, but I think that she ends her letter by saying something that is very important.
"Please modify your efforts on Bill 17 and, rather, focus your attention in the right of children to know both parents through the enforcement of access, or better still through joint custody."
You will remember that one of the reasons I am so much in favour of this amendment is to keep the anger levels out of the real day-to-day living in family situations. I think that her letter is one that we do not see enough of. She is pleading there for access on both sides and she is pleading for joint custody.
A little bit earlier in the letter she talked about mediation services, and out of this letter comes a presentation that this person made during Bill 124 when she talked about the real need for supervised access. There are so many letters, and these are they, asking for programs, Mr Chairman. Many of the letters I got, and I am sure you did as well, did not even talk about the bill. They talked about the need for program support. They talked about the need to improve the day-to-day operation of the SCOE offices. They gave specific suggestions, which were all documented, which I am sure the director will be taking back. They talked about the mediation report and how this particular bill could not stand alone. They talked about the need for supervised access programs.
All we are saying is, if indeed this government is going to deal with this whole issue of custody and support and access and mediation and family support, if you are going to deal with it in a piecemeal fashion, which is being done with this bill, for heaven's sake, fix the bill up and make it workable so that people in fact who are working in goodwill, who do want to support their children, who do want to be private in their day-to-day life, in their dealings, have the opportunity to do so; and that is why I am speaking so strongly to this amendment.
1630
Could I ask you, Mr Chairman, is it your intent to -- oh, you would not know this, would you? Let's ask Mr Morrow. Mr Morrow, would it be appropriate to ask a question? You could save yourself another half-hour of having to listen to me if the answer is appropriate. Is it your intent to vote against this, or am I just whistling Dixie?
The Chair: I do not believe that we have finished debate on this particular point. Mr Morrow?
Mrs Cunningham: Excuse me. Could I ask if any of the government members are going to speak to this?
The Chair: Mr Mills wants to speak, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Do you not want to speak to it, Sharon?
Ms S. Murdock: I have said a couple of things when you were not here. When Mr Sorbara was speaking I have spoken to it.
The Chair: Are you wanting to continue debate then?
Mrs Cunningham: Well, if I am going to be speaking and using some of the evidence that I have used -- I mean, I am happy to wind down here.
The Chair: I am sorry. So are you wishing to continue debate and allow Mr Mills to speak now?
Mrs Cunningham: I am trying to get through to the members here, because that man walked out of the room, left, because Mr Sorbara said they were all going to vote the same way. I have got his name and address. I am bringing him back for the vote. I am going to phone and see if he can come, because I do not want everybody voting the same way, and I know who was in the room. That is all I am saying. So I just asked Mr Morrow what his intentions were.
The Chair: Okay. Were you wishing to continue, Mrs Cunningham, or were you wishing to allow Mr Mills to speak?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but the response I get will depend on how long I have to keep -- Are you still listening?
Mr Morrow: I am still listening.
Mrs Cunningham: So there is still hope. All right. By the way, I do not get to vote on this, Mark.
Mr Morrow: I know you do not. My ears are always open, Dianne.
Mr Harnick: They are not going to tell you they are going to vote against it.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I think they might take this seriously.
The Chair: Are you finished, Mrs Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: No.
The Chair: Okay. Go ahead, please.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Mills --
Mrs Cunningham: No, I am counting on you.
The Chair: Please allow Mrs Cunningham to finish.
Mrs Cunningham: In fact, l told Sam Cureatz what a good job you are doing.
Mr Mills: Thank you.
The Chair: All right. Mrs Cunningham still has the floor. We were trying to determine whether she was finished or not and she is not.
Mrs Cunningham: I know, but interjections are allowed. Would you like an unplanned interjection, Sharon?
Ms S. Murdock: Am I hearing you say that if you knew we were are going to vote against this you would not bother speaking any more? Is that what I am hearing you say?
Mr Mills: No. Opposite.
Mrs Cunningham: I would speak longer.
Mr Mills: Longer.
Mrs Cunningham: I mean, it would be such a farce. It would be such a farce to have everybody vote against it, you know? So my thinking is that you are not all going to vote against this amendment.
Mr Mills: We might convince you to vote with the amendment.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, go ahead, please.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I do not think so, because --
Mr Harnick: We will vote with the amendment.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mrs Cunningham.
Mr Harnick: And if you can cope with the amendment, we would hope that you will vote with it as well.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham still has the floor.
Mrs Cunningham: You are a good Chairman, Mr White.
The Chair: I try.
Mrs Cunningham: You work hard, and I did not make your life any easier in the last 30 seconds, but I will say this, that in fact I did not make your life any easier when you were in the Chair either, did l?
I just want to say that, for anybody who says -- I should not even have to do this, Mr Chairman. I mean, we were all here to listen to the people who came before the committee, so I really am going to wind down, at least on this particular amendment, just with, I think, the best evidence that we probably had. It is basically from some 33 letters that we have, and this last one is with regard to a comment on Bill 17, where the writer is saying:
"I wish to both comment as well as bring to your personal attention the inappropriateness of Attorney General Howard Hampton's declaration of imposing automatic payroll deductions and tracking of non-custodian parents."
Now, people would argue that this is not automatic payroll deduction. I mean, that is the argument that you are going to use, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: That it is not?
Mrs Cunningham: You are going to say it is not automatic payroll deductions.
Ms S. Murdock: No, it is.
Mrs Cunningham: It is.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: But I must say that certain members of the government have said, "Oh, but you have an option." I am saying you do not.
Ms S. Murdock: What option?
Mrs Cunningham: The only option you have got is if the mother, in the instance of the father having to provide the support payments -- forgive me, Mr Chairman, for using this example but it is the most prevalent one given the statistics -- the mother would agree not to have it deducted at source. I am telling you there are a few who would do that and give people a choice. But certainly the intent of this government, if it passes this bill, is not to allow that to happen. Otherwise, why would you put it in law? Why would you do it? You have done it. It is automatic payroll deductions. It is a philosophical argument to argue otherwise. If you do not want it to be automatic, then support our motion which says it is not automatic.
I am a little bit embarrassed about our amendment. I really am, given the system. We have tried to meet the needs of the government in the best way we can, being very practical and at quite a substantial argument among ourselves in the democratic process of trying to represent the public. I thought one month was ridiculous. I thought you should probably go two months because of the system itself. It depends on when you start talking about the one month. I was persuaded, and I did not argue very heavily against this but it did cross my mind given the system, that is not very practical because even one month is almost too long.
I am in agreement with the government on this with regard to making the automatic deduction as quickly as possible after you have given somebody a chance. Our amendment says one payment, I think that is fair. It is not much of a chance, but at least it is a chance.
Interjection: Every dog gets one bite, right?
Mrs Cunningham: Everybody gets a chance. Now we are talking again in this letter: "His" -- unfortunately the Attorney General, Howard Hampton -- "and his government's action in this matter has been stated as a means to correct a compliancy issue in matters of support. In reality his amendment seeks to support the tactless incompetence of the custody and support branch." That is a pretty strong statement. It is based on the fact that our SCOE offices right now are so overburdened. That is why I took the time to read these numbers into the record.
Anybody who is working long hours with these kinds of people, every one of those cases -- that is not a phone call a month; in some of those cases it is 10 phone calls a day or a week. This is not easy work. These are not numbers, these are real people. That is atrocious.
"Of particular concern to myself is that Mr Hampton's action attempts to take away from me my share of responsibility as a participatory non-custodian parent and to a larger extent my sense of control over providing financially for my share of our son's support while in the care of his biological mother." Talk about Ontario taking away the rights of individuals. An automatic support deduction is just that. You are taking away people's rights, and that is because some eager solicitor, giving the best advice he can to his client who is vulnerable -- I think any solicitor who is giving the best advice will advise you to use the law.
"The bill will potentially threaten my status as a wage earner in this province by asking me to further reveal unnecessary information to a larger portion of the general public/employer and establishes a means for an open-chequebook approach to my earnings without undue monitoring of my ex-spouse's ability to contribute to the care of our son." I could have left the end of the sentence off but I chose not to when one is quoting from a piece of mail that all of us received.
I think this person has stated it very well. All I can say is that I hope that the government members of this committee, before they vote, will give this amendment very careful consideration based on public input in the spirit of which this amendment has been placed before the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Cunningham. Mr Mills.
Mr Sorbara: Was he on the list?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I notice that whenever I --
1640
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me for a second. I hate to interrupt. I do not think it is the polite thing to do, but just on a point of order. Could you just tell us who was on the list, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: The list right now is composed of Mr Mills and yourself.
Mr Sorbara: And there are no other government members on the list right now to speak on this?
The Chair: No. Mr Mills.
Mr Sorbara: My apologies.
Mrs Cunningham: Mark is getting his speech ready.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I noticed whenever I indicate to you that I want to speak on this that you give me your Clint Eastwood smile and I do not know why that is because I --
Mrs Cunningham: That is a good smile, though.
Mr Mills: It is a smile for Dianne, but it is not the smile for Gord, however, I --
Mrs Cunningham: That is supposed to be non-biased. You had better straighten that smile out and make it the same for everybody, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: He is suggesting that I am more generous to you than to him.
Mrs Cunningham: Was he?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Mills: He is trying to put Velcro on my lips, and I feel --
Mrs Cunningham: I do not blame him for being more generous to me. Think about it.
Mr Mills: I feel that we sit here, we are on the government side of this committee and I think that it would be remiss for me to sit here, smile and say nothing. I was very disturbed on Thursday when my friend Gary -- and I do not know if I want to call everybody Mr Carr, Mrs This and That. l thought in committee we were much more flexible than --
Mr Sorbara: Now there, that would be a good idea, I say to my friend from Durham East.
Mr Mills: That we can call people -- okay.
The Chair: You have the floor, sir.
Mr Mills: I was a little bit upset on Thursday when Gary spoke and he gave me the impression that he was suffering from some terminal depression in the fact that we, the government, were not taking any notice of what anybody said, that we just sat here and we twiddled our thumbs and we did not do anything. We were not listening; in fact, we did not care. We were wasting their time and Gary said, "I feel that I wasted my time here." I just want --
Interjection.
Mr Mills: You also spoke about all the work that you have done and your colleagues had done, and I know Dianne has done on this bill. I would just like to say a few things for the record here. This is the first committee that I have ever been on, and my colleagues too. If you think that for one moment -- and I can only speak for myself. I have not taken it lightly. I have done a lot of work on it and in particular the letters that we received. If I were to give you the key of my apartment there, you could go over on Wellesley Street and you can see it spread out on the little table where I have my meals all by my lonesome and I have read them and gone over and over and I --
Mrs Cunningham: There is great sacrifice for this job, is there not? Sitting by yourself, eating by yourself when you have been baby-sat all your life.
Mr Mills: -- have agonized over this. I like to think back at the deputations that we had here. I remember there was a lady who came here with a small child. Most of you folks thought it was her child, but I had spoken to her outside in the hall and I had determined at that time before you asked that it in fact was her grandchild. I said, "You know, it is a very hard thing for you to come here carrying this little child of yours." She said: "I beg your pardon. It is not mine; it is my daughter's." And she said, "You know, we have been through this trying to get support payments, myself and then my daughter, going through it and I am here to speak in favour of this bill." I said to her: "Where have you come from?" She said, "I have come from Ottawa." I said, "Good Lord, how did you get here?" She said, "On the train."
I think, Mr Chairman, that when she came here she did not even think that she was going to get reimbursed for this trip. I do not know. I think she came of her own free will and she spoke very passionately of all the problems that she had. That story of that lady sort of stuck with me and then, a gentleman -- those fellows who came in with the signs and all in dark suits and never smiled and they were a little bit dramatic, I thought, in that they were not acting normal. I did not think people could really act as miserable as that, and then one little fellow came in and he started going on about what was wrong with the mandatory support deductions, and then he let it slip out that he was behind. I sort of pounced on him in my previous life as a policeman to bring that out. Rightly, the Chairman pounced on me and he said, "You should not do that." I felt terrible about that because I thought I could ask that question.
Anyway, when he went out of the room, I took off after him and I caught him on the Legislature steps and I said: "I am Gord Mills, from Durham East. Before you leave here, I want to make it perfectly clear -- "
Mrs Cunningham: Did you give him your pin?
Mr Mills: No.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, Sam Cureatz would have.
Mr Mills: Oh, he had a pocketful. That was his strong point.
Mrs Cunningham: And your card. You want to be here next time? That is what you have to do.
Mr Mills: I have not caught up with Sam yet. Anyway, this fellow I felt so terrible about, I said: "Gord Mills. I am from Durham East, and I want to apologize for what I said to you in there in front of the public. I felt awful about it." He said, "Oh, forget about it." So we got into some discussion and I said to him, "Where do you come from?" He said, "Kitchener." I said: "That's a funny thing, I am going to Kitchener tomorrow with this drug strategy group. You should drop over and have a few words with us." He said, "I'd like to, because I think marijuana should be legalized." So I said, "Hey," and then he got talking. I do not want to tell you some of the things that he said to me, but it immediately came to my mind that perhaps the marijuana was part of the problem way back when, and perhaps also marijuana was part of the difficulty with keeping up with the support payments.
Interjection.
Mr Mills: While I have sat here, I have been subjected to my friend Gregory, his laser-like look at me constantly, and his colleague Murray, and that has had some effect on me. I felt cramped. These fellows really know where --
Mrs Cunningham: They have more effect on you than they do their own colleagues.
Mr Mills: -- really, they know where they are coming from.
Mrs Cunningham: They do that.
Mr Mills: I must say that I recognize your skills and your tremendous experience here and I went away and I scratched my head. Why am I saying all this? Because I want you folks to know that I consider everything, what everybody says, and in particular you, Dianne, your passionate plea for me to listen and to act.
Mrs Cunningham: Did you hear that, Mark?
Mr Morrow: I am listening, Dianne.
1650
Mr Mills: We have heard in the debate the really good guys that keep paying in, and we heard through the staff that these numbers tend to rotate. It is not always the same 25% that are the good guys, but about that percentage keep rotating. We say that we should not have these people within this legislation because they have all the good intentions in the world. I would like to tell you that no one has got better intentions than I have. So when I came down here my wife said to me, "What I want you to do every day is to exercise and I want you to eat less." I came down here with those tremendous good intentions to do that and, Mr Chairman, since I have been here, I have fallen by the wayside. As you can see, I am eating more and I do not exercise. So I use that analogy to the guys that have good intentions about keeping up with their payments and paying, because I think, and I believe, that likewise they have good intentions, that they intend to keep it up, but people do fall by the wayside.
When I was elected and opened up my office in Bowmanville, it quickly came to my attention that there are problems with SCOE. We had ladies coming in -- and I must be quite honest with you that when I was elected, I thought: "SCOE? What are they talking about?" It reminded me of some complaint or something, you know. I had never heard of it. So we looked into it, and through my assistants, we set up a support group of folks in my riding so that we could sort of listen to their stories, their emotions and experience, and they could offer their skills for coping.
I would just like to read you a little letter that one of them wrote to me. She said: "I am very enthusiastic about the idea of the support group, and I offer my assistance in its organization. I am a supporter of yours and have a personality which I believe will offer a lot to other women who have shown interest in your group." Then she says she also believes that it is a very needed service and will receive a good response in the area. "It shows that you care to a part of the population that doesn't feel too many people do." And she goes on to say that she has had problems collecting support payments for nine years.
That is the sort of input I have had that is making me think about this bill. So you can see that I have not taken the responsibility of dealing with this piece of legislation lightly.
And Mr Chairman -- who has gone. He is back?
Mrs Cunningham: All breaks should be scheduled.
Mr Mills: I suppose what it boils down to --
The Chair: Yes, Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: What it really boils down to is one's philosophy on life itself I think of all those folks that are up against it, that do not collect regularly. I could tell you -- and I will not because it is going to go on Hansard -- but I will tell you and be able to speak to you privately of something that happened in my own family about this. I would be glad to share that experience with you, but I am not going to put it down here because I do not want it to go on record.
I have great empathy with collecting support payments and the people that have that problem. This legislation, I agree with Dianne, in truth is only going to affect perhaps that sliding 20%, 30% of the people. However, I think that the legislation, as far as the assisting and the collecting, will affect 70% to 80% of all those people who hitherto did not pay. If even 20% or 30% of those cases are caught by this legislation, then it leaves the case worker free to work in the 40% to 50% of those people that are not paying.
What can I conclude with? I can conclude that it is a state of where one is coming from in a philosophical way. I think the legislation really addresses a need of people that SCOE has not addressed. It is going to help people. In deference to my friend Greg there, who made a statement that I read in Hansard the other day where he says he is going to oppose this and keep on opposing it and delaying it, I would just like to conclude by saying that every day I feel -- and I say this with a real conviction -- every day that we delay this, we are hurting people that really we should be here to serve. I appreciate what Dianne said about where she is coming from and what Gary said, what all of you have said, but we are all here to represent people as we feel in our hearts, and I feel in my heart honestly that this piece of legislation will serve the people of Ontario, those people that have trouble knowing where the next bit of money is coming from to buy food and pay the rent. I thank you for the time.
Mrs Cunningham: Just on the point of privilege here with respect to Mr Mills, I do not disagree with anything he said.
The Chair: A point of privilege, Mrs Cunningham. Mr Sorbara.
Mrs Cunningham: I think he is saying that he listened to us, and I am just trying to make clear where I would disagree with the end result of what he said, I think.
The Chair: I am not sure that is a point of privilege, Mrs Cunningham. I think Mr Sorbara has the floor now.
Mrs Cunningham: I think he was speaking to the whole bill when he made his speech --
Mr Mills: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: -- and did not speak to the amendment that we have. I am wondering if I could pursue --
The Chair: That would be a point of order that you could have brought up while he was speaking in terms of the irrelevancy of this development.
Mrs Cunningham: But when do I bring it up? Will he get another chance to speak, then, to the amendment?
The Chair: That would be a point of order, if it is a matter irrelevant to the --
Mrs Cunningham: All right, but when do you raise the point of order, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: While he is speaking. Mr Sorbara.
Mrs Cunningham: I did right at the end, Mr Chairman. I am not going to argue with you, but you cannot bring up a point of order until someone has finished speaking, because you do not know if he is going to speak to it or not.
The Chair: Yes, I believe you can.
Mrs Cunningham: I was waiting for him to speak to the amendment and he did not. The minute he stopped speaking, I raised the point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: So when else could I have done it?
The Chair: A very good question. Mr. Sorbara.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I did it appropriately.
The Chair: And politely.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me begin by saying it is nice to be back here. It is nice to see that we have made some progress finally. I have no idea whether that has to do with the fact that I was not here, but be that as it may, it is nice to see that we have made some progress. I am disappointed that the progress means that some of the amendments that we were proposing have failed to pass and be carried by this committee.
I want to begin by congratulating Mrs Cunningham on her remarks, because I think that she takes her work and this bill seriously and she obviously prepared herself by reviewing some of the testimony and some of the materials that were submitted to us. My God, it has been months now since those materials were submitted. I think that it would do the government members well to reflect on and perhaps even reread what Mrs Cunningham has said in her remarks before they make up their minds as to whether or not they are going to support her amendment. I think that is the only appropriate course.
Might I just say that I also enjoyed hearing from that master of the microphone, my friend the member for Durham East, who after years of experience on municipal councils and experience as a tax collector and as an enforcer of the law pleads that he is very new to this process. His remarks were, as always, appropriate and relevant. Unfortunately, Mrs Cunningham is right: they were entirely out of order. He did not even mention the amendment that Mrs Cunningham was discussing, but I hope to hear from him again. I hope to hear some indication that he is actually going to support that amendment. I think it stands in the name of Mr Harnick, or else page 32 is wrong, at least in my notes. That is neither here nor there. Whether it is Mr Harnick or Mrs Cunningham, it is an important amendment and my good friend Mr Mills did not speak to it; he spoke to the principle of the bill, and this is what upsets Mrs Cunningham and me and some of the other members of this committee so thoroughly. We have an amendment before us which changes the bill in its particulars, in its details.
Mr Mills wanted to make me feel somewhat bad about the fact that we are delaying this bill and, in delaying this bill, denying those who would benefit from this legislation the benefit of the legislation. If I thought that were the case, I would tell my friend from Durham East, I would forgo the opportunity to improve this bill and I would try, with all of the ability that I have, to ensure its speedy passage, but the fact is that the government, these folks over here -- and that is Howard, and that is the ministry, and that is the cabinet -- have already decided when they are going to proclaim this bill. Read the last section of the bill. The bill does not come into force when we finish dealing with it.
The bill comes into force -- perhaps I should read it for you. I am quoting from section 17 of the bill: "This act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor." Do you know what that means? Let's put it in simple terms: What it means is when the government decides that it is going to put the bill into force. Let Howard Hampton come back to this committee and testify as to when he plans on proclaiming the bill. Let him tell us what his plans are. Let his parliamentary assistant tell us --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you are referring to section 17, not to subsection 3d(10).
Mr Sorbara: I am, by way of preliminary comments, speaking to the amendment, but I have to respond to Mr Mills. You, Mr Chairman, could have interrupted my dear friend from Durham East with your gavel or with your voice and said, "You're not speaking to the amendment." You chose not to, so I think it is appropriate to respond to him. Because this is important. When we set aside all the political rhetoric, this is important stuff. I agree with him, and we, each of us, stood in our places in the House and voted in favour of this bill. We are just talking now about particulars and the government members are so stubborn that they will not even consider a particular suggested by Mrs Cunningham, a particular suggested by Mr Elston, a particular suggested by myself. You will not even consider it. You will not even speak to it.
Why is this so offensive to me and why is the lack of interest in supporting amendment 32 so offensive? Let me tell you why. In order to make this point, Mr Chairman, I have to go back a couple of days to when my leader, the Leader of Her Majesty's official opposition, put a pretty straightforward question to the Premier of the province in question period. He suggested, by way of preamble, that the government was doing diddly-squat after six months of being in power. The government had virtually no legislation before Parliament and was not putting into place its program that it promised during the election campaign.
And what did Bob Rae say? What did the Premier of the province say? He said: "We have to wait. We have two important bills on the order paper, so we are not prepared, Mr Speaker, to bring forward additional legislation until these two bills are dealt with." One is being debated in the committee of the whole House right now. There is the member for Carleton; we see him on television debating Bill 4. We are debating the other one here.
1700
After an election campaign in which the world was promised to the people of Ontario, after the New Democratic Party has been in government six months, the Premier of the province says that he is not prepared to move forward with a legislative program until the Legislature has dealt with an interim piece of legislation, because Bill 4 only deals with rent controls on an interim basis -- yes, it is retroactive, yes, it is draconian, but it is interim; the Minister of Housing said that -- and until this committee completes its work on Bill 17.
That was a very low day for me, Mr Chairman, I will tell you, as a member who has sat in the House for some five and a half, almost six years now, for a first minister to say that he would be impeded from introducing new legislation until these two bills were passed. And he could not even remember -- I had to help to him out -- what support and custody orders enforcement was all about. He stumbled on it. It is embarrassing to see the Premier, even a New Democratic Party Premier, stumble when he was trying to think about SCOE.
We are prepared to move forward on this bill. What we are not prepared to do is to easily move forward, amendment by amendment, in the absence of any indication that the government is willing to consider some very minor amendments. I warrant that if this group of nine people were sent away with this document, in the absence of pressure from the minister and the government, we could work out a compromise. I am absolutely sure about that.
Our position is simple. We want a small degree of flexibility in the bill to allow people to enforce the law without the benefit of the director of the child and family support office. We say when we ask for that flexibility that we want them to be dragged right back in in the event of one default even, but we at least want to make some sort of gesture of confidence in our people. The Tories actually want quite a bit more. They have less philosophical support for this notion.
I want to tell my friends in the New Democratic Party that we are not fooling on this. This is not new stuff to me. I had to assist the then Attorney General, Ian Scott, with this bill as it went through cabinet a long time ago. This is old stuff for us. The then Attorney General said that it would be important to create some flexibility in this system, and in fact he advocated a so-called kickout provision so that when SCOE was entirely satisfied that the government was no longer necessary to enforce the support obligations, the supporter -- the payor -- and the supportee -- the person to benefit from the payments -- would be ejected from the system, told to go it on their own, you know, like the young birds in a nest sort of thrown out of the nest when the mother bird decides that they can fly.
We had a amendment here and you defeated that. We have had an amendment before you that said, "Let's create the opportunity for some people to opt out if there is agreement and if the judge thinks it's okay." You can talk to any family court judge. They see these cases day after day after day. They know better than I and better than you, Gord, and better than you, Sharon, who should be in and who should be out. We pretend that we know so much. Dianne reads into the record stuff that was before the committee. We know very little. Maybe the judges know very little as well, but they know a lot more about who needs to be in and who needs to be out. So we say, just put a little bit less of a burden on government because, after all, if you are successful in kicking out the people who do not need you, the limited resources -- Dianne read the figures; they are shocking, the case load per person -- would be used on getting the scoundrels.
Gord, you were in the Ministry of Revenue. You understand what enforcement is like. What more unpleasant task is there than paying taxes? But most of us are good-natured about it. We allow the taxes to be direct-deducted and we voluntarily assess ourselves. That is what happens when you fill out a tax return. You voluntarily assess yourself and you send it into the government and the government generally accepts that it is correct. It audits it, but it accepts, by and large, that that is a correct assessment. We trust our people, in other words.
Mr Fletcher: I was on the list.
Mr Sorbara: I am glad to see Mr Fletcher is next on the list. Just by way of interjection, I was in the member's riding the other night and I saw a groundswell of support for the former member. I encourage Mr Fletcher to participate as vibrantly as he can during this session of Parliament, because it will probably be the only Parliament that he participates in.
Interjections.
The Chair: You have the floor, Mr Sorbara. Please go ahead.
Mr Fletcher: How is Rick doing?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Fletcher asks how Rick is doing. He, of course, for the sake of Hansard, is referring to Rick Ferraro, the former member and future member for Guelph, and I say to my friend that he is doing marvellously.
Mr Fletcher: I will be seeing him in the summer.
Mr Sorbara: Now, back to the amendment. We are on amendment 32.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: I am not diverting from the topic, Mr Chairman.
Mr Harnick: No, it was me. I led him down that path. I apologize.
Mr Sorbara: You did.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you have the floor, sir. Do not let Mr Harnick interrupt.
Mr Sorbara: Notice that amendment 32, moved by, I take it, Mrs Cunningham, or perhaps Mr Harnick, or perhaps Mr Carr --
The Chair: I believe it was Mr Carr.
Mr Sorbara: It is a Conservative amendment, none the less, a PC motion. That is actually a contradiction in terms, PC motion. No, it is not, Gary. The truth is there is all sorts of motion, most of it backward until you came.
Mr Sorbara: Anyway, the motion provides for the suspension of the support deduction order, and I tell all of the government members that is all that Mrs Cunningham, that is all that I, that is all that Mr Carr, that is all that Mr Harnick, at this point, are asking for, some flexibility to suspend the enforcement of this order where everyone agrees that it is not necessary. I do not know what could be more reasonable.
I honestly do not know what holds you back. We have heard nothing from the government members as to what the great concern is. Mrs Cunningham asked about whether or not any remarks would be forthcoming about what the hesitation is on this reasonable proposal. Nothing. A good speech from the member for Durham East about the philosophy behind the bill -- and we all agree on that, Gord. It was developed under a Liberal Attorney General. An NDP Attorney General introduced it. A Progressive Conservative caucus has expressed support. We are all with you, but our job in committee in clause-by-clause is the detailed architecture and we say, "Show courage, show independence, show a free spirit and support a reasonable amendment." It does not necessarily have to be number 32. I think that there are some shortcomings, as a matter of fact, with number 32, but I would be flexible enough to support number 32 or any other flexible amendment that anyone wanted to offer.
Let me tell you why I think you should support it. The government is under severe financial constraint. Every penny is important these days. We have in this province the shocking sight of people lining up at food banks. I do not want to get into what I think about the responses of the Minister of Community and Social Services today in the House on that topic. She showed an arrogance uncommon even in the most arrogant days of previous governments. It was very upsetting to us.
Mr Morrow: A point of order.
The Chair: Mr Morrow.
Mr Morrow: Mr Sorbara is off the amendment. Can you please return to the amendment?
Mrs Cunningham: He is what?
Mr Morrow: He is off the amendment.
1710
Mr Sorbara: I do apologize to you, Mr Chairman. I will try and stick to the amendments. What I was pointing out by way of a parenthetic comment was that many of us were appalled and shocked at the way in which the Minister of Community and Social Services seemed to have absolutely no sympathy at all for the plight of so very many of our residents and our citizens in this province. I could not believe it. At least she could feign some sympathy if she really did not have any sympathy, but her lecture to the opposition members about how much the government has done, in the face of reports from the very people who are running food banks that we have a terrible crisis right across the province --
I am going to tell my friend Mr Mills that in the heart of Richmond Hill, at the United Church in Richmond Hill right on the main street, Yonge Street, there is a big banner saying: "Bring donations. Food bank here." Richmond Hill is one of the richest areas in North America. Markham right next door, has the highest per capita income and we are not far behind. I will tell you, when food banks are the order of the day in Richmond Hill, this province is in trouble. We are in a serious recession.
Mr Mills: This is going to help.
Mr Sorbara: My friend Mr Mills says that this is going to help. I want to tell him that when people do not have jobs there is nothing against which to levy a support deduction order. There is another reason. "To save a few pennies, keep me out of the system if I can establish, in partnership with my ex-spouse" -- the Premier is always talking about partnerships -- "and with the blessing of a judge in a family court, that we can fulfil our mutual obligations without the benefit of the director of the child and family support office. Don't make me put up security. Don't differentiate my ability to put up security with somebody else's ability not to be able to put up security." That is demeaning and it is an affront to Liberal and, I suggest to you, social democratic principles.
I want to tell Gordon Mills that this is my first experience on committee as well. I have never done this work before. I was as intimidated on day one as you were -- perhaps even more so, because I am supposed to have had parliamentary experience -- in that I came to the committee and had to ask my own colleagues how we go about dealing with bills.
It so offends me that we cannot see any movement on this tiny issue. It offends me as well that there is no other legislation for us to deal with after we have dealt with this bill. In the normal course, there would have been a number of bills that had gone through second reading and were waiting to be dealt with by this committee. What have we got, by the way, Mr Chairman? Do you know what is coming up? The Arbitration Act, developed by the former Attorney General of the province of Ontario, the member for St George-St David. A good piece of legislation, noncontroversial, it will go through this committee in a flash. Not a big deal. The Class Proceedings Act, another bill developed by Ian Scott, a very important bill. I would like to see it here, but it has not even been debated in second reading. Yet we have nothing from the members on the other side, Mr Chairman, on SCOE. No suggestion at all, no hint or indication that they are willing to budge even one inch.
I just want to tell you that opposition members are elected, among other things, to oppose. The New Democratic Party made it a fine art during years in the Ontario Legislature and now you are going to have to bear some of the responsibility for that. I have got a lot to oppose in this House. Today, for example, speaking of amendment 32, the Minister of the Environment had the gall and audacity to stand up and announce that she alone has decided that Metro's garbage is going to go into York region. Where did that come from?
The Chair: Mr Morrow.
Mr Morrow: Mr Sorbara, can you please stay on the bill, or the amendment anyway, please?
Mr Sorbara: Speaking of the amendment, I just want to tell you how angry I am. I mean, talk about opposing. Ruth Grier --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, Mrs Grier is not mentioned in the amendment.
Mr Sorbara: Well, maybe I should move an amendment mentioning Mrs Grier and her outrageous --
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. Gord, if, without any prior consultation, Ruth Grier had stood up and said --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, there is a point of order. Mrs Grier is not in the amendment.
Ms S. Murdock: Nor is Mrs Grier here.
Mr Sorbara: Well, she should be in the amendment and she should be here.
Okay, let's get to the amendment. Let's look at --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher, Mr Sorbara does have the floor, if he gets back to the amendment.
Mr Sorbara: Let's look at --
Mr Fletcher: You have not even read the amendment.
Mr Sorbara: Well, I have read it. I have read it carefully, and I note three things about it.
First of all, she has in her amendment -- truth is, Mr Carr moved it. He in his amendment provided first for a suspension, an immediate suspension of the order. Notice how the amendment begins, "Despite any other provision in this section" -- which means, for those of you who have not studied this stuff, it takes precedence over everything else in section 3 -- the court is required -- I say required because the amendment uses the word "shall" -- and it has to do it right away, "shall immediately suspend its operation if the payor requests the suspension and agrees to pay to the director the amount owing under the support order to which it relates and the court is satisfied that the payor is likely to make the payments."
Now, you see, this is a typical Tory amendment. It vests rights in the payor.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: Well, it makes the court respond to the request of the payor. I am not as happy about it as our amendment.
Mr Harnick: You are not reading the amendment. You are not even reading the words in there.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara does have the floor.
Mr Harnick: "And the court is satisfied."
Mr Sorbara: That is right. But in typical Tory fashion, the rights emerge from the interests of the individual. There is nothing wrong with that; the rights of the individual are important.
I think my friend Mr Harnick had something to do with the flow in this amendment, and I tell him that I am going to support it. I am going to vote in favour of it, although I would prefer my own amendment. Okay?
Mrs Cunningham: But the intent --
Mr Harnick: The intent is the same. You already blew that one.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, well, there we go.
Mr Harnick: Despite great effort.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, go ahead, sir.
Mr Sorbara: Subsection 11 refers back to subsection 10, that is, the right of the payor to make the request, the court looks at it, the court says yes, okay, or the court looks at it and says no, sorry. The court has the final determination.
But when the request is made, the suspension of the support deduction order immediately ends if there is one default. Note the words, very carefully chosen, "fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due." One day late, "Sorry; we're going to enforce against you."
Now that is flexibility. That is reasonable. Some people would say, "Well, he should or she should have the right to default or fail to make a payment two or three times," but no, the Tories have said, "One default and we're going to start taking the full force of the support deduction order into effect and start deducting."
And let's not hear nonsense from the parliamentary assistant of the Attorney General that this makes it too cumbersome to enforce. What makes it more cumbersome than putting every single person into the system, even those who have absolutely the best intention to pay and in fact do pay? Statistically, there are what, 20% or 15% of the payors who will pay on their own? Let's take 15%. Surely if you are putting into this system 15% of the people who do not need it you are wasting public resources, and surely you would agree that if we could find a way to not bring that 15% in and devote those resources to something else, that would be a good idea.
So all we are really fighting over is a mechanism to identify those 15%. If you, Gord, can come up with a mechanism, we would be interested in hearing it. But what we find so objectionable is that the party of the new frontier says that there is absolutely no way of identifying that 15%. We can go to the moon, we can develop the most sophisticated technologies to know exactly how much money is in a payor's account here, there and everywhere, we can electronically fax that information all over the province, but we cannot put into law some system to identify that 15% who would pay anyway. It is not credible.
1720
You know why it is not credible? Because it is not true. We can find a way. But the fact is that the government wants to make a political statement to a variety of constituencies out there that have asked the government to show its muscle on this issue. And Gord, I want to tell you the truth. I know about that. I have dealt with that political muscle and I understand the expediency of responding. But you are in the first year of your mandate. You can afford the flexibility of doing what is right rather than doing what is politically expedient.
You could call for an adjournment, for example, of this committee and say, "We want to have one last attempt to speak to Howard Hampton on this matter collectively." You could go to him and say: "They only want a minor amendment to allow the good people out of the system. That is all they want."
And Gord, you can get the bill real quick. I tell you right now, I will forgo the amendments dealing with the responsibility of the employer, you know, the prohibition against harassing the employees, although your own Minister of Labour, who sponsors this because he is the minister responsible for the Employment Standards Act, said that very provision was not worth the powder to blow it to hell. Those are his words, not mine. I would like him to come back and testify before this committee and tell me why they are worth something in this bill and they were not worth anything in Bill 94. I think I have the number right, Mr Chairman.
But you could call for an adjournment and say, "We just want to go and try and convince Howard one more time of that one small amendment allowing the good people out," and you would get the bill tomorrow, or the next time we sit. The amendments will go like that.
We want to see some flexibility. We want to see that you are ready, willing and able to --
Mr Fletcher: Don't try to blackmail us.
Mr Sorbara: My friend from Guelph, the one-time member from Guelph, says, "Don't try and blackmail." Blackmail is strong words.
I cannot speak for my Conservative friends on this committee, but I am sure that if the government showed flexibility -- after all, we are talking about a detail in the architecture -- we could get through the rest of these amendments pretty darn quick, and I will put my party on record. We will dispense with the rest of our amendments. I am the whip on this committee and I have the authority to do that. We will dispense with the rest of our amendments if we see that the government has let a little bit of Liberal or Conservative fresh air into the room.
Mr Fletcher: I think we have done that.
Mr Sorbara: You only got 37% of the vote.
Mr Fletcher: It was 38%.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, 38% of the vote; 62% of the people presumably did not want a New Democratic Party government, so you need not rule as if the divine right of kings and queens had returned to the province of Ontario.
Ms S. Murdock: We are regarding 56 amendments, many of which were based on you and the Tories. So talk about inflexibility --
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I am offended by the interjection of Ms Murdock, and I will tell you why. I understand the 56 amendments. Ms Murdock knows that I have taken major pieces of legislation through committee, and these amendments arise from the public airing of the bill and they arise through the bureaucracy. When I took Bill 162 through committee, there were more than 56 amendments and virtually all of them arose through the public consideration of the bill.
Sure, some of the things that individuals said here shed a new light and the bureaucracy drafts the bills, but point to the amendments that have come up on the basis of what we think is politically important. I would like to hear about those. I would like you to give a speech on them. I mean, show me the amendments that have been passed based on our interventions, our talking hour after hour in this committee. Which ones are they? There are none. Technical amendments, you have said: "Hallelujah. Technical amendments. That's great. We'll pass it." Give me a break. We can let the technocrats deal with the technical amendments.
We want a little bit of dignity here. We want something for the hours that we have put into consideration of this bill and for what we think the bill should look like. We want some budging. We want to be able to go home to our constituents and say: "It made a difference that we were there. We changed the bill. We got the government to modify it somewhat to let the good people out of the system, the good men and women who wouldn't ever think of defaulting on their former spouses and their children." There are some of those out there, Gord, and even if there is one, we should consider that one in drafting the legislation.
Remember, Gandhi said a society and a government shall be judged on how it treats its minorities. If the good men and women who will pay are the minority, their existence should be reflected in this bill. That is all we are saying. It is simple. We have had to say it over and over again, and we get nothing in response from the Attorney General, his parliamentary assistant, his staff members, his director and his colleagues in the Legislature -- nothing. Do you know how frustrating it is to talk about this thing hour after hour and get no response? Well, we are here for four years.
Mr Fletcher: That is right.
Mr Sorbara: We have got time.
Mr Fletcher: Definitely.
Mr Sorbara: We have got energy. We have got commitment. We will be back. I mean, we are going to vote on this one. It is going to take 20 minutes or so after we have heard the last speech, and then we will go on to the next. But even if the government members were to call for an adjournment of a week because they wanted to sit down with Howie, he is a very difficult minister to get hold of.
Mr Carr: Get him Mondays at hockey.
Mr Sorbara: Well, I will go to hockey if I have to go to hockey. But if you five could sit down and speak with him and make the pitch --
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: No, I do not play hockey, but Gary plays hockey, and there is Doug Reycraft; he plays hockey.
Anyway, Mr Chairman, those are my comments on the amendment as proposed by Mr Carr, or Mr Harnick or Mrs Cunningham. I note the presence of the former member for Middlesex, Mr Reycraft, and that is like another breath of fresh air in this committee room. Mr Chairman, those are my remarks.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Fletcher?
Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Chair. It has been nice listening to Mr Sorbara. I have always said I am a one-term wonder anyway.
About the amendment, as far as I am concerned, the amendment is changing the intent of the whole bill.
Mr Mills: You are not a one-term wonder.
Mr Fletcher: Well, I hope to be a one-term wonder, Gord. I do not want to be here much longer. I might get like everyone else.
There are certain things that are said. I mean, where do you get a statement, "the payor is likely to make the payments"? Who is going to judge whether a payor is likely to make the payments? Is that coming from the judge or is that coming from the director? I mean, that is rather ridiculous. No one can say, "Oh, you're likely to make the payments." Then the next thing you know, six months later down the road they have not made any payments.
As far as what the Conservatives and the Liberals are saying in this committee is concerned, you had your chance. The Liberals had five years; you had 40-something years. You had your chance at legislation. It is the New Democrats' turn to bring in legislation and we are going to bring in legislation, and it is the legislation that we want to bring in, not the legislation that anyone else wants to bring in.
As far as your amendments are concerned, you are not fooling me, you are not fooling Mr Mills, you are not fooling Ms Murdock or anyone else on this committee. The amendments that you are bringing in are amendments that are destined to change the whole concept of Bill 17 and we are not going to accept that. Personally, I am speaking for myself, we are not going to accept it.
As far as we are concerned, it is about time that people were forced to pay who have not been paying, and as far as treating minorities is concerned, I think a minority of people are being affected by this bill, not a majority of people.
In that light, Mr Chair, as far as I am concerned, we have argued this section, this amendment, for days. I have listened and listened to arguments from the Conservatives and from the Liberals which make some sense, but as I said before, you have had your chance at government, you have had your chance at legislation, it is our turn at legislation and these are some of the things that we see as being important and that is what we are going to do in this session, bring in legislation that the New Democrats want to bring in, the New Democrats made promises on.
Obviously you have not learned anything from 6 September. It is not how many promises that you make to people, it is not how fast you move, it is listening to the people. We say we are going to consult, we are going to listen, we have done that, and we keep getting lambasted from the opposition about move faster and move faster. That is not what we are about to do. What we are about to do is listen and make sure that we move with caution and try to make as few mistakes as possible, but we are going to make mistakes. This bill is not a mistake. The amendment would be a mistake, and it would be stepping back from the promises we made to the people that elected us. What we are going to do is move, as far as I am concerned, on this amendment, and we will probably vote against it. Thank you, Mr Chair.
1730
Mr Carr: I guess the reason I have some concerns is, that is why we put in the one fact that you will miss only one payment. We made it so that the courts will be able to look at it and decide whether there is a chance, based on the history. They are the ones who look at the financial statements. They are the ones who look at the decisions all the way along. They are the ones who go into detail and say: "Does he have a good history? Does he miss the payments?"
The financial statements go on record, all these facts are what goes into what the amount is going to be, even. They take a look at it, and when they get all the facts, rather than having it rammed in, where everybody is automatically going to fall into the system, we are saying, "Let's make the judge take a look at the situation," and to see, within his best judgement -- and if he is wrong, he or she, if the judge is wrong, what happens? One payment gets missed and they come back in the system. One lousy payment gets missed, and they will come back in the system.
Mr Fletcher: You do not realize what one payment can do to a kid.
Mr Carr: I realize what one payment does, but what we were trying to say earlier is that the system is going to end up being clogged. Those who are not going to pay, these folks are not going to be able to be working with them, because we are going to have a system that is clogged up with the ones who might pay. If we could see where the money was not going to be getting into the hands of the kids, if we could have that explained to us, then we would be the first to say, "No, let's get rid of it."
But here is a situation where a judge is looking at the situation and saying -- if the person he is looking at has a bad history, surely that judge can make a determination. We ask them to make decisions, sometimes objective decisions, on things in so many other areas. All we are doing is saying, "Let them have a look at it," and if there is any reason that it should not be done, then that judge can say, "No, that person should not be in for whatever reason." But if you took somebody who had a perfect record and was honest, and there is the odd one out there who has no history of having any problems, surely we should not lock them in to the system. That is why we are saying it is not as if they backed up and they miss payment after payment. If you miss one payment, and my friend, Mr Mills -- and I will call him my friend because on all sides of the House we do build up friendships, and I mean that sincerely -- when he talked about that lady in the earlier case that went on and on and on, that lady would not be affected, because if she missed receiving one payment, it would have fallen on the system. That lady would not be affected at all by this amendment. She might, originally, with the first one, when the first one gets missed, but then they would come in the system automatically.
Mr Mills: That is what bothers me.
Mr Carr: That is why we, in the long run, support it to get people like that, so we do not have that poor lady -- and I think you are right, I was the one who mistakenly thought it was her daughter. She looked very young and I thought it was.
Mr Mills: She was complimented.
Mr Carr: Yes, hopefully it was a compliment. She took it as that. But those people are not going to be affected by this; maybe in one instance, if that person was not going to pay, but they miss one payment, and they go back in the system. That lady would not be affected. What we are talking about is the people who would normally pay not having to go into this system. That is all we are talking about. We are talking about a situation where we give people a chance. When the judge looks at it and says objectively, as they try to do -- and let's face it, judges are not always objective and they are going to make mistakes, but they will make mistakes on the amount. We heard the one lady in here saying she did not get enough. Judges are going to make mistakes. We heard them say that there are three financial statements. You get three judges with the same financial statements, you are going to get different judgements, so there are going to be mistakes. There are going to be inequities in the system, anyway, based on what the judgement is going to be. So the judges will make mistakes, and maybe something can be done to avoid that.
Mr Fletcher: He missed a payment? And then what do you do, chase him with a car?
The Chair: Mr Carr has the floor.
Mr Carr: All we have got is a system right now that everybody is going to be included in, regardless of what their history was. Everybody is guilty and thrown in the system. Everybody is going to be guilty and classified as guilty, and have it immediately deducted.
Mr Fletcher: That is not what we are saying. You are taking it too seriously.
Mr Carr: It is rather serious because that is why we worked at it and said, "You are going to give people a chance." We heard a lady from Dofasco here saying, "The problem is, in a lot of cases, that people do not have the money." This bill is not going to affect that. This bill is not going to affect the problems we have. This bill is not going to affect the fact that some judgements, for some of the poor ladies and children, are so low that even if they got the amount it is not going to help them. I think that has been said.
Everybody realized it is not going to solve all the problems, and I guess that was readily admitted. But we said, going back to the courts, a judge has one chance to take a look at it and say, "No, this person, based on the history and the testimony in front of the court, I do not think he should be put into the system," or, "I think he should be put in the system." But that determination can best be made by a judge who has looked at the situation, looked at the financial statements, knows that family -- and my colleague, who is a lawyer, will know that they get an in-depth look at that family through these proceedings. They get to know the financial; they get to know the reasons for the breakup; they get to know everything about that family.
Surely, at that time, that individual -- rather than the government saying everybody is automatically thrown in -- surely that judge at that time is in the best position to make that determination, having looked at the financial, having heard the testimony under oath of the situation, and knowing exactly what it is. Surely that person is in the best position to say: "Yes, I think this person will pay. Based on his past history, the facts as they lay before me, this person is likely to pay." Or, as in some cases, the judge may say: "No, based on the financial situation, I have looked at the financial statement, and the history is poor. There have been a lot of job changes, although a job change would not help this case, but there are a lot of different circumstances. I have looked at it objectively, and do you know what? This person should go in the system because we do not trust the fact that they are going to pay it."
That is why we included the last section in there, the failure to make one payment. We said it will come back into the system if you fail to make one payment. My hope is that when people see that we are not kidding around with this legislation, hopefully we are going to eliminate a lot of the work for these people, because a lot of people are saying: "They are not kidding. They will come into the system, so do you know what, maybe I will pay. Maybe I realize that the government and the major thrust of the bill is that we are no longer kidding about this, that I am going to have to pay and that they will automatically take it off if I do not pay and if I miss one payment." It is my hope that a lot of people will then say, "I will pay. I will honour my commitments because I realize if I miss one payment, one lousy payment, I will come into the system."
That is my hope, and unfortunately we are not going to have an opportunity to know that before we judge the legislation. We are not going to know that. That is my feeling, and my gut feeling is, there will be a lot more people who will come in as a result of the major thrust of this bill. As we have said all along, the major thrust, you have support, but what we wanted was a little bit of flexibility on this, not in some of the technical amendments.
I know it has been said that there was some flexibility on this, but it was not, it was only the flexibility on the small technical matters, and quite frankly, was on some of the things that we pointed out. More to the point, some of the more astute legal minds pointed out some of the mistakes, so we tied up a couple of little technicalities. But the one thrust that we wanted to put in as an opposition party, and it has the support, as you know, of the Liberals, the one consensus we got from listening to people, was to put that in. Just a little bit of movement on a major issue. It does not have anything to do with past history and who was in government when they moved it. When the Tories were last in power I could not even vote. So what happens in the past with this bill does not really pertain to what we are trying to do, which is to make improvements. We can talk all we want about the fact that the Liberals never brought it in, although from what I am gathering here, from the testimony, a lot of work had gone on behind the scenes.
1740
There was a lot of cabinet discussion. The Attorney General of the day, Mr Scott, was making some movement towards this. I think that is why there has been so much work done for the people in the ministry. So we were moving that way. What he was trying to do, I think, was try to look at it in the long sense and add some improvements like this that in the long term would be beneficial. And for whatever reason it did not come up. There are, as we found out, in government a lot of priorities. This government made it a priority along with the bill where the Housing minister is now standing up there, so it is a priority. All we are doing is trying to say, "Will it be improvement," and if for one minute -- I saw the lady that Gordon referred to -- if I thought for one minute it would help that lady I would not have brought this amendment in, but that lady will not be hurt by this amendment. If she misses one -- I guess it would be her daughter rather than her -- her daughter would come in. For those people, yes, we should have some strong measures. The people who abdicate the responsibility, I say let's even be tougher on those people for whatever reason.
I appreciate the member talking about his personal situation because it does affect your feelings on this. But let's take a look at a situation like that. If the person missed one payment, they would fall into the system, and whatever the numbers may be that are not in the system, I believe the numbers might go up. When people know that the government is very serious about this and it is not going to become something where you can get away with your responsibilities, I think the numbers will go up on their own. I am hoping that and I am praying that will be the case. So the numbers will go up. We will have achieved our objective which is to get more money into the hands of the kids. But if that is our ultimate objective -- and I guess I go back to my old management training -- if our objective is to try to get more money into the hands of the kids who really need it, this one amendment that we propose will not hurt that.
If I thought for a minute that would kill the objective of getting the money into the hands of the kids -- and I think I have mentioned many times before I have got three of my own. If I thought there were any children out there, like my children, who were being hurt by this amendment I would not have moved it. My feeling is that for those people who are going to be the chronic, bad payers, let's spend more time on them. Let's get the crew over here from SCOE spending the time, as they probably would have to do for that lady's grandchild, chasing that person down.
We heard my colleague, Mrs Cunningham, talking about the numbers that are out there that need to be chased down and it is horrendous. If we can get to those people and chase those people down and get more money into the hands of those children -- and if I thought this motion would hurt that, I would not have brought it forward.
What I am saying is that with one lousy payment being missed, you would come into the system. Let's give everybody a chance. Let's give the judge the chance to take a look at it and say, "You know what, my gut feeling from years on the bench" -- and let's face it, a lot of what judges do is based on their feelings and situations, having looked at the facts. If they feel for whatever reason that that person needs to be in the system they can be put into it, but let's not make government the ones that decide everybody gets pushed into it. Let's leave some discretion to the judges.
That is why we in our society honour judges so much. They are held in more esteem -- I was going to say more than the politicians, but we are so far down the list now I do not think there is anybody above us. But judges do because they look at the facts, they look at them objectively, they take a great deal of time in study. The criteria for being a judge is the amount of time that it takes to be able to look at these facts. Sure, there are going to be good and bad decisions made but these are the best people to make the decisions, not the politicians like us who say, "Nope, everybody should be in the system, so everybody goes in."
These learned people on the bench, these are the people that should be able to look at it and say no. And what is the worst possible case? If that judge, after looking at it objectively, after looking at the financial statements, after looking at all the circumstances and the inner workings of that family relationship that he does in setting the amount, after he has looked at it, even if he were to make a mistake, I would not have moved this amendment if I thought for a minute that it would hurt the kids down the road and that there was too much power.
But then we look at it and say okay, if that person makes a mistake and does fall out of the system and misses one payment, then he would come back into the system as a result. That is why we are very dear to put that in there, and we have now given some more of the discretion to the director too, because we put in there very clearly "without an explanation that is acceptable to the director," because there may be a case where the actual letter or cheque had gone out with the mail and so on. We heard all the problems from the people who have been involved in it and we heard some of the testimony of all the things that can go wrong. Even when we do everything perfectly in the system, there are still going to be some people who are going to be hurt because of the system, because of the fact that things are going to get mixed up because of the massive numbers we are talking about.
That is why we put that if the judge now takes a look at it and says, "You know what, I think they should be in the system," and that judge makes a mistake and they fall out, then it is back to the director. The director could take a look at it and say there was a legitimate reason or there was not. So they are not going to escape off into the night after this. There is something in place to catch up to them.
I know the member, and I will not refer to the member, is tremendously concerned about individuals and getting the money in. The only thing that I want to convey to the government members is that we feel the same way too. We want to make sure those kids -- and I hate to keep referring to my three, because they were down, two of them were down last week -- yes, I have three -- and the Speaker was kind enough to bring them in and take a look and tell them about the ghosts up on the fifth floor and everything else. We only brought two in because the third one is too young. But as a father -- and I think Mr Fletcher has kids, too, if I am not mistaken; yes, he does, and I know Mr Morrow does; and I know both of our members do as well -- there is the genuine commitment out there for children who are out there.
We want to see money in those hands, and what we would like to do is take a look later on at somehow what we are going to do about the fact that you have got three financial statements and, even with the judge making the decision, the circumstances are such that there are still going to be a lot of children out there who are going to be hurt. We are going to deal with that in other areas and in other legislation and so on, because the number of kids who are out there right now who are not getting the support they need and going to school hungry, there is a tremendous number of those people, and we will work in other areas to make sure they are helped.
But in dealing with this issue here, if any of us thought for a minute that any kids would fall through the crack as a result of this amendment, we would not be doing it. If you go back to the original thrust, the objective is to get more money into the hands of the kids. And if you remember that that is what the objective is --
Mrs Cunningham: Derek does not believe you, Gary; Derek does not understand.
Mr Carr: I know the other members do; I think most members do. I mean, what other motive could there be?
Interjection.
Mr Carr: I cannot talk that long.
Mr Mills: Are you going to talk until 6 o'clock?
Mr Carr: No, I do not want to. Charles wants to talk. I will make my final point.
Mr Harnick: Take all the time you need.
Mr Carr: Obviously, the members seeking my points are not making any --
Mr Mills: I understand where you are coming from.
The Chair: Mr Carr, go ahead. You have the floor.
Mr Carr: I can appreciate that the member does not agree with it. That is fine. But we wanted to get on the record the fact that the reasoning behind it and the things that happened, the moving testimony from that lady who was here with her grandchild -- that moving testimony moves everybody and we want to see those people helped. The thing is, we do not want to see a system turn into a bureaucratic nightmare where the people we genuinely want to help we cannot. My big fear with this, and I guess the reality, is that everybody is realizing there is only so much money to go around with governments. I think most people realize that with the tax situation as it is, no more money is going to fall out of the sky; and the amount that we are going to take to process this 25%, or whatever it may be, is going to take away from what needs to be done to get the kids the money from the ones who are not paying and from other programs. It is not one big pot; rather, it is one big pot, because if we can save in this area, maybe that will go towards providing a breakfast program for kids somewhere down the line. Maybe it will go to increasing the amount of welfare, social assistance programs. Maybe it will go to increasing the amount for those kids who right now do not have enough to get on; whatever the court says, they still do not have enough to make ends meet.
1750
Unfortunately, this legislation will not help them, so the people we are talking about helping, we genuinely and sincerely want to help those people and hopefully there will be some slight movement on this. I know my colleague Mrs Cunningham said it more eloquently than I could, and I guess there was not too much movement, so I thought I would give a stab at it and probably did not do a very good job. But we wanted you to realize that when this goes through, these are the reasons behind it, these are the reasons that we sat down as we did with Charles and Dianne one night, going through some of the amendments and trying to perfect them and sending them over to the legislative counsel to get the wording correct and to tie these up. We spent a lot of the time because we genuinely wanted to make sure that there are less people out there like the lady who came before us.
I will close with that. I know my colleague wanted to raise a small point with what Mr Fletcher said.
Mr Harnick: I want to respond to what Mr Fletcher was saying. I am somewhat surprised that he would make the statement, "Promises don't matter; it's listening to people." I think if the Premier had heard that one of his members has come to that conclusion, that promises don't matter -- I am shocked and I think he would give him the laser-eyed stare if that was really the case.
But it is interesting that after the member states that promises do not matter, he states that it is listening to people. What I would like to ask the member to do is to please review the material, review the evidence of people who came here and review what they said. I must tell you that you have got a great advantage over me because I did not have the opportunity to see these people live, I did not get the opportunity to see what their demeanour was, but you did, and when you read the words on the Hansard paper you have some idea of who the people were. To me they are just names, but you have a great advantage and you can read about the people who came here and said:
"Look, I always paid. Why are you doing this to me? Why are you forcing me to compromise myself with my employer? Why are you forcing me into a system where, after a matrimonial breakup, you are encouraging greater animosity by forcing me into a bureaucratic nightmare? Why are you doing that? Why are you making it more difficult for me to maintain a relationship with my children?"
Mr Fletcher: You should have been with me Saturday night.
Mr Harnick: I am sorry -- well, I am really not sorry that I was not with you Saturday night because I was enjoying myself Saturday night on the long weekend. I have to be honest: I am not disappointed that I was not with you, but I hope that you are with me now and you are prepared to reconsider your position, because if promises do not matter but listening to people does, I urge you to listen to what the people came here and said. Again, you have a great advantage over me: You saw the people, you got to know them and I would urge you to listen to what they say, not just to utter the words that you uttered and ignore what the people said.
Now, the other thing that caused me some concern is this idea -- and I use your words -- that my party and the Liberals are fooling, we are trying to amend this legislation in an attempt to fool and change the concept of the bill. I take umbrage at the fact that you feel that we are fooling around and that we are trying to fool someone. Because if that is the impression that you have been left with after the weeks that we have been sitting here and talking about the concept of this bill, if you think we are fooling, then I think this whole exercise has gone right over your head, my friend. I am afraid to say that, but it has gone right over your head, and I take umbrage with the fact that you think that we are fooling. We take this very seriously and we are not trying to fool anyone. We are trying to create a bill that is a better bill than you brought to the table. We think, if you listen to us and if you listen to the evidence that people gave, we can make this bill better. No one is trying to fool you.
The other thing that you said is that it is the NDP's turn to legislate and that the other parties have had their chance. I will agree with you, you have been elected and people expect that you will legislate, but they are expecting good legislation and they are expecting a committee process as part of that legislative procedure that works, not a process where you are given marching orders by the Attorney General and his staff and you come in here and you nod affirmatively when we make the various points.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Harnick has the floor.
Mr Harnick: If you are telling me that this is now policy and that you have no options and you have no flexibility, why are we sitting here and going through this committee procedure? If it is policy and it is cast in stone, then we have all wasted our time. Again, the fact that you would utter the words that it is policy, shocks me. Virtually everything you said in your remarks shocks me, but the fact that it is -- well, self-righteousness, I suspect, if those are the words I heard you say, is really not what this is all about. Obviously, the chip on your shoulder is so big that you do not think anybody else other than yourself, and the marching orders you have been given, is capable of making this bill better. It was my colleague who had great despair last time. With every word you utter, my despair becomes greater, and I hope your colleagues have the resolve to stand up and tell you that you are wrong and tell you that it is not policy and tell you that there is flexibility so that we can amend this bill and make it better.
The next point is that you have argued that the changes we are making by this proposed amendment change the whole intent of the bill. It is quite obvious that you have not read the amendment. The amendment immediately suspends the operation if the payor requests the suspension and agrees to make the payment and the court is satisfied --
Interjection: It is a weasel clause.
Mr Harnick: It is a weasel clause?
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Whip, do you not have more control over that member?
Interjections.
Mr Harnick: It is interesting, and I hope all these comments are going on the record, because it just shows the disdain that this member has towards this whole process.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, the comments are out of order and I think it is time for you to return to the amendment.
Mr Harnick: I am responding to what Mr Fletcher said, and unfortunately I am responding to the remarks that he continues to make. I truly hope that those remarks that he now makes and the remarks that he made in his comments a few moments ago are not reflective of what the rest of the members of the NDP on this committee stand for.
Mr Chairman, would it be appropriate for me to begin again at our next session, because it is 6 o'clock?
The Chair: Are you moving to adjourn?
Mr Harnick: Yes, I am moving to adjourn and I will wrap up my remarks --
The Chair: Mr Harnick moves adjournment. All in favour? We have four in favour. Opposed?
Mr Harnick: I believe that to sit beyond 6 o'clock needs unanimous approval, does it not?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, it does.
Mr Harnick: Well, it is now 6 o'clock and you do not have unanimous approval, because I wish to adjourn.
The Chair: We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1800.