CONTENTS
Monday 15 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:
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Poirier
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP) for Mr F. Wilson
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Mr Winninger
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Revell, Donald, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1539 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: I would like to call the meeting to order. What is left on the agenda is the Progressive Conservative motion on page 44, the yellow copies that the clerk handed out on Tuesday last. Mr Harnick.
Mr Sorbara: With your permission, Mr Chair, when we last left this room, were we not talking about problems with an amendment that appeared on replacement page 36? Did I miss something?
The Chair: We had discussed that, Mr Sorbara, but I believe where we left off was with Mr Harnick about to introduce the motion on page 44, which I am sure he is just about to do.
Mr Wessenger: Perhaps I could advise.
Mr Sorbara: I would appreciate that.
Mr Wessenger: Section 3g was stood down to provide for an amendment to subsection 8. There is now an amendment that has been prepared with respect to subsection 8 which I guess will be discussed at a later stage.
Mr Sorbara: Was that not the last thing that we discussed before we left, or did I leave and something else happen?
Mr Wessenger: You left early.
Mr Sorbara: I see.
The Chair: Page 43 was carried and we moved on to page 44 with Mr Harnick just about to move.
Mr Sorbara: Just before he does that, can I find out what pages he is working from?
The Chair: Page 44 on the yellow copies that the clerk handed out on Tuesday last.
Mr Sorbara: I was not given those.
The Chair: Lisa is providing you with a fresh copy. Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: I believe that I moved this amendment.
The Chair: I recall you as having done so as well.
Mr Harnick: But if you would like me to do it again --
Mr Wessenger: I think he moved it.
The Chair: If you do not mind, sir.
Mr Harnick moves that section 3k of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(10) Despite any other provision of this section, a payor who is not in arrears under a support order on the day this section comes into force and who is making the payments required under the support order shall not be required to make payments through a support deduction order described in subsection (5) unless at any time after this section comes into force he or she, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."
Mr Harnick: I believe that Ms Murdock has a question.
The Chair: She may, and unless it is a point of order, you have the floor to explain your rationale for this amendment.
Ms S. Murdock: Can I get a clarification rather than a point of order? Is that possible?
The Chair: Yes, certainly.
Ms S. Murdock: Are these old orders prior to 1985 or orders that are not already in the support and custody order enforcement?
Mr Harnick: An order that is not in arrears under a support order on the day this section comes into force. So it would deal with any order existing as of the time this comes into force.
Ms S. Murdock: I guess the clarification I need is my understanding was that orders -- and this would be yours -- prior to SCOE would not be under SCOE. Those that are not already in what was called SCOE and now are not affected by these amendments. Is that not correct?
Mr Wessenger: Yes. Perhaps I will let counsel answer that.
Ms Feldman: Before the proclamation of this particular piece of legislation, there will not be any automatic application of support deduction on any orders that are filed with SCOE. Then there is the next class of orders that were made before SCOE came into effect which have to be voluntarily filed by the recipient into SCOE.
Ms S. Murdock: So if it not already in there, it does not matter what it is. My understanding is correct then that these amendments, should they pass, would not be affected unless they voluntarily ask to have them put under.
Ms Feldman: That is correct.
Mr Harnick: The purpose of this is to avoid putting these into the SCOE system if there has not been any default while the previous order was in existence. Again, the rationale for doing that is the same as the rationale I set out earlier: that if a person has a demonstrated history of paying and has not needed a government-enforced system to pay, then why put him into an overburdened system already when he does not need the necessity for this enforcement?
Now, if it turns out that there is default, then the order can immediately be put into the system and processed as every other order within SCOE will be processed once this bill becomes law. I see Derek shaking his head at me again and I see that he has his marching orders. The rule of the day here is universality. We cannot go ahead and let people who have a demonstrated history of compliance with their orders avoid this system. Again, you are just overburdening a system which already cannot handle what it has. Why force these people with a demonstrated history into a system that cannot process what it already has? Why jeopardize the processing of defaults that need personnel to process them? Why put this into the system and make it more difficult?
You heard Mrs Cunningham talking about the ratios of case workers to cases. In some jurisdictions, it is one case worker for 900 claims. Certainly to force these people with a demonstrated history of paying into the system is only going to increase those numbers and it is going to have a detrimental effect on the existing system.
I know I am speaking to deaf ears in many cases because I have attempted to make this argument earlier with similar sections and it has met with no response. The Attorney General has told me that any attempt at lessening the universal characteristic of this bill is not acceptable to the government, even if it means jeopardizing the claims that are already outstanding even further. I somehow do not understand the rationale for that, because it only means that those people, those children who need the money and who are awaiting the enforcement, will be waiting that much longer when all of these additional cases must go into the system for which there is absolutely no reason. No one will be jeopardized by this amendment being accepted. No one will be jeopardized, and if anything, the system will be enhanced. Those are my --
Ms S. Murdock: Point of clarification just for Mr Harnick please, Mr Chair.
When you say old orders, old orders to me are the ones that are pre-SCOE. By old orders, are you also meaning the ones that are presently under the SCOE legislation that are not in arrears?
Mr Harnick: Pre-SCOE.
Ms S. Murdock: Pre-SCOE. But then does this not affect it? If you are already paying and you have not got your order under SCOE legislation, then you are not affected by the bill.
Mr Harnick: You would be if someone asked for this to be put in.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, you would.
Mr Harnick: Only because the legislation is there, so why would anybody not ask?
Ms S. Murdock: The legislation is there now and they are not in it.
Mr Harnick: Hopefully this would prevent them from being forced into it and let them continue in the system they were already in.
Mrs Mathyssen: Just very briefly, Mr Chairman: This is the dance again, and it is muddying the waters. Very clearly, the legislation provides that people will not be entering into the system unless the spouse specifically requests it. Presumably that spouse would have a reason, a concern, regarding the continuance of support. So I do not see how this motion adds anything positive. It only to me suggests another way of creating dissension between spouses. So I am sorry, Mr Harnick. I cannot see that this is going to help the bill at all.
1550
Mr Carr: I guess I wanted to get on record with a couple of comments about this motion. The immediate thought that I have and the question that we have got is, why would you want to interfere with something that is already working? Whatever the amount of cases are, if the money is getting into the hands of the children who need it, it seems to me that you are putting a bit of a monkey wrench in if you do not pass this amendment. You have got something that is working, the money is getting into the hands of the children, which, if we remember back, is what the Attorney General, going way back, said was the intent of this legislation: to get the money into the hands of the children.
Clearly, in the cases where the money is being paid, that is happening. So why interfere with it? Why take it out and put it into something that may not work when it is working very fine and well?
I believe that the big thrust should be to concentrate on those not paying. We should focus all of our resources, such as they are -- and we know now that the Treasurer said the resources are going to be fairly slim in all areas. So let's not put any more pressure on the people who are already meeting their obligations. Let's spend more time on the ones who are not paying. That is who I think we should legislate for, not the ones, regardless of what the numbers are and how many are out there, who are not in arrears and the money is coming and flowing and going to the children.
The children are getting the money, the spouse and the person making the payments are happy that the money is coming there, so why interfere with it? Why clog those people into the system if they do not need to be there? I believe the people we need to work on are those who are not paying. We need to do whatever we can to make sure the money starts flowing in those cases.
So all we are doing with this amendment is saying is that if the intention is to get more money into the hands of the children, then let's not throw those who are presently meeting their obligation into the system. People who have demonstrated their ability to pay, for whatever reason, let's leave them alone. Do not jeopardize the system if it is working well.
The previous speaker talked about creating dissension between the spouses. Well, what will happen is that if we all of a sudden throw them into a system where they get automatic payroll deduction, that to me may create more dissension than just leaving them alone. They have worked out their problems. The money is flowing. If you want to create dissension, then the government all of a sudden comes in and says, "Everything is working well, but guess what? We're going to throw a new monkey wrench into this whole process. Now you're going to have to get a payroll deduction through it. You were doing things fine, the kids were getting the money, everything was going well." That is going to create more dissension. Let's worry about the ones who are not paying. Let's leave the ones who are paying and meeting their obligations alone. Let's not concentrate on those people. The money is flowing. The kids are getting the money. That is the intent. Let's not clog up the system with those people. The dissension will happen when somebody who is paying as a result of the present legislation all of a sudden gets a payroll deduction. It throws a monkey wrench into the whole process, and all of a sudden they start going back and questioning possibly the amounts and how it works and so on. I do not think we should do that. If it is working smoothly now, let's leave them out of it. For the life of me, I cannot see why you would not want something that is working well to continue.
Governments are there to try to help situations when there is a problem. If there is no problem, then let's not include those people in the legislation but leave them out of it so that they are not going to be clogging up the system. We do not need government involvement where it is not necessary. Let's focus our resources on those people who are not paying and where we can really start to get some of the money flowing. That is what I think we should do.
My colleague mentioned the case-worker ratio. So now all of a sudden the numbers that go into the system are going to go up dramatically if we include the people who are presently meeting their obligation. Why we would want to do that in a system where, when you read the summary of the recommendations that came through from the people who work there, the case loads are already too high? But we are going to say: "No, sorry. Tell you what. The case loads are already too high, but guess what we're going to do? We're going to throw more of them into them, even though they're already paying."
If they were not paying, obviously we have got case workers who are involved in it, but in the situation where people are meeting their obligations and they do not need any government involvement at all, what are we saying? "You're going to get it anyway. Things are running smoothly, the money's coming through, but guess what?" The government of Ontario wants to throw its two cents worth in and jump into the fray now and interfere in something that is working well. I have always come from a background where, when you need government involvement, it should become involved, but where things are running smoothly, for goodness' sake stay out of it.
You are going to have situations where the money is flowing, the kids are getting the money -- the function of the bill is to get the money into the hands of the kids -- it is working, there are no arrears, the obligations are being met and we are going to say: "Guess what? It's working a little too smoothly. The money's getting through already. So what is the government going to do? We are going to try to put a monkey wrench in. We are going to put legislation that is going to put them into the system as well." It does not need to happen.
As we sit here and read the summary of the recommendations, if we really reflect on those that are coming in, I think the overwhelming concern is that we need to have a system that is going to provide money for the women and the children who actually need it. If that is the original intention, why we would not pass this amendment, which is going to leave those payments that are working fine, working as they should, meeting their obligation? Both partners are happy, those paying are happy, those receiving are happy, the children are receiving the money. Without this amendment we are going to throw them into the system along with everybody else.
This is one small amendment that we think would be constructive. I know we were accused by the Premier last week of holding up this bill, so I do not want to talk too long on it, because I do not know if it will work in terms of trying to persuade anybody. But this is one of the things that we try to do in opposition. We try to say: "Okay, the intent of the bill is this, which the Attorney General said is to get the money into the hands of the children. You're meeting that objective already with this group of people, yet we still want to somehow get the government more involved." If we do not pass this amendment, all we will do for the ones that are working well is have the potential to destroy them.
We have the potential for somebody to say, "I was paying my obligations, but now that it's payroll deduction maybe I'll decide to move to British Columbia or not meet the obligation, because I don't want the government involved." What I am saying and what we are trying to do with this amendment is if something is working, you stay out of it. If the intent is to get the money into the hands of the children and it is working, why we think we can improve it any more is beyond me.
This is one of these amendments that we worked a great deal of time on to try to improve the existing legislation. It is not meant to obstruct the process in any way. All we are trying to do is say these are some of the concerns we heard under the pages and pages and summaries that are out there. The vast majority of the people want to get more money into the hands of the children, where it counts. If that is already happening, let's leave them out of the system. There is a pretty good line in there too, "unless at any time after this section comes into force he or she, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."
So we have given a catch: You are not going to be included in the system but, and this is a big "but," if you do for whatever reason miss a payment, then you will become a part of it. I can tell you if we do that there a lot of people who are going to say: "I've been meeting my obligations, and guess what? If I don't, I'm going to be thrown in the system." I can assure you, if those people are meeting their obligation the vast majority of them are going to try to continue to meet their obligations because they know very clearly that if not, they are going to fall into the system.
So here is a system with an amendment where we have made it so that nobody can fall through; there is no way people can get around it. If you are paying right now you do not have to come into the system, and for whatever reason you do miss a payment, then you do fall into the system. We have got them coming and going. There is no way they can get out of it. They are meeting their obligation now, and even if there was a chance that by meeting their obligation somewhere down the road they could somehow get out of it later on, we said, "No, you're meeting your obligation now and if you miss one payment then you go into the system." That is the intent of this amendment, as we put forward in very clear, very simple terms.
1600
It is a win-win situation. There are no losses here. There is no way anybody can get out the system as a result of this amendment even though he is paying now, because he will know very clearly that if he does he would fall into the system later on. We have got them coming and going. It is a win-win situation.
We are going to make sure the children get the funds, and in the worst possible case, if somebody who is meeting his obligations now for whatever reason down the road decides to not meet his obligation, then we catch him. That is why it says if someone, in the very last line, "fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due," he gets thrown into the system. We did not just say, "Okay, you are meeting your obligations now, but if six months down the road you don't, we're not going to be able to catch you, you're going to have an out." We said, "No, if down the road for whatever reason you do not and you fail to make a payment, then you go back into the system." So it is a win-win situation. We have got it so that they cannot possibly get out, and they will know very clearly that they cannot get out of it.
What we are saying is there is a percentage out there who are paying now, who are meeting their dues, who are working within the system, and let's leave those people alone. Let's concentrate our money on the other people who are not and let's make sure that we focus our energies on those areas.
That is what government is all about, not trying to help things that are already working perfectly. Lord knows, there are enough poor things in this province that we can focus our attention on, but if there is something working well, let's leave that alone and let's concentrate on making sure that those who do not pay, for whatever reason, are the ones on whom we really focus our energy, our time and our efforts, because this amendment is basically a commonsense approach that says if people are already meeting their obligations and are not in arrears, we are not going to throw those people into the system and clog it up any more.
I hope if the members on the government side of this are going to oppose this amendment, they will at least come up with some ideas as to why, so that I can understand a little bit of what it is. That is all I ask: If you are not going to support this, at least lay it out for me so I can try to understand to the best of my ability why this motion would not go through, because this is one of the motions that we talked about to try to improve the legislation. This is where parties get together, we have the public come in, we have the submissions, we spend weeks and weeks and as a result of that we take that back and try to improve the legislation.
Our party does not want credit for this. If the government feels it is appropriate and it likes this, it can put its amendment in similar to that. It is not a case of any particular party. I believe we have the support of the Liberals on this, if they want to take credit for it, but let's just make the legislation better and let's come out of this at the end of the day and say: "You know what? We listened to everybody. We got the general thrust of the bill and the legislation, which is to get more money into the hands of the children who need the support." Let's concentrate on doing that and not try to worry about getting political points of who made the amendment and who did not make the amendment and no, it is no good because it was not a government amendment. Let's put all that aside and let's try to make the bill better. Let's try to make it so that we do not have a situation where somebody who is meeting his obligation gets thrown in the system, which I fear is going to create more problems.
All it will do is create more dissension between parties right now who have been able to iron it out. Through all the process and through all the anger that goes on through divorces and separation, they have been able to iron it out. The money is flowing. There are no arrears. All the process of going through the courts and all that time they have been able to iron it out in spite of all the odds. The money is flowing. The children are getting the money. Let's not include them in the system.
The only thing I would ask is if there are any members who are not going to vote in favour of this motion, if they could try and outline a little bit of the reason why so I can at least have some understanding of why they would not, because to me this is very commonsense approach. Hopefully, people will vote in favour of my colleague's motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. Well argued. Mr Fletcher.
Mr Fletcher: First, about the amendment and what is going on, as far as I am concerned this bill is not here to penalize anyone who is paying or has been a good payor. As far as I can see, if you are a good payor, you can have a mutual agreement with the person who is receiving the payment not to be in the system. That is not what we are here for.
You say the system is working well. Whose opinion is that? In your opinion, it works well; in ours, it does not work well. When I look at this amendment, I have to look where it is coming from. It is coming from a party that has caused more hardship in this country than any other party has ever done before, and you are saying it is such a good amendment.
Mr Carr: Save that for the media.
Mr Fletcher: Why? I am not here for the media. You have caused more hardship than anyone and you are saying that it is good management. What good management? There is no good management as far as Conservatives are concerned.
Mr Carr: You move the amendment then.
Mr Fletcher: This is not a good amendment. It just causes people to get back into the system more than anything else. It forces people to get back to their lawyer. It forces it the wrong way. What are you talking about, it is good? The system is not working well. What this bill is doing is making sure that the people who are supposed to be getting their payments are getting the payments.
I was at a PWP -- in case you do not know what that is, that is Parents Without Partners -- meeting about a week ago, and there were 200 or 300 people there. Probably 85% of the people sitting there were not receiving their payments.
Mr Harnick: That has nothing to do with this.
Mr Fletcher: Most of the people who were there were saying that they have just given up. They do not even fight it; they do not do anything. At least with the bill they are going to --
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, the member is out of order.
Mr Fletcher: They are going to have the opportunity to get their payments. This amendment would undermine that.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: It is quite clear when you listen to those remarks that they just cry out to vote in favour of this amendment. If anything, the nonsense --
The Chair: That is not a point of order. Mr Mills.
Mr Harnick: -- that came out of the member's mouth is indicative of how relevant this amendment is.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Harnick. Mr Mills, you have the floor.
Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do not like to hear Charles and Gary and everyone saying that they are in a total state of despair, that the government people do not listen, that we do not take any notice. Really what it all boils down to is a philosophical difference between the way we think about things, but I can assure you that I listen very intently to what you say. On first flush, when I read that I thought, "It makes a lot of sense." But I want to ask some questions, and I want to ask them through the parliamentary assistant, to let you folks know that these things are thought through, that it is not a flash thing that we are the government and we are going to march on to Zion regardless.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Before Mr Mills gets through his questioning I just want to give anyone four-to-one odds on whatever amount of money he chooses that Mills votes against this amendment, okay?
The Chair: I am not sure that is a point of order, although it is an interesting point. Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: To continue, when we look at Charles's amendment or his party's amendment, what bothers me -- and I hope my friend the parliamentary assistant is listening to what I have to say and then he can answer. A payor who is not in arrears -- what is the track record of these people we are looking at? I could support your amendment, Charles, if I had concrete indication that X number of people for years and years and years have never defaulted, but I do not think that we have got that. It just says --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. Mr Mills has the floor.
Mr Sorbara: Amend it, Gordie.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, Mr Sorbara, order. Mr Mills has the floor. He is speaking to the amendment before us and not the one which you suggest he amends.
1610
Mr Mills: That, Mr Wessenger, is one of the concerns I have, that "who is not in arrears...on the day this section comes into force," but there are no criteria here. He could be not in arrears but he could have been into arrears many, many times before, but at that time he is not in arrears.
Mr Sorbara: "Has never been in arrears." Add that. Add anything you want.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, please.
Mr Mills: What I am saying is that we have no demonstrated track record to support this, and that is what worries me. Then we get down to this bit here that says "unless at any time...he or she, without an explanation...fails to make a payment under the support order." Okay, so this so-called good guy, who has always been good, suddenly fails to make an order, but the point in question is that it would take four months to get that right again and what do we do to help the people who have not got any money in the interim?
Mr Harnick: Why does it take four months?
Mr Mills: It takes at least four months to get this order and to get things moving again.
Mr Harnick: Why does it take four months? Do you want to put more people into the system so it will take six and eight months? "Here, you miss one payment, you are back in the system."
Interjections.
Mr Wessenger: May I have a chance to speak here now?
The Chair: Mr Wessenger.
Mr Sorbara: Dispense.
Mr Wessenger: Are you going to dispense with my speaking?
Mr Sorbara: My favourite parliamentary word.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, please go ahead.
Mr Wessenger: Anyway, I am not in favour of the amendment. However, I would like to say it is kind of interesting listening to the arguments of the Conservatives in favour of this amendment. If I were to concede that they were correct in some of their arguments, some of the principles they were arguing about, saying, "We don't want to overload SCOE," and I am not saying I disagree with that principle of what they are saying, I would like to say that first of all I think their motion was probably in response to a proposed amendment that we were going to bring in, which had the word "feasible" in it -- "the enforcement where it is feasible" -- and that would have hampered the discretion of SCOE to enforce old orders. What we have is a situation where the enforcement branch will have the discretion to enforce old orders where it is "advisable or practical" to do so. So it is discretionary.
I will concede that it probably is not practical to use resources for people who are not in arrears and are paying at the time that the enforcement procedure comes in. I assume the branch is going to act reasonably. I assume they are going to use their discretion reasonably. So in fact we are not going to be bringing everybody into this system, as far as the old orders are concerned. I think by changing that word "feasible" to "practical," we gave the discretion that was necessary to make sure the whole thing is administered sensibly, which I think is the way it should be.
Mr Sorbara: As soon as you get back into opposition, with respect, you will say that the system is not operating the way it --
Ms S. Murdock: I believe, Mr Chair, it is my turn.
Mr Mills: No, I have a supplementary.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, are you finished?
Mr Wessenger: There is another problem just with this particular motion, in that the director has to then decide whether an explanation is reasonable or not, and I do not think that is suitable. We now have the whole situation covered with the words "advisable or practical," and I think that is a very workable system and it allows to take into account the points raised by Mr Harnick and Mr Carr.
The Chair: Okay, Ms Murdock and then Mr Carr.
Mr Mills: I have a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, you already called on Ms Murdock.
The Chair: Ms Murdock.
Ms S. Murdock: Go ahead with the supplementary. I will wait patiently.
The Chair: You will defer to Mr Mills? Thank you.
Mr Mills: I must admit I am the last one to know all the rules and regulations, because they change not only by the day but by the hour and the minutes.
Ms S. Murdock: What rules?
Mr Mills: In here. I thought that if I asked the parliamentary assistant a question to clarify something that I asked and he did not do that, the next move is for me to ask a question to clarify that as a point of privilege.
The Chair: Do you wish to challenge the Chair, Mr Mills?
Mr Mills: No, no. The supplementary is, my sort of question to agreeing with Charles and Gary that if we have a track record of somebody who has been constantly paying, say for a period of two years, without missing, you are saying that in your scope with this we take account of that anyway.
Mr Wessenger: This is that the director will, in my opinion, and it is only opinion, deem it is not practical to use the scarce resources of the branch to bring in support deduction.
Mr Carr: If the elected officials do not do it, the bureaucrats will do it.
Mr Sorbara: Why don't you decide, Gordie? That is what you were elected for.
Mr Carr: These people might be great. We might get another group that is not great. We are leaving it up to the bureaucrats, Gord. Put it in the legislation. Is it my turn, Chair?
Mr Sorbara: You were not elected by the bureaucrats in the Ministry of the Attorney General. You were elected by the people of Durham East.
Mr Carr: We can put it in there, Gord. We cannot leave it up to them. They are fine people, but do not leave it up to them.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not believe that either one of those people has been recognized by the Chair. Is that correct, Mr Chair?
Mr Carr: They are called interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, go ahead please.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you, Mr Chair. Since we have been asked so nicely by Mr Carr to make sure that we -- if we are going to not support this amendment, he would like us to explain our position as to why. So I am going to do that because I am not going to support this amendment, not because I am a trained seal as has been the accusation in the past little while, but because I really do not believe this amendment will in any way assist the proposed bill.
If you are not registered with the present SCOE legislation -- it is still called "SCOE" as of this moment -- you are not part of any backlog. You are not part of anything. You are getting along, no doubt, with your spouse and you are paying and you are not in the SCOE system. At any time, with a court order, a request can be made to have a support order registered with SCOE at the present time, at any time. So if my spouse or if I were in the situation where I was paying support, if I were not getting it or my spouse did not get it, he could put it into the system right now. That is the way the system is at the present time.
With Bill 17, should it ever get passed, old orders working fine now will still not be included in the amended legislation. Again, upon request, an old order can be registered, but it is not an automatic thing so this is a needless amendment. The intent of the bill will not be assisted with this amendment, as suggested by Mr Carr, since the new amendments would affect all new orders and those that are presently registered. Those are my reasons why I am not supporting this amendment.
Mr Carr: I just wanted to discuss a couple of points, and my friend Mr Mills had pointed out some of the wording about a payor who is not in arrears. We would be acceptable to making it anything you think can improve it, because what I was getting from it is, the gist of it is you just wanted to improve a little bit on that area. We are saying, let's be open. If you want to include it -- not quite like Mr Sorbara said, but if you want to improve the wording of arrears, then by all means let's try to do it. If you have a little bit of a problem with the particular wording, that is what we are here for, to work it out and improve it. If that was the only concern you have voiced, then let's tighten that aspect of it up. Let's put our collective heads together and say, "Okay, a payor who is not in arrears, what can we do to improve that, to make that tight and get the type of people we are talking about?" That is the only thing I would say with that.
To what the parliamentary assistant said, "Oh well, they are going to do it anyway," we are saying, "Let's not leave it in the hands of the bureaucrats, as nice as they may be and as committed as they may be," excluding these particular people who I am sure would be very good. But the two or three people whom we have here, tomorrow they could be all gone and we might have three new people in there. They could have job offers in the legal profession and decide they can make double the money. We could have a new client services manager tomorrow for whatever reason. Elected officials are the ones who should put it in so that we have the intent there, not leave it up to something like the parliamentary assistant says, "Well, we intend to do it and leave them out of the system anyway, but we are not going to put it in the legislation because we trust them."
1620
All we are saying is if that is the intent, to leave these people out, then as elected officials who are accountable for what we do, let's make sure that there is no latitude in there, that they will not go back into some of these ones. They may not, quite frankly, when they see how long it takes to get this whole thing set up. They are not going to want to do anything more that will give them any more work because, quite frankly, I think they are going to be snowed under until the time my grandkids are in university before they are going to get this thing ironed out.
The fact is that as elected officials, if we want to have an intent -- that is why we are elected to proceed with the intent of the legislation and not leave it to non-elected officials who are accountable to no one. We are the ones who are accountable and without getting any personalities involved, because these people might be great, our present director might be great, let's leave the intent by the Legislature so that they know very clearly our intention was not to have anybody who is meeting their payments put into the system.
I am not comfortable in leaving it to somebody saying: "Oh well, don't worry about that. Don't put the amendment in because we're not going to do it anyway." As a Legislature, I think it is our duty to put it in there and make it very clear that we do not want anybody who is currently meeting his obligations to be included in the system. If the only problem we have is a couple of wordings, as my friend Mr Mills says, the payor who is not in arrears, let's make it a payor who is not in full arrears, or whatever he wants to put in there. Let's tie that up but let's work with the amendment and let's not leave it up to the situation where we say, "Well, I'll tell you what, that's our intent. The director is not going to push those people anyway and we'll leave it up to him or her -- in this case her -- to decide."
I am saying, as legislators, we have the intent to show very clearly that we do not want those people in there. Let's not leave it to a group that may or may not undertake the wishes of the people who are legislating this law, because once that bill has gone past us, it is in their hands for ever and a day and we have missed an opportunity. If the next director who comes along, maybe three months after the present director pulls her hair out and says, "This is a complete mess. I am quitting. I'm going back to the private sector," the next person who comes in might say, "We want all those people who are in full compliance to be a part of it." And guess what? At that time, we cannot do one thing about it because we have missed our opportunity.
You get very few opportunities to express what you would like to do in a bill before it gets handed over to them permanently. If the only problem you have is, number one, a little bit on the wording, then let's tie up the wording. My colleague and I would be very pleased to see any recommendations in that area, if it is just a payor who is not in arrears that is giving you some problem. Number two, if we are going to say, "I'll tell you what, we are not going to bring those people in anyway, so why bring in this amendment," then let's legislate it.
Let's not leave it up to non-elected officials whom we can never, once it has gone through, push again. Let's make sure it is put in there once and for all. That is our duty, to make the bill as perfect as we can before it is passed over. They have a great responsibility because they have a tremendous amount of latitude in terms of interpretations now, but let's make sure of the intent, which is to not get people in there who are not in arrears. If that is our intent, then let's make sure that they cannot, through this amendment, go back on those people who are meeting their obligations.
Unfortunately, when you look at the arguments that have been made, number one is basically that we are not intending to pull those people in anyway. But let's make sure. I am from Missouri. I do not trust anybody unless it is in the legislation, because notwithstanding the good people we have now, they could be gone in a minute. Let's make sure it is in there so that they cannot get around what the full intent of all three parties is, to leave the people who are not in arrears out.
The other point is, if you are not happy with some of the wording, that is what the clause-by-clause is. Put it in tougher, better wording, put in wording that you are happy with, but do not just say: "We don't like a couple of the lines in there. We like the intent, but oh well, the bureaucrats are probably going to do it anyway, so why worry about it?" And then, "Well, a couple of the words we have some problems with." If you do not like the wording, then let's tighten it up, but let's not let this thing go by because, quite frankly, it is our duty to make sure that the regulations and the people interpreting this law know very clearly what our intention was.
If we get down the road six months from now, and it will not be this director, but if any other director comes in who is in there trying to pull people into the system and we go back to her and say, "That wasn't our intention," do you know what she is going to say? "You have left discretion to me and I am exercising my discretion and I think they should be in there."
If you do not want it in there, then let's make sure that this amendment passes so that he or she as a director cannot impose his or her will above and beyond what the elected officials want. If we do not put this amendment in, some day down the road it will be the director or the officials in the department who are going to be deciding what goes on; it will not be the elected officials.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour of the motion? All opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Next is the government motion on page 45.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am going to be a few moments on this.
Mr Carr: That's it, Gord. I am not voting for any more of your amendments.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara is on a point of order, Mr Carr.
Mr Sorbara: What Mr Carr is saying is important as well. Give him time to make the point.
On a point of order, Mr Chairman, if I sound a little despondent on this point, the truth is that I am a little despondent about how we are proceeding in this committee. My point of order is going to be a recommendation in fact that the parliamentary assistant move a motion that can perhaps break the logjam, and I hope that you will consider this with the sincerity that it is put forward. I would move the motion but under the rules I am not permitted to move the motion.
Two things have happened over the past two weeks that have caused me a lot of concern. First are the allegations made by the Premier and others that we were holding up support payments to people who needed them. The Premier referred to --
The Chair: That would be a point of --
Mr Sorbara: No, this is --
The Chair: If it is not related to any comments in the --
Mr Sorbara: No, this is a specific point of order, and I am working towards a recommendation under the standing orders that can maybe break the logjam for us. I felt very offended by that, as I think some of my colleagues did, but that is politics.
The Chair: No doubt, but there were not any allegations made here, sir.
Mr Sorbara: No. But that is politics and I understand that.
The other thing that has made me really despondent about whether or not we are going to get anywhere is what is going on in the House right now. The government is seven months into a five-year mandate and it has already taken the unusual step, sometimes necessary, of bringing forward a time allocation motion to move legislation.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, we only had one motion in most committees and that was defeated by the government members, including the Chair.
Mr Sorbara: Yes. You might just check with the clerk and determine whether or not it is appropriate for you to be interrupting me and cross-examining me on my point. I think you would find that it is inappropriate in your capacity.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, I certainly have dealt with those issues. The issue with the point of order is that as soon as the Chair has a sense of that point of order --
Mr Sorbara: I have not even made the point yet.
The Chair: -- it is at that point appropriate.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. I will get right to the point then, if I can, Mr Chairman. If you will just give me the courtesy of making the point.
I am trying sincerely to move this bill out of committee and get on with it. I feel like we have gone about as far as we can go on this bill. All of the matters that have been raised, most recently by Mr Carr who I think argued another aspect of the same point very clearly, show no matter how much we play with it or jostle about it, that there is going to be no movement.
Under the standing orders, the individual carrying the bill, in this case Mr Wessenger as parliamentary assistant, can move that the committee rise and report. I just want to tell him under this point of order that if he were prepared to move that motion now, certainly I and any of my colleagues that come to vote -- and I think the Progressive Conservative members would be willing to support that. In fact, I would look forward to a motion from him. We have tried as hard --
Mr Carr: We are really just wasting time here.
Mr Sorbara: We have tried as hard as we can to make two or three points in the committee. I for my part have tried to argue that a little bit more flexibility should be incorporated into the bill to allow scarce government resources to be used as effectively as they can and to allow a few people who would be captured by the bill under its current state not to be captured by it in the interest of spending those resources to get the people who right now need the assistance of this agency of the government. I have not been successful in that matter.
I understand why that is. I do not think that legislative committees necessarily have to work like that, and I will tell you quite frankly that one day I hope to see that the way in which parliamentary committees work in this place is very much different. But I accept that now the tradition is that the government has its way when the government has a majority.
There are other things that I would like to have brought up on this matter, but I am now convinced, particularly after the time allocation motion was moved in the Legislature, that the government is going to brook no interference on the two bills that it is currently considering; that is, Bill 4, being debated right now, at least in terms of the time allocation motion, and Bill 17, being debated here clause by clause. I just want to tell the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General that, for my part, if he is prepared now to move a motion that the committee now rise and report, we would be willing to support it.
The Chair: I do not believe that is a point of order, but it is a very valuable request to the parliamentary assistant on --
Mr Sorbara: As a courtesy, I was just wondering whether he is willing to do that.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Wessenger. You have the floor for the government motion on page 45 or, if you wish to, I am sure you could respond to Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: As a courtesy, Mr Chairman, I would like --
Mr Wessenger: The intention is to proceed with all amendments, complete all the amendments and then report after all the amendments are completed.
Mr Sorbara: Can I just make a point, Mr Chairman, on a point of order, that from now on when the government members say that we are not proceeding with this bill, at least they will point out that opposition members suggested a motion in this committee that the committee rise and report the bill to the House so it could be passed for third reading and put into place.
The Chair: Your request, I believe, is on record, sir.
Mr Sorbara: Well, I hope that --
The Chair: Again, though, I do not believe it is a point of order. Mr Wessenger.
Mr Sorbara: I hope that Mr Mills hears of it, Ms Murdock -- Mr Fletcher I do not care about -- Mrs Mathyssen and Mr Mills.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: At least remind people when they go out on the hustings and give their terrible little speeches about how we are holding up Bill 17 --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: -- that one member suggested that the committee rise and report and get on with it.
The Chair: Your request is clear, sir.
Mr Fletcher: It is just getting a little out of hand, that is all. An argument between the Chair and a member is a little --
The Chair: I am not sure that that is a very helpful suggestion. Mr Wessenger?
Mr Wessenger: I move that section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following section to the act:
"3m(1) -- "
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, do you know what page he is reading from?
The Chair: Page 45. Mr Wessenger?
Mr Wessenger: "3m(1) Despite the commencement of a motion under subsection 3c(12) or section 3d, 3e, 3g or 3i, the director shall pay any money he or she receives in respect of a support order or a support deduction order to the person entitled to receive support under the order.
"(2) If a court orders the director to hold any of the money received in respect of a support order or a support deduction order pending the disposition of the motion, the director shall, to the extent the court order requires it, hold any money received after the director receives a copy of the court's decision."
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following section to the act:
"3m(1) -- "
Mr Morrow: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: No, we are not dispensed. I want to hear the Chairman read the sections.
The Chair: All in favour of dispensing?
Mr Sorbara: Can I have a 20-minute bell on whether or not we are going to dispense?
The Chair: Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: I want a 20-minute bell on whether or not we are going to dispense with the reading of it.
The Chair: Twenty minutes.
The committee recessed at 1634.
1650
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 3 of the bill --
Mr Sorbara: Dispense.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to dispense?
Mr Sorbara: I had my 4:30 meeting.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Wessenger: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that money held by the support deduction branch will be held in accordance with the court orders, not disbursed. That is correct, I believe. Yes, so it is just to comply with the court order.
The Chair: Okay. Discussion? All in favour of the motion?
Mr Sorbara: One second. Give us a chance. Give us a moment, Mr Chairman, to examine the real thrust of the --
The Chair: You had 20 minutes, sir.
Mr Sorbara: I have a question to choose for the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. I just wonder if he could explain how the exception works within the context of subsection 1, which is the empowering section, the section that requires that, "the director shall pay any money he or she receives in respect of a support order or a support deduction order to the person entitled to receive support under the order." That is the empowering section and there is an exception. Can he describe to us, in his own inimitable way, how the exception applies within the context of subsection 1?
Mr Wessenger: As I understand it, under the present act there is no provision for money to be held by the director? Is that correct?
Mr Sorbara: If he wants to refer, Mr Chairman, to counsel --
Mr Wessenger: Yes. I will have counsel answer this question.
Mr Sorbara: -- who is perhaps more schooled in these matters, I certainly would not care.
Mr Wessenger: On this particular aspect I think I will.
Ms Feldman: The reason for this provision is really to correlate with what presently exists under the rules of the provincial court with respect to garnishment. Right now, if a dispute, for instance, is filed to a garnishment and a payor requests that money be held or that the money not continue to flow so that there would be a chance for the dispute to be heard, the way it works is that the court has to be satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case, an initial case, giving reason for that money to be held.
All of these cases that are cited in subsection 3m(1) are along the same lines of a dispute: 3c(12) is a dispute with respect to whether one is an income source; 3d, suspension; 3e, variation; 3g, termination of support obligation; 3i, dispute to support deduction. In all those cases, if the payor seeks a court order that money be held, then under 3m(2) he will have to make a prima facie case that there is some sort of validity to the dispute that is filed, to what is being put forward. So the benefit again is to the recipient, to the enforcement of the order as it exists, unless the court orders otherwise. In this way it is quite clear that the payor has to take that step if he wants money held or diverted back to him and everybody knows what role to play in the rather confusing types of initial applications of dispute.
Mr Sorbara: You see, there is my problem, because under subsection 1 it appears to me that the responsibility of the director is to continue to pay the money to the person entitled to support. Am I not right?
Ms Feldman: That is correct.
Mr Sorbara: So a person who has the authority to commence a proceeding under 3c(12), 3d, 3e, 3g, or 3i -- I think those numbers are going to get changed, but that is neither here nor there -- if someone starts a proceeding, "the director shall pay any money he or she receives in respect of a support order or a support deduction order to the person entitled to receive support under the order." Where does the court get its authority to direct that money be held by the director?
Ms Feldman: On applications, what generally will happen is the court material is prepared and in the course of that material, if the payor is seeking that type of order, which is often the case --
Mr Sorbara: That the money be held by the director?
Ms Feldman: That the money be held or money be paid back or whatever, depending on what circumstances he finds himself under. Then what will happen is he will bring an interim motion to the court, generally on quite short notice, to stop the flow of funds or have the flow of funds held or divert the flow of funds. With affidavit material, he will try to establish to the judge's satisfaction that there is validity in the final claim, or will be, and that there is a reason why she may not be entitled to receive those funds, that the money should be held or diverted.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, but subsection 1 says, despite the fact that you commence that kind of proceeding, the director has to keep the money flowing.
Ms Feldman: I am sorry. It is despite the fact that the motion as a whole has been commenced under those sections. Then there might be an interim motion as part of that overall motion and the court will make a determination in due course. The director, of course, will comply with the court's determination, but it is something that the court will have to determine.
Mr Sorbara: Can you point me to the section which allows for such an interim order and gives the court the leeway to make that kind of interim order or permanent order during the currency of the motion? In the absence of that, if I were counsel, I would argue under the authority of subsection 3m(1) that no interim order can be made, because on the clear face of the language of the motion, one thing has happened: A motion has been commenced.
Ms Feldman: Right. A motion is in the more global sense. I do not have the rules of court with me here, but the rules of court allow for interim proceedings within the context of the overall motion.
Mr Sorbara: No doubt about that.
Ms Feldman: That is what is being referred to. So the court can order on an interim basis, although it does not specifically say that. That is just a procedural matter that is allowed in the context of the court rules.
Mr Sorbara: But would not subsection 1 negate the ability of the court to make such an interim order? In other words, as I understand it, and perhaps legislative counsel can help me out, an interim order can only be made under the larger umbrella of a motion commenced of the type that is referred to in section 3m. So that motion having been commenced, perhaps an interim order is sought.
It appears to me that the court would not have the authority to do something under an interim order that it does not have to do under the main motion and therefore there would be no possibility of the court ordering the director to hold any money received in respect of the support order, etc, as appears under the exception in subsection 3f(2). I am sorry if I am putting you to sleep, Derek. I need some help here, some guidance, counsel, direction.
Mr Wessenger: I do not know. This is just as an observation. It is despite --
Mr Sorbara: Observations I can do without, but go ahead.
Mr Wessenger: But it seems clear that just by bringing the motion you do not suspend the payment of money by the director.
Mr Sorbara: No, no, no. Your observation is incorrect, but by virtue of the fact that you bring the motion, you trigger the empowering provisions of section 1 and require the director -- remember, it says, "the director shall pay any money."
Mr Wessenger: That is true, but once you have a court order, that can override the section obviously. A court can always override the section if the court orders.
Mr Sorbara: Well, why do we not put those words in? "The director shall pay any money he or she receives in respect of a support order or a support deduction order to the person entitled to receive support under the order except by order of the court" or "subject to subsection (2)." If you added the words, "subject to subsection (2)," I would be comforted.
I realize I am on thin ice here, but it is spring and the ice is going out.
1700
Mr Wessenger: I am wondering if you even actually need subsection 2 in there, because the court makes an order. Surely it binds the director, after receiving costs.
Mr Sorbara: I am worried about the ability of a court to make the order under subsection 2, given the imperative requirements of subsection 1. I know that Gord is worried about it as well.
Mr Wessenger: It might be argued that in subsection 2 it may be to some extent superfluous, but again it is one of these things for clarification. It clarifies the director is not bound until the director receives a copy of the court's decision. That is the point. The way I interpret it, subsection 1 deals with the question of a motion, which has no legal effect. A court order is distinct from a motion. A motion is just the commencement of the proceeding. An order is an order under the proceeding.
Mr Sorbara: Let's take the example of section 3d. Someone brings a motion arising out of section 3d. Now section 3d deals with the suspension of a support deduction order. So someone brings a motion, a payor brings a motion or counsel for a payor brings a motion, and as part of the materials the payor, through counsel, is seeking an interim order under the motion to have money held by the director rather than paid through to the recipient, to the beneficiary of the support order.
It seems to me that given the first clause of subsection 1, that is, "despite the commencement of a motion," the director is required to continue making payments and that precludes the seeking of an interim order to ask the director to hold those payments, because the interim order that is sought would be part of the motion and the section says despite the fact that that motion is commenced, payments have to continue to be made and flow through the director. Am I wrong about that, Don? Am I reading this section incorrectly?
Mr Revell: I would argue the opposite, that it is not necessary to put in any additional wording. The section has to be read as a whole, and I think it is clear that subsection 2 is dealing with the particular case of what happens in certain kinds of orders, ie, there can be this situation where the court will order on an interim basis the holding of funds.
If the committee is concerned about the issue, I would think that it could be rectified. I am not concerned, but if the committee is concerned, it could be clarified by putting in, after the reference to 3i in the second line of subsection 1, so that it would read, "despite the commencement of a motion under subsection 3c(12) or section 3d, 3e, 3g or 3i, but subject to subsection (2), the director shall...." I really do not think that is necessary, but if the committee would feel more comfortable with that, then that could be done.
Mr Sorbara: If legislative counsel says it is not necessary, I am not going to move it, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour of the motion on page 45? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following section to the act:
"3n(1) A payor who is required to make payments under a support or custody order or a support deduction order may give additional sums of money to the director to pay to the person who is entitled to receive money under the order.
"(2) The director shall remit money paid under subsection (1) to the person entitled to receive money under the order."
Mr Sorbara: I think it is pretty straightforward. I hope that the folks across the way will support this one. If they do not, it will be very, very weird indeed here.
What does it say? It is that simple. A payor, that is, the person who has to make payments to his spouse -- and frankly, I do not know why we have "a payor who is required to make payments under a support or custody order or support deduction order." Don, are those words not superfluous here?
Mr Revell: Sorry, which words?
Mr Sorbara: In subsection 1, the way it has been drafted, it says, "A payor who is required to make payments under a support or custody order or a support deduction order." It seems to me that that is the definition of a payor, is it not? Is payor a defined term?
Mr Revell: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: Is it? Yes, no, maybe?
Mr Revell: Yes, but definitely the problem would be under a custody order. That does not seem --
Mr Sorbara: I would entertain the co-operation of the committee to have a friendly amendment to delete those words. Are they necessary, Don?
Mr Revell: No, they are not.
Mr Sorbara: Do I have a support for a friendly amendment deleting the words? Are you paying attention?
Ms S. Murdock: I hear every word.
Mr Sorbara: Are you on page 46?
The Chair: Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: Most of the time I feel like I am talking to myself, and the Chair, and Charles and Gary. They have their backs turned to me.
Mr Fletcher: Only in Guelph.
Mr Sorbara: They love me in Guelph.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, the clerk informs me that you can withdraw your own amendment.
Mr Sorbara: They think there are provisions in the Ontario constitution for a recall in Guelph. Are they disappointed!
The Chair: The clerk informs me, seeing as it is your own amendment, you do not need a friendly amendment.
Mr Sorbara: Delete the words "who is required to make payments under a support or custody order or a support deduction order." Eliminate them from your yellow-gold copy. The section would then read, "A payor may give additional sums of money to the director to pay to the person who is entitled to receive money under the order." Now, are you offended by that, my friends?
Mr Mills: I have to wait for advice.
Mr Sorbara: Gordie, look, you are going to be eligible for a retirement pension pretty soon. For God's sake, take courage. Do you support it or not?
Mr Mills: I get one now.
Mr Sorbara: Are you already getting it? Holy God almighty.
Ms S. Murdock: He was going to retire out of boredom.
Mr Sorbara: Have them have a recall challenging every voter who supported you, or get them down to the recall they are putting on over in Guelph.
Let's hear from legislative counsel.
Mr Revell: Because of the change there should be just one further change. In striking out references to support and support deduction orders, the words "the order" are now left hanging out there at the end with no reference back to which order we are talking about. It should be "entitled to receive money under a support order or support deduction order."
1710
Mr Sorbara: Great. Now that we understand the amendment we are on side.
Mr Revell: The section will now read:
"A payor may give additional sums of money to the director to pay to the person who is entitled to receive money under a support order or support deduction order."
Mr Sorbara: Let's say you have got --
Ms S. Murdock: Piano lessons.
Mr Sorbara: This is the piano lesson case, or maybe he wins the lottery or maybe you just want to do something special for someone.
Mr Fletcher: Do something special for me, Greg.
Mr Sorbara: I will do something special for you, my friend from Guelph. I will support the recall order. As a matter of fact, I will invest in it.
If you have a little bit of extra money and you want to do something for your kids or your ex-spouse or the spouse from whom you are separated, you can give it to the director and the director is obliged to pass it on. Is that cruel and unusual punishment? Do I get an indication from the powers that be? The government caucus is looking nervous.
Mr Mills: Can you not do that anyway?
Mr Sorbara: They do not know what the right answer is. Actually, do you know what we should have here, Mr Chairman? On the government side we should have a green light and a red light and someone should press the button to indicate whether they should be supporting or not supporting.
Ms S. Murdock: We are not ramming it --
Mr Mills: But why do you need an order to do it?
Mr Sorbara: We cannot just do it, because sometimes the money --
The Chair: Does anyone want to speak to this amendment? Mr Wessenger.
Mr Wessenger: Does Mr Sorbara want to speak on it first?
Mr Sorbara: All I want to know is whether or not it is okay that they vote for it. That is all. I do not have anything more to say on it.
Mr Wessenger: There are some problems with this. I am going to let the director's representative deal with some of the problems. I think first of all that perhaps there is a misapprehension that if the money goes through the director, it is going to be tax deductible. No, it is not. Voluntary payments are not tax deductible. If arrears are owing, an extra payment will automatically be applied to the arrears, so if you make an extra payment to the director and there are arrears owing, it will work through the system. It could be a voluntary payment to try to catch up on arrears, and that would still be worked through the system.
Ms S. Murdock: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Just on that point, there is no problem with making a voluntary payment if there were arrears?
Mr Wessenger: That is correct. No problem at all.
Ms S. Murdock: If there were no arrears, which is what Mr Sorbara is talking about, what would be the point of making a voluntary payment?
Mr Wessenger: First of all, the argument could be made, why not make it directly rather than putting it through the director?
Ms S. Murdock: Why not make it directly? Maybe you do not get along with your spouse, but you want the kids to have it.
Mr Wessenger: The payment can always be made, but you are just putting it in an envelope and sending it off.
The Chair: The address might not be accessible.
Mr Wessenger: That is right, but you could make it voluntary. You are in a situation where the person does not know the address. In that case, there are particular problems with respect to the computer system, the question of administration, and I am going to hand that over to the director's representative to deal with because I think we should hear his explanation of the difficulties this would involve in a situation where there are no arrears --
Ms S. Murdock: There are no arrears and you would be paying beyond the support deduction order.
Mr Wessenger: That is right.
Mr Harrison: I think the parliamentary assistant has covered some of the points. I should tell you the computer system we have now is designed to administer payments in accordance with the support order. The computer is designed in such a way that when an order is missing, when the payments are missing, it can immediately do what it has to do. It is essential for the program, with such a significant case load, that it ensure records accurately reflect what is owed and what is not owed.
Ms S. Murdock: Can I just interrupt, Mr Chair? We do what we have to do.
Mr Harrison: We follow the court order. The enforcement agency is mandated to follow the court order.
Ms S. Murdock: Correct me if I am wrong, but if we lose the court order or if we lose something on the computer, what do we have to do?
Mr Harrison: No, no, sorry. What I am saying is that if a payment is missed, it is automatically recorded on the computer, or if the payor misses the payment.
Ms S. Murdock: All right, sorry.
Mr Harrison: The task of enforcing the number of orders we have could add extra case load work for us. There is no question about that. Another thing too, as a courtesy to the support payor and the support recipients, we give out on a year-end basis a statement showing what has been paid. They can use that for income tax purposes. We would only record there the payments that have been officially recorded as support under the order we are enforcing.
Mr Harnick: What if you had a very smart lawyer who provided in the order that you have to pay whatever it is per month, and in addition you could make whatever voluntary payments you were able to make which would be tax deductible, and therefore you now have a court order sanctioning those voluntary payments so that they would be deductible? What would happen in that case?
Ms Pilcow: It would not be tax deductible. In order for it to be tax deductible under the Income Tax Act, the payments have to be made periodic. I am not sure exactly what the wording is, but payments every now and again are not going to be deductible for income tax purposes.
Mr Harnick: That is what you say, but I --
Ms Pilcow: That is under the Income Tax Act.
Mr Harnick: Yes, I mean, I would like to see the income tax people say that if someone was making voluntary payments on a regular basis.
Ms Pilcow: If you --
Mr Harnick: If I knew I could pay $100 a month but I might be able to pay $50 a month if my business was going well, an additional $50, and I built that in and paid that additional $50 every month, my bet would be that you could probably get a ruling from the tax department that that was deductible.
What I find interesting, and I do not mean this with any disrespect, but here you are telling us that voluntary payments cannot go through the system because that is going to make more work, and therefore we should not sanction voluntary payments because the computer cannot do it. But when we bring amendments that say, "Do not bring additional people into the system because it will clog the system and make it more difficult," you are very happy, with open arms, to bring that into the system and not set up a computer that will accept voluntary payments. I find that absolutely absurd.
Ms Pilcow: The purpose of the program, and the purpose of the computer being set up the way it was, was to enforce court orders. In order to accommodate payments made at the whim of the payor, the computer system would have to be completely redesigned.
Mr Sorbara: That is not true.
Mr Harnick: I do not know whether that is true or that is not true.
Mr Sorbara: It is not true.
Mr Morrow: Well, I believe it.
Mr Harnick: But certainly that is not the point. The point is --
Mr Sorbara: That proves it is not true.
Interjections.
Mr Harnick: You people on the government side, I hate to say it but you really should be embarrassed. Some of the comments that come out of that member are appalling.
Mr Morrow: You are challenging her integrity.
Mr Harnick: No, I am not challenging her integrity. What I am saying is that we should not be limiting what this bill can do based on what the computer system is set up to be able to do or not able to do. That is not the way you make good law. You do not make good law on the basis of what a computer can or cannot do, but it seems to me that there are opportunities available here and we should be availing ourselves of them.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry I interjected there so strongly to members of the ministry. I just react. I do not like it when we make laws based on what we think our technologies are. The fact is that any computer analyst will tell you that you can rewrite -- these guys fairly recently got a fairly new computer system and a new telephone system and I hope this is going to be the salvation of the place. You can rewrite the program very simply to put in ex gratia payment, non-tax-deductible and all this stuff. It takes about 15 minutes to rewrite the program to add this in.
You see it in everything you get. Your bank statements now break down interest or break down charges based on a, b, c, d, e and f. All of these things are possible with the assistance of one programmer for about half an hour. I can accept the argument that that is not our business. Our business is to enforce orders only. We do not want to get into the business of handling Christmas gifts and New Year gifts. I thought of that. Okay, that is reason enough.
Some people who came before the committee said, "We would like to be able to do that because we have sent in money before, ex gratia, and it has been eaten up otherwise." It makes an interesting debate, but what I am worried about is once again that the government members are just going to hear the signal.
Now this is a very simple one.
If you want the system to be able to deal with these friendly payments, then you can pass this. If you want to only respond to the narrow aspects of the law and the bureaucratic interpretation of the law, you can defeat it. It is your choice.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chairman, could we call for a five-minute adjournment?
The Chair: Five-minute adjournment.
The committee recessed at 1721.
1729
The Chair: I would like to resume discussion of Mr Sorbara's motion on page 46. Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: I think that with this amendment, the government could sit back here and say we are not going to support it. However, I think our integrity demands that we make an explanation of why we are not supporting it. I have spoken with staff, and contrary to what we think, as laypeople here not understanding the computers, it is not that easy to change the system because we have millions of people who are going to be on this and you cannot differentiate what is this and what is that.
We have been advised by staff that it would be not only difficult but nearly impossible and it would probably delay the whole program. We have not got the benefit of a computer expert here.
Nevertheless, having said all of that, your theory about giving money is well taken and well received, but there are other ways that you can do that. If you want to give your child gifts, you can set up a trust fund at a local bank and the person can get access to the money there. We are not saying that this is impossible. It is possible, and very easily, through a bank and a trust fund, but at this point in time it is not possible having to go through the system in order to compute a plan; it really is not.
Having said that, I can assure you that I am have a lot of empathy with what you folks are saying, and if I thought that it could be worked, I would agree with you, but it cannot, Greg. That is what we are told: it cannot work.
Mr Sorbara: I understand that the government does not want to support this. I would have hoped, Gord, that the defence would have been different. If I were on your side, I would have defended or resisted on the basis that: "The Liberal members should understand that the whole thrust of this bill is to collect money to pay, is to enforce orders that have been made by courts, and in that regard to put into place support deduction orders and take that money directly off salaries. We are not in the business of collecting payments for piano lessons and for skiing trips and for holidays. Let somebody else do that. It is not our business. There is no problem with spouses continuing to have an ongoing amicable relationship and to be sending money back and forth and gifts and ski trips, and ski trousers and skis, and payments for piano lessons. We want to encourage that. But the government should not be doing that. That is not what is in this bill. It's stupid for the Liberals to move that amendment."
That is what I would have said. I would have argued against it, because it takes up the time of people who are paid very well to run a system that is burdened with too much work to do. It takes up their time. Or, "Why do we not collect everyone's Christmas gift and put a government agency into place to distribute it? That is stupid. What the hell are the Liberals thinking of, proposing that sort of amendment?"
Mr Mills: We are being more gentle.
Mr Sorbara: I think gentleness is passé in politics. I think we just have to start getting courageous and forceful about what we believe in. What disappoints me and moves me to rhetoric, certainly not oratory in this case, is a plea that our computers cannot do it. Oh, that was so disappointing, Gord. Our computers --
Mr Mills: But it is a fact.
Mr Sorbara: It is not a fact. I would like to take any one of these four people and put them on a stand and put them under oath and cross-examine them as to their understanding of computer technologies. Is any one of them a computer expert? No, I think they are all lawyers.
I do not think that any of them has the intimate knowledge and understanding of what technologies are and are not available to do this sort of thing. We have technologies to do just about anything. That is why this would have been simple if you wanted to do it. This was a trick amendment. We did not really believe in this amendment. We do not think the government should be doing this. These are ex gratia type payments. This should go on between spouses. But we wanted to see what your response was, and you failed again because you responded that the computers could not do it. You failed your public responsibilities.
Mr Harnick: You said no for all the wrong reasons.
Mr Sorbara: But the great socialists of the province plead that the computers cannot do it. Oh my God, what Luddites, what reactionaries. The computers can do anything. We have just set up --
Ms S. Murdock: That is true, but at what cost? Here we are in a system that is already costing us far too much money.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: Order. Mr Chairman, I plead with you for order in this committee.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, go ahead, sir.
Ms S. Murdock: You still have 25 minutes to kill.
Mr Sorbara: No, I do not. I have three minutes to kill.
The failure of the government members to see through this and to plead -- and the answer was given right there. Did you hear the hint? One of the members of the branch said, "By the way, it falls almost outside of the mandate of the bill." Legislative counsel could have made the argument that: "Well, it's sort of there, but really you're dealing with a bill that deals with support orders. It doesn't deal with money that people want to give away to their kids or to their ex-spouses. It's not our business." They gave you a hint, and even then you fell on the technology argument. You failed.
Imagine going back to your constituents four years from now and trying to get re-elected. It will not be Fletcher, because Fletcher is going to be recalled before then to save the Constitution, but the rest of you are going to go back and you are going to stand up and use it. The people are going to say, "We're poor and we're hungry and we're out of work and we're dispossessed," and you are going to say, "I know that, but the computers can't handle it so we didn't do it." Give me a break.
Ms S. Murdock: It is better than changing from Wang to a new system.
Mr Sorbara: Sharon, you would have had an opportunity to do something. It is a simple amendment, was it not?
Ms S. Murdock: Actually, if I might, I actually thought this was not a bad amendment.
Mr Sorbara: There you go, and you got --
Ms S. Murdock: I spent at least 10 or 15 minutes over there discussing it with the people. I then discussed it with Mr Harnick on the side, trying to figure out how this could be written.
Mr Harnick: Boy, they led you right down the garden path.
Mr Sorbara: I plead with you for order.
Ms S. Murdock: I am just doing what you are doing. I am learning from you, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: You are studying from the wrong tutor, my friend.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you have 15 more minutes.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to say in closing, as I wind up my remarks, that now and again the opposition members will place these sort of trick amendments before you. Recognize them for what they are. They are ruses. They do not properly belong in the act. Maybe to learn these tricks you should go back to those little colouring books that say, "Which of these things doesn't belong in this chart?" This is the amendment. This is the one that does not belong in the yellow package of amendments.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you have clearly pointed out that your amendment was frivolous, and therefore it is out of order.
Mr Sorbara: No, no, no, I did not say that.
The Chair: It is out of order if it is proposed in a frivolous manner, sir.
Interjections.
Mr Harnick: I challenge the Chair at this point.
The Chair: You may do so, sir. If you wish to challenge the Chair you may do so.
You, Mr Sorbara, have yourself stated it was proposed in a frivolous manner and clearly that makes it out of order.
Mr Sorbara: No, I am sorry. I am going to have to --
The Chair: Do you challenge the Chair, Mr Harnick?
Mr Harnick: You had witnesses who came and spoke about voluntary payments. How can you possibly allege --
The Chair: Regardless of that, Mr Sorbara described his own amendment as being frivolous, as being put forward in a frivolous manner.
Mr Sorbara: I said it was a trick amendment.
The Chair: A trick?
Mr Sorbara: You are losing control of the meeting, sir. I said that it was a trick amendment. I said that there were very good arguments why it ought not to be contained in the bill. I said that in some respects good legal counsel could argue that it is beyond the scope of the bill. Remember, in second reading we debated this bill in principle and we all supported the principle. This falls out of the principle and the scope, because it does not have anything to do with payments made under support. But those people over there made the argument based on computer technologies, and I said they failed because they responded not to the substance of the matter but to the techniques and to the technology. What is really frivolous in this whole exercise is the kind of excuse that these guys gave for not supporting the amendment.
Now, Mr Chairman, look: If this amendment gets defeated it is not going to be the end of the world for me, but I think that we should proceed to vote on it. They are not going to support it. They are not going to support it for technologies. That was the wrong answer. It did not work. The technocrats could do it. The technocrats can do anything, including just about any kind of provision that you would want to put in this bill that would be within the four comers of the bill. But the fact is that you are not going to support it, so we are going to lose another one. But this one we are not worried about. It was a test case. It was the placebo. You guys have failed based on your answer, which was the technology, the computers cannot handle it.
This is terribly disappointing. I think we should proceed to vote on the bill and I would like a 20-minute vote.
The Chair: More discussion?
Mr Mills: I would just like to comment before we vote --
Mr Sorbara: I want to listen.
Mr Mills: I am sure you do. I really smelled a rat in this, but out of the goodness --
Mr Sorbara: There was no rat. We were serious about this.
Mr Mills: -- and kindness in my heart, I refrained from saying that you had gone crackers and I blamed it on the computer.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour?
Mr Sorbara: No, no. A 20-minute bell.
The Chair: You are asking for a 20-minute bell?
Mr Sorbara: Vote on it next time.
The Chair: We will adjourn until tomorrow, at which point we will be voting on the motion.
The committee adjourned at 1741.