CONTENTS
Tuesday 19 March 1991
Child and Family Support Statute Law Amendment Act, 1990, Bill 17 / Loi de l990 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:
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP) for Mr Chiarelli
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP) for Mr White
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Mr F. Wilson
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff:
Revell, Donald, Legislative Counsel
Roux, Denis, Legal Advisor, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1541 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.
The Vice-Chair: I would like to call this committee to order.
Mr Carr moves that the committee continue consideration of Bill 17 today, on Tuesday 19 March, and that the subcommittee meet to discuss the future scheduling.
Any discussion on Mr Carr's motion? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Motion agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: I would like to now move on to Bill 17 amendments, amendment 26.
Mr Wessenger: Seeing that it has been a long time since we have dealt with these matters, I would ask that we could consider standing down 26 and going back to the beginning at the ones we --
Mr Sorbara: Do you want to start amending them all over again?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, I thought we would go back to try to get ourselves back in sequence, go back to all of the items that stood down in sequence, if that would be agreeable to members of the committee. So we would go back to amendment 5 if that would be satisfactory.
The Vice-Chair: With the committee's indulgence, I understand that we do need unanimous consent to move back to amendment 5 that was stood down.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, perhaps the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General could just help me out and help out the other members of the committee. We were in the midst of a discussion of a motion that I moved when we were last considering this bill. I have had given to me by the clerk of this committee a number of new amendments that the government is, I suppose, anticipating moving.
It may well be that the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General wants to tell us how he proposes to proceed over the next several days of consideration of this bill rather than just suggest that we go back to the beginning. How does he propose to proceed with the new amendments? I will call them the yellow amendments because they are put on yellow paper. It is not a qualitative description of the amendments; I have not even read them yet, they are just on yellow paper. Does he propose to integrate these into the consideration of the bill? Does he propose to just quickly go through those amendments that were stood down and then go back to amendment 26, which was my amendment? Maybe the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General could give us a weather forecast as to what we might anticipate as we proceed slowly, methodically, carefully and judiciously through this important but flawed piece of legislation.
Mr Wessenger: Yes. What I was proposing is that we move back to the stood-down items and go through the bill again in sequence with respect to the items that were stood down, up until we have attained back to the item that was under discussion, number 26, and then we just continue along. Any new amendment subsequent to that would be considered in sequence as we go on. I just thought it would be easier for members of the committee if we kept in sequence in dealing with these matters and the bill, rather than continuing on and then going back again.
Mr Sorbara: I do not have a problem with that. Generally we stand down amendments because they give rise to some controversy or other. It has been a while since we considered those amendments. I will have to have my memory refreshed as we get back to them as to why we stood them down and what the subject of the controversy was. But is the parliamentary assistant suggesting that in any, or some, or all cases, the controversy has now been resolved and the government is prepared to bend slightly in order to accommodate the --
Mr Wessenger: I guess you will have to look at the amendments to consider whether they have been resolved. The matter I intend to deal with in the first instance is the matter of temporary interruptions, which was raised by your colleague Mr Elston. We think we have an answer to that problem that was raised by him. If we go back, that was the first one that was stood down.
Mr Sorbara: Let us just say that I am amenable to proceeding in that way. There is a great deal of discussion that needs to take place concerning the amendment we were on when we left. This is a very significant part of the bill because it deals with whether and to what extent people can free themselves from the clutches of the government in resolving these matters privately. Unless there are any objections from any of the other committee members, I am prepared to follow that course, with one caveat: Before we get there I would like at least a brief description as to why we have additional amendments and, generally, what these additional amendments do to the bill.
Mr Wessenger: I certainly would be prepared to give that explanation, Mr Sorbara.
The Vice-Chair: So is there unanimous consent? Thank you very much.
Section/article 1:
Mr Wessenger: This is originally item 5 that was stood down on the basis of attempting to find a solution to the problem of the question of intermittent payments. I would like to make the following motion.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 1 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) Section 1 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"(la) An individual, a corporation or other entity continues to be an income source despite temporary interruptions in the periodic payments owed to a payor."
Mr Wessenger: If I might go back in background, this motion was stood down due to concerns raised by Mr Elston regarding the application of support deduction to employers and industries which are characterized by frequent work stoppages. The ministry has made inquiries regarding the construction industry practices and we are advised that the practice is to terminate a worker if his or her services are no longer necessary, even if only for a short time period. In such cases, there is no further obligation on the employer to recall that worker.
This amendment we are proposing would not result in a continuing obligation on such employers to keep the enforcement program advised of any rehires. This obligation extends only to situations where there has been a temporary interruption, not a termination. The ministry intends to have public education materials, and the employer hotline will address this issue.
So the ministry does not feel there is any problem with respect to the construction industry because the practice is to terminate a worker, and the act would not apply in the case where the worker is terminated.
1550
Mr Sorbara: I would like to get that explanation again. Let's start off, if I might, by the parliamentary assistant explaining what he understood Mr Elston's concern to be.
Mr Wessenger: I understood Mr Elston's concern was that people in the construction industry are often hired by an employer; for instance, a labourer or carpenters, etc. They are hired by an employer, they work for maybe two months, then their services are no longer required for that project so they go off and work for somebody else, and then they come back to work for the same employer.
Mr Elston was concerned that it would be very difficult for that employer to keep track of these rehires and so forth, and he was concerned about the liability of the employer under the employee deduction program.
The interpretation we give to this amendment is that this amendment does not apply to a termination of an employee, which is what happens in the construction industry: It is a termination. It is technically a termination and he leaves that construction company to work for another construction company.
What the amendment is to cover is a situation -- for instance, teachers; the example of a teacher who receives an income source which is interrupted during the summer because they do not get it. That is the type of situation. I am sure there are other types of employees who have these interrupted periods too. Other than teachers, I cannot really think of them, but there might be someone who takes a leave of absence.
Interjection: Temporary layoff.
Mr Wessenger: Or someone who has a temporary layoff, yes, who is not technically terminated.
Mr Sorbara: It seems to me that the substance of the section has not changed very much, if at all. On one hand, the amendment we stood down says an individual does not cease to be an income source solely because of a temporary interruption in the periodic payments owed to a payor and the amended version says an individual, etc, "continues to be an income source despite temporary interruptions in the periodic payments owed to a payor."
It sounds like on the one hand the negative is used in order to achieve the effect, and in the amended version the positive version is used, but the effect is the same.
I do not frankly care which section you use. I just take a little bit of offence at the suggestion that there is a different legal effect between the one section and the other section. That is what I would like to hear about.
Mr Wessenger: I do not think I would agree with you that the language is not terribly different. The positive is being used because it is felt it was clearer than the negative aspect. It clarified it more. The intention of the act is not to cover employees who are terminated, and the interpretation that the ministry places on this language is that it does not cover any employee who in fact has his employment terminated.
Mr Sorbara: So what happens to the worker who is laid off? That income source continues to be an income source.
Mr Wessenger: It depends what the obligation is of the employer. If a person is not working and the obligation still continues as employer and employee, in effect that there is no termination, then the section continues.
For instance, even in the construction industry you could have a situation of an obligation continuing. The union hall situation of hiring, through those types of sources -- it is clear it is a termination in the construction industry. On the other hand, in the situation where --
Mr Sorbara: In the union halls, it may be clear, but not all of the construction industry is unionized. Some construction workers work for construction concerns that bring people on to the job and then lay them off.
Mr Wessenger: I think it would be quite clear that any time an employer would give a termination for the purpose of unemployment insurance, that would be considered a termination. That is clearly a termination.
Mr Sorbara: What is the effect of the termination?
Mr Wessenger: No more obligation.
Mr Sorbara: And if it is not a termination, if it is a situation such as this: "Johnny, you're laid off for two months. Come back. I'll give you a call in a couple of months or three months. I think we might be building a few houses, but I'm not sure yet"?
Mr Wessenger: It would definitely depend on how the employer dealt with it, if he gave the person a termination.
Mr Sorbara: He is not giving them a termination. He is telling him that he is laid off; he does not need him; "you don't have any work for the next three months."
Mr Wessenger: On the other hand, if the employee wanted to collect unemployment insurance, then of course it would be a termination because there would have to be a termination order to collect those benefits. Where a person is going to be laid off for any extended period of time, it would fall into the termination class, because it would be difficult to imagine an employee saying, "Well, I'm not going to collect UIC."
Mr Sorbara: The employee might not be eligible and, to tell you the truth, increasingly is not eligible, given what is going on in Ottawa, to collect UIC. I am trying to get an answer from you about a hypothetical where there is no termination, where a legal employer/employee relationship continues to exist.
Mr Wessenger: If there is a continuing obligation, then of course the obligation still remains on the employer to advise the director of the rehire. That is the continuing obligation.
Mr Sorbara: If there is a continuing obligation, what happens?
Mr Wessenger: The employer has an obligation to advise the director of the rehire.
Mr Sorbara: So how does this section apply differently in the case where there is a layoff and no termination? What is the difference, practically speaking? Do you have the answer?
Mr Wessenger: The question is: Is it a temporary interruption or is it a termination. That is really --
Mr Harnick: I do not think it matters, quite frankly, because the definition of "support deduction order" means "an order requiring any income source that receives notice of the order to make payments to the director in respect of the debtor named in the order out of money owed." If there is no money owing, there is the answer to your question.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Sorbara had the floor and he was addressing some question to Mr Wessenger and Mr Wessenger was responding to those questions. Then Mr Harnick decided at some point that he had some wisdom he wanted to impart to Mr Sorbara without obtaining the floor in any proper way. I did not see his hand go up; I did not see him being recognized by the Chair. He interjected and then was given the floor. Then we proceeded to engage in a three-way discussion between Mr Harnick, Mr Wessenger and Mr Sorbara and it went ping-pong back and forth three ways. I think if Mr Harnick wants the floor --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Perruzza, we do seem to have the essence of your point of order. Thank you very much. Mr Wessenger, if you would like to continue answering the question.
Mr Wessenger: I will wait until the --
The Vice-Chair: Any more questions?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, Mr Chairman. Not more questions; the same question. Just to tell my friend from -- what riding is Perruzza from?
Mr Carr: Nobody cares.
Mr Sorbara: Nobody cares. What riding are you from, Tony?
Mr Perruzza: How soon we forget.
Mr Sorbara: Downsview. Okay. My friend the member for Downsview made a point of order trying to save me from the ruthless legal analysis of the member for --
Mr Harnick: Willowdale.
1600
Mr Sorbara: Willowdale. We are not getting this bill passed but we are learning what ridings members represent. I did not mind his interjection. I think he was just trying to be helpful in explaining, but if Mr Perruzza wants to raise that as a point of order, so be it.
But I need an answer from the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General as to what the legal effect is of the section in the first place, in the two examples we have, that is, one being a termination and one being a simple layoff where an employment relationship continues to exist. I need to know what the different legal effects are of the section as proposed now, as opposed to the section which this committee adopted some weeks ago.
Mr Wessenger: I understand that if there is a termination, there is no obligation on the employer or --
Mr Sorbara: By the way, I do not mind if we have the assistance of the staff.
Mr Wessenger: Okay. Why do I not ask the staff to answer this, since this will probably help clarify.
Ms Pilcow: The purpose of this action was to make it clear that an income source continues to be an income source even if there is a temporary interruption in payments. The effect of a temporary interruption on the employer will be that the employer is then obliged to advise not only of the interruption but of a resumption of employment. Where there is a termination of employment, not a temporary interruption, the employer's obligation ceases at the point at which the employment was terminated, period. Notification of termination has to be given, but that is it. All this section did was attempt to explain that that income source continues to be an income source even where there is a temporary stoppage of work, where there is a continuing obligation to the employee.
Mr Sorbara: Are you telling me, then, that in the case of a termination and then a rehiring there is no obligation on the income source to notify of a rehiring?
Ms Pilcow: That is right.
Mr Sorbara: That is the same situation as a layoff, then.
Ms Pilcow: I do not know what you mean by layoff, exactly. If there is no continuing obligation on the part of the employer to rehire that particular employee, no more relationship between employer and employee, there is no obligation on the employer to advise of new employment. Where there is a --
Mr Sorbara: Of a rehire? What about of a rehire?
Ms Pilcow: Sorry. Of a rehire, a totally new rehire, there is no obligation to advise of. Now, if it is a continuing obligation and the person is just called back, the employer is then obliged to give that notice as well as the notice of the interruption.
Mr Sorbara: Are you telling me that, as an employer, if I fire someone, and therefore am no longer an income source for the purposes of this bill and then four months later rehire that person knowing that there is probably an outstanding support deduction order, I have no obligation as an income source -- because, by definition, I am an income source -- to advise the branch?
Ms Pilcow: That is right.
Mr Sorbara: No obligation whatever?
Ms Pilcow: That is right. The payor has an obligation to advise the program that there has been employment, but the employer does not.
Mr Sorbara: So that is the difference.
Ms Pilcow: That is the difference.
Mr Sorbara: Now, can you explain to me the different legal effects of the two sections, the one that we passed which says, "does not cease to be," and the new proposal which says, "continues to be"?
Ms Pilcow: There is no different legal effect. The section is the same. The only thing that we have done is we have redrafted it to make it clearer what the intention originally was. So the intention was not to create a new legal meaning. We have clarified with the construction people that in fact when they do terminate people, it is a termination as opposed to an interruption.
The problem that Mr Elston raised was, what are these employers supposed to do in the construction industry, the fact that they do not have a problem if they are terminating these people? So what we have concluded is that this is not a problem as drafted, but notwithstanding that, we have looked at it again and said, "You know what? We can still make it simpler for people to read." And that is what this section arrived at.
Mr Sorbara: So it does not really address Elston's problem.
Ms Pilcow: What addresses Elston's problem -- Mr Elston's problem --
Mr Sorbara: You can call him Elston; we all do. You can call him Murray.
Ms Pilcow: What addresses Mr Elston's problem is the information that we now have from the construction industry. In fact, they do terminate employees when they leave employment, so it is not a problem for them to advise of rehiring. They do not have that obligation under this section or any other.
Mr Sorbara: Okay.
Mr Carr: To the parliamentary assistant: Do you see, as a result of this, companies or corporations terminating people where there is any doubt, rather than be legally bound by this, that they will say, "Well, we're going to terminate him even though he might be coming back"? Do you see this as making it more likely that the companies will terminate people?
Mr Wessenger: No, I do not really see that as being a factor in the question of the legal relationship between an employer and an employee.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, was that unanimous?
The Vice-Chair: No, it was not.
Mr Perruzza: I did not note any dissension.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara, everybody must vote on the amendment, sir.
Mr Sorbara: I voted on the amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Did you? Okay. I did not see.
Mr Sorbara: Do you want a recorded vote? If you want a recorded vote, I want 20 minutes to think about it.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any other amendments to section 1?
Mr Poirier: Yes, Mr Chair. I discussed with the members of the three caucuses, legislative counsel, and I would like to move the following:
I move that the definition of "directeur" in subsection 1(1) of the French version of the bill, as printed, be amended by striking out "Bureau des obligations alimentaires" and replacing it with "Bureau des obligations alimentaires envers l'enfant et la famille," and that wherever "Bureau des obligations alimentaires" appears in the bill it be replaced in each case with "Bureau des obligations alimentaires envers l'enfant et la famille."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Poirier, but we have to have unanimous consent to move this motion.
Mr Poirier: Even though we are still on section 1?
The Vice-Chair: This motion also applies to section 2, which we have already carried.
Mr Poirier: Okay, fair enough. So could I request unanimous consent?
The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent to move this motion? Thank you.
Agreed to.
Mr Poirier: I realize that after consultation with legislative counsel and their translators, technically in legalese, "Bureau des obligations alimentaires" would be sufficient, but keeping in mind the spirit of SCOE and its eventual successor, and having worked in my office for a number of years with this particular act, obviously the philosophy behind it and the spirit, I wanted to add "la famille et l'enfant" also, to keep in line with what has been done in the English-language version, and I think that is very important. As the new members will be working quite a bit with this new law and its proposed amendment, you will become very familiar, like those of us who have been here for a number of years, being the oldest sitting member on the committee, with this law. It is going to be quite a bit of work, and I think in all due respect for the people who fall victim to those who do not support the way they are supposed to according to the law, I wanted to add "l'enfant et la famille" to the bill.
Ms S. Murdock: I support this absolutely, but when we get to section 18, which is the short title of the act -- I just want a clarification here. Is this going to be all changed if the act's name is changed? We did not do that while I was not on this committee, did we? I understand that when we get to that section we are going to be discussing a different name for the act. If that is the case, are we premature on this? Do you get what I mean?
The Vice-Chair: No, at this point, there are no amendments to change the name, as far as we have been advised.
Mr Sorbara: I want to begin by saying that I am going to support the amendment of my colleague the member for Prescott and Russell, because I think his understanding of Ontario's other language is without parallel, and he adds greatly to this Legislature in his ability to assist not only legislative counsel but all aspects of the Legislature and the Parliament in ensuring that the French version, la version française, of documents we create in this Legislature is true to the French language. So if it is his view that the correct version for child and family support office should be "Bureau des obligations alimentaires envers l'enfant et la famille," I take his word for it, notwithstanding that legislative counsel or our translator suggests that we could do with a more economized version, "Bureau des obligations alimentaires."
1610
But having said that, I must tell you that the thing that gives great offence is the English-language version, and that is to say that we are using this act to try to create an impression -- I would say a mis-impression -- of what this law is going to be about. Remember that the old title, the title that we are going to do away with, was the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act. So at least the government could be honest enough to describe the office as the child and family support orders office. Remember Howard Hampton's statement in the Legislature when he introduced this thing? He talked about trying to eliminate child poverty. That was not true. He is trying to give new enforcement techniques to a ministry that is under siege. My friend Ms Murdock is giggling behind her hands, although she knows, through years and years of experience as a constituency assistant, how badly this joint operates.
You have to defend it now. You have to defend the operation of this office because you are on the government side. But we can acknowledge in this committee that this office is not working very well right now, that hundreds and hundreds of people who are to benefit from support orders are not getting the money. Part of the problem is the way in which the office works, and part of the problem is that they do not have the necessary tools to extract the funds where they are available.
This act gives that branch the necessary tools. Maybe the Treasurer will give the branch more money, and then maybe we will have solved the problem. By the way, without that money these new tools are not going to work very well. But in the midst of this we have to change the title to -- let's see what the new title is going to be; Ms Murdock referred to it -- the Child and Family Support Act. Give me a break. Come on. Let's not do this. Let's not engage in the pretend. Let's at least add the words "support orders" to the title. Let's call it what it is.
Look at the trouble the government is getting in already in trying to pretend that it is doing something different than what it is really doing. The whole thing with Peter Kormos is a case in point. Honest to God, it is. I leave it to the Chair to --
Ms S. Murdock: Are we still talking about Mr Poirier's amendment? I just wanted to clarify. I was not sure.
Mr Sorbara: Maybe I will just have a little break by asking the question of the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General as to why the name of the act and the office is being changed. Could I hear about that, because that will help me decide whether my colleague the member for Prescott and Russell is making an important amendment or not.
Mr Wessenger: I like the name of the act.
Mr Sorbara: As it exists now?
Mr Wessenger: The way it is proposed: Child and Family Support Act. I do not think that adding "orders" to anything would --
Mr Sorbara: Okay. Then let me ask --
Ms S. Murdock: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Section 18 is the name of the act. We are not discussing that, right? We are discussing Mr Poirier's amendment replacing the French words "Bureau des obligations alimentaires" with "Bureau des obligations alimentaires envers l'enfant et la famille."
The Vice-Chair: You are right, Ms Murdock.
Mr Wessenger: I am quite prepared to recommend the acceptance of that amendment, because I think it goes along with the English version, so I think it only makes sense.
Mr Poirier: To alleviate the member for Sudbury's concern, by the time we get to deal with section 18, legislative counsel has told me they will help me prepare a proposed amendment to make sure that the short title is also corrected to conform with is going to be accepted right now for the act.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to be supporting the amendment of my friend the member for Prescott and Russell. I just want to tell you once again -- and then I am going to be done with it for this time -- that to call this office the child and family support office just exacts a little, tiny deceit on the people of the province of Ontario. That is all. It is not big; it is not tragic; it does not bring the government down. It is just a tiny deceit.
Right now we call it SCOE, support and custody orders enforcement. That is what it is. You just tell the people what it is. It is an enforcement office. It is like a sheriff; it enforces the law. It is like cops. They do a good job and they are under siege and they deserve to have more money, and we hope the Treasurer provides more money in the budget. But to change the name of the office to the child and family support office is a deceit, and it is too bad because it says to me that this new government wants really to create an impression: to govern not by substance but by imagery.
The Tories did so much of that from 1981 to 1985. Do you know why? They lost their agenda, and if you want to know the truth we started to do a little bit of that between 1987 and 1990, and some people said that in a way we had lost an agenda, and maybe we did not have as aggressive an agenda as we should have had. But, my God, when the saviours of the world are in power for six months and they propose to impress the people by changing the name of an enforcement office and to suggest that it is going to support families and children, that is a little deceit, and you need not undertake it. You can continue to call an enforcement office an enforcement office. You can continue to tell the people that this office is an arm of the government that enforces government orders, and now it has a new tool called the support deduction order. You need not get into this nonsense of changing the name, because all it does is give Howard Hampton an opportunity to make a statement in the House when he introduces the bill and then for the next 16 years backtrack, because --
The Vice-Chair: I am sure we would appreciate it if you would keep your comments to the motion on the board, please.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. My friend the member for Prescott and Russell introduced an amendment to make sure that the French version of the act complies with the English version of the act, and as I said earlier, he is one of the pre-eminent experts on these matters and I take him at his word. I regret to say that this amendment is only necessary because the government has chosen to -- I cannot find any other way to say it -- implement just a little, tiny fraud on the people of Ontario by changing the name of this office. I think that is regrettable, but I am going to support my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments on section 1?
Mr Wessenger: Yes. I would like to have old page 5 withdrawn since it is still under consideration.
The Vice-Chair: Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All in favour --
Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. I take it that we have not yet carried all of section 1 because of the standing down of this matter. I have some concerns over the definition of support deduction order. I wish I had available my annotated copy of this bill. If you will just bear with me for a moment, Mr Chairman.
1620
Mr Fletcher: Have we not already done this?
Mr Sorbara: No, we have not done it yet, Mr Fletcher. Mr Chairman, if I might just ask that we stand down the final passage of section 1, because I do have one concern. To tell you the truth, this is not just political haymaking. On my review of the act in its entirety last evening, there was some inconsistency with the definition of support deduction order, which I am not going to be able to bring to the attention of the committee without my notes, and unfortunately my notes are at home. So maybe we could just stand down that matter until the next day we consider it.
The Vice-Chair: We have to have unanimous consent to stand down section 1. Is there unanimous consent?
Agreed to.
Section/article 3:
The Vice-Chair: We move on to amendment 11.
Mr Carr moves that section 3c of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, as printed, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3a) The director shall make a reasonable effort to contact and confirm an income source before serving the notice in order to ascertain the address to which the income source wishes the notice to be sent."
Mr Carr: I have no comments, other than the fact that I think what we have done originally is discuss this and I think there was some agreement on this.
Mr Wessenger: If I might just clarify my recollection of the situation: The amendment was proposed at the last committee meeting. There were some discussions of attempting to amend it to provide for a discretionary element with respect to the exercise of this by the director, and it was proposed to put in the words "where the director believes it is necessary."
However, I am going to ask legislative counsel to comment on that proposed amendment, because legislative counsel has advised us that there is a difficulty with including a discretionary item in this proposed amendment; it would create problems with respect to the whole bill. So if he could just clarify that situation to the committee.
Mr Revell: I am only speaking to the element, not Mr Carr's full motion. Mr Carr's motion, which has been read into the record, imposes a clear obligation on the director to do something. But there was discussion the last time this item was on the floor to add words to the effect that "the director shall, where the director believes it necessary." So I am speaking to a motion that in fact has not been put. I was concerned about the possibility of adding a discretion because many, many things end up in law where you try to confer a discretion on a person to do one thing and then questions start to arise elsewhere as to whether or not you have a discretion to do other things.
If I say, "The director may do this," then the question arises, "May the director do that?" There is no statement in the law as to what the director may also do. There is a Latin term that translates loosely into English as "to include one thing in a law excludes other things." So if you start including discretionary powers of one sort, then you may be excluding other kinds of discretion. Obviously the director, in this kind of law, where there is a lot of administrative work to be done, needs the discretion to do those administrative things, and this is an administrative power.
Now, as I say, I am not speaking to something that confers a clear obligation, because to include one clear obligation does not exclude discretionary powers to administer the law in other respects. So I am only dealing with the discretionary aspect.
Mr Wessenger: If I might just add some clarification: Certainly our position was that we were opposed to the amendment originally on the basis that it would require an obligation in every case, and this would impose -- because in most cases it is not necessary -- a major additional expense on the part of the program. So for that reason we had opposed the original amendment. Then discussion arose about having some discretionary element in it, which, in principle, was agreeable to all sides. But we now find that we cannot really incorporate this discretionary element without creating difficulties for the whole act: consequently, we have to propose the amendment on the original basis.
It is unfortunate we cannot come up with a way of incorporating a discretionary element, but we just cannot. So we have to deal with it administratively through the program. The director is well aware of the attitude of the committee, and I am sure the director would deal with it in an administrative way rather than having it incorporated into the act.
Mr Harnick: Why can we not have as part of that clause that counsel may request the judge to make that part of an order? Then the element of discretion is gone, and if counsel deems it necessary to request that the director make reasonable effort to confirm and contact an income source, the judge may include it in his order. Why not? Easy.
Mr Wessenger: Maybe I will let staff answer that question.
Ms Pilcow: It seems an odd thing to put into legislation what counsel can request as relief. Counsel can ask for anything as relief when they are before the court, and the court can grant that relief if it is appropriate. What the court will be asked to do is inquire the names and addresses of all income sources. If counsel wants to be specific and say, "Your Honour, we want the address of the payroll office," that is what the court will do.
Mr Harnick: But I suppose there may be circumstances, and I suspect that this speaks to an income source that has more than one address or where an employee may be moving from place to place, and it may well be that counsel for the person receiving the support order wishes that an inquiry be made so that some administrative errors do not occur.
1630
Mr Pilcow: There are a couple of things: Mr Harnick, you were not here the last time we discussed this. One of the answers to your question is that currently we ask for the payroll office and we will continue to do that, so that is going to be the upfront request in any event, whether or not it is specifically requested. Then the further point --
Ms E. Mills: I think that with this clause, the last time we had the discussion, there is also a distinction between when we are talking about a new support deduction order that is made at the time we are talking about a new support order and situations that occur later on.
When we are talking about those where we are dealing with the initial support deduction order, at the time and in the courtroom, as the judge is making inquiries, those inquiries should be made. The responsibility should be on the payor and the parties to that support deduction order and support order to make that very clear up front what the particular address is, not for the program to have to go and find it.
Mr Harnick: Except you know and I know that if I am counsel for someone obtaining a support order and I know whom I need to get that money from and I know that that person may have an odd sort of business or an odd sort of income relationship, I may want, as counsel for the person seeking the order, the opportunity to have the judge say, "Let's do that." Every person who comes before the court is not working at General Motors where there is one payroll office. You may have self-employed people moving all over the place. Or you may have just people in odd business relationships. Certainly, as counsel, I would like the opportunity to say to the judge, "Judge, I'd like the director to make that effort."
Ms Pilcow: Subsection 3a(3) specifically requires the court to "make such inquiries as it considers necessary to determine the names and addresses of each income source of the payor." So that is something which has been specifically put in the legislation to make the courts make those inquiries.
Now, once the director gets it, if there is an ambiguous address, the director will still make further inquiries to ensure they are getting the right place.
Mr Harnick: But this is more particular. This speaks to an odd situation that may arise.
Look, if you do not want to put it in, do not put it in, but I am just saying that there may be an odd situation where you may want this section to help the person who is getting the support order.
Mr Winninger: Just two brief points: Technically, I do not see what impediment there would be to a judge who wants to make such an order to give such directions to make them anyway, especially on consent of counsel.
Mr Harnick: What if there is not consent and the judge says, "I don't have the authority"?
Mr Winninger: Just a minute; that was just the point I wanted to make technically. Substantively, if I were a payor spouse and I had a small, closely held corporation and the office contacted me ahead of time to find out where to send the notice and I did not want to pay support, I could easily give the wrong address and that would throw off the process, possibly for months. The people who need the support most would be the big losers. That is the point I wanted to make.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Harnick has an interesting suggestion. There is no motion on the table to consider such an amendment, so I am not sure why we are discussing it, but I would like to get back to the discussion of Mr Carr's motion, which is a reasonable motion.
We stood it down because we thought maybe we could shape it so that we could pass it, but I think the point was made by the director herself, if I recall the testimony, and the point she made I think adds authority to the proposition that we should pass Mr Carr's motion.
I am sorry, it was not the director. It was our friend from the ministry who referred to subsection 3a(3), which says "the court shall make such inquiries as it considers necessary to determine the names and addresses of each income source." So right in the statute we put a statutory obligation on the court to make reasonable inquiries. Why is it that we should not put in the statute the same sort of requirement on the director? Why should we not direct the director, when we write the law, to make every reasonable effort? It is very much like what we said the court should do.
I appeal to my New Democratic Party friends on this committee just to think about it a little bit. You will not bring down the government if you support this amendment. All you will be doing is changing the act a little to make sure the director has it right; just to make a reasonable effort. The director can always defend herself or himself by saying, "Yes, I thought that was reasonable in the circumstances," and any lawyer worth the $250 an hour that he or she charges now will tell you that it is not a very difficult test for the director to pass. But it is a little direction to the director to say: "Get the address right. Don't send these things out. After all, they contain highly personal information. Make a reasonable effort to" -- how did you phrase it, Gary? -- "contact and confirm the name and address of the income source."
Anything wrong with that? Do you folks in the New Democratic Party really find that offensive, to tell this woman over here, who is the director now, that she should make those reasonable efforts? What is wrong here? What are we afraid of? It does not mean that the bill is going to be changed in principle or in theory; it just says we want to protect the privacy of individuals, an additional little protection. Like a painter painting a painting, it is an additional little brush stroke. It gives it a little bit of detail that the bureaucrats did not think of. But just because the bureaucrats did not think of it does not mean it is wrong.
The Premier is not going to deny you a right to take Kormos's old job just because you supported this in committee, even though the director does not support it and the minister does not support it. Take courage. Look, it is just a little bit of protection. Maybe in the future, in the next 10 years, one poor SOB who is the subject of a support deduction order will be protected because you did this.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: What do those letters stand for, Mr Sorbara? I do not know.
Mr Sorbara: SOB generally stands for son of a bitch.
Mr Perruzza: Just let him spell it out. There you go. Let's not speak in letter form.
Mr Sorbara: You should give my friend the member for Downsview a book on what a point of order here is and what a point of order is not. Asking what SOB stands for is not a point of order. And I will tell the SOB -- I mean, I will tell my friend the member for Downsview that I do not mind the interruption at all.
All I am asking him to do is think about the opportunity to stand up and be counted. Look, it is a simple little thing. It does not qualify this woman's ability to run this agency whose name we are now going to change. It just gives one little bit of protection.
I am sorry if I am interrupting the sleep of my friend from --
Mrs Mathyssen: No, it just seems a little repetitive, that is all.
Mr Sorbara: It is repetitive, but we would not have to be so repetitive if the government could agree to some other amendments on this bill.
In any event, I plead with you. This is not the official opposition's amendment; it is Mr Carr's. He is a new member. He is not here to bring down the government with this amendment. He has not been around here very long, but he thought of something. He said: "I can make this a little bit better. That's what I was elected to do. I can make sure that the director does not just arbitrarily send out these notices." Because after all, these notices have very personal information. The fact that a person has separated, that he or she had been the subject of a court order, who the employer is and all those other things are right there in the document. This director is a very competent director, but it may be that some future government appoints a director who is somewhat more arbitrary. I do not think that will happen, but it might happen.
We are here to make sure that our laws protect people. Mr Carr says: "I have one little additional protection before we pass this. Would you please consider it?" It is not a matter of party policy. None of you campaigned on this during the election. You got elected --
Mr Bradley: They all get their marching orders.
1640
Mr Sorbara: You do not have to take these marching orders, as my friend from St Catharines mentions. You all have your marching orders, but you do not have to follow them in this case. So I put it to you, you are the party of fairness and justice and freedom for all, social conscience -- exercise a little bit of freedom, for God's sake. Think about supporting Mr Carr. It is not generally that we got these things from the Progressive Conservative Party in the past, and this is a breath of fresh air, so do it.
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. I would appreciate it if one person would talk at a time, please.
Mr Sorbara: I do not have much more to say on this, but all I can say is --
Interjections.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments?
Mr Sorbara: No, no, hold on a second. We are voting for it not because there is a conspiracy to break down the government. We have just considered it; my friend from Prescott and Russell and I and Mr Elston before have considered it. We do not think that the director is going to have a problem living up to it, and if she gets the money that she needs from the Treasurer, she certainly will not have any problem considering it. So I suggest to the government members that they just let go of the chains for a few minutes. When the Chairman says, "All those in favour of the amendment," take a risk, put up your hand. The Premier probably will not even find out about it.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions. Mr Perruzza?
Mr Perruzza: Thank you for letting Mr Sorbara say that all over again. I was really looking forward to it.
The Vice-Chair: No problem. Seeing no further questions, all in favour of the amendment? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
Mr Sorbara: Six months and you are in the grip of the bureaucracy.
Ms S. Murdock: And we love it.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sorbara. Now we move on to the yellow 15a, but before we do that, we have to have unanimous consent to reopen sections 14 and 15. Do I see unanimous consent? Thank you very much.
Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 3c(10d) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill, as amended by Mr Wessenger's motion of 27 February 1991, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(lOd) Despite any other provision of this act, no deduction shall be made under a support deduction order in respect of amounts owing to a payor as reimbursement for expenses incurred for professional services and for things provided under a medical, health, dental or hospital insurance contract or plan."
Mr Wessenger: The reason for this amendment to the prior amendment is that we had consultation with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and they were concerned about the term "medical" not being broad enough to cover health benefits such as reimbursement for expenses incurred to purchase eyeglasses, prosthetic devices, etc. We have accordingly added health plans to medical, dental or hospital plans to include such benefits, and the other change, as we made it clear, that they are reimbursements for expenses incurred.
Mr Harnick: I may be sort of looking for things that do not exist, but when you talk about "amounts owing to a payor as reimbursement for expenses incurred for professional services and for things provided," I think "things provided" is really not as descriptive as the wording should be and there must be other precedents. Why can they not just be to a payor as reimbursement for expenses pursuant to a policy of medical health, dental or hospital insurance? What is a "thing?" Is a thing a prescription? Is it a service for a chiropractor? I do not know what a thing is, and I think the language is very imprecise. I have never seen bills written where the word "thing" is used.
Mr Poirier: Unless we have seen strange things in bills.
Mr Harnick: Surely there have to be loads of precedents to follow to avoid that wording, and I think you should stand this down.
Mr Wessenger: We could ask legislative counsel, perhaps, for some comment on the use of the word "things."
Mr Revell: Over a long period of time, bills in this Legislature and, in fact, every Legislature, have been criticized for using long lists of words to describe simple concepts. A thing is obviously not a professional service; that is not a thing, but the rest of those things that come under a medical plan of any sort are things. If you get a pair of eyeglasses, those are a thing; if you get a hearing aid, that is a thing. If you took a look at the old schedule C under the Insurance Act, which dealt with, whatever that was called, no-fault benefits or whatever under schedule C, it had a list that went on into infinity, going through hearing aids, eyeglasses, artificial limbs and on and on and on and on. The word "thing" describes, in my opinion -- and this is something I looked at before recommending this -- all of that and uses one word where we used to use 20 with always the possibility of leaving one of them out.
Mr Harnick: The difficulty in terms of statutory interpretation, when you list several items, my understanding is that that is how you define an item that may not necessarily be provided for. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you then list things, and if something shows up that is not on the list, that item is determined on the basis of statutory interpretation, based on the meaning of the words that go before it. But "things" does not do that. I do not mean to be picky, but I think you can make this better. I have never seen a statute with the word "things" in it. I have read a few of these. Paul, have you ever seen a statute with the word "things" in it? In insurance?
Mr Wessenger: I think I should go by legislative counsel, since they have actually drafted this for your motion as well as ours. Actually, it was the PC motion --
Mr Harnick: I am just saying you are better with a list that does not necessarily have to be exhaustive, but at least the list is there so that if something comes up that is not on the list, it can be interpreted on the basis of statutory interpretation on the same basis as the list appears. Go ahead, do whatever you like, it does not make any difference to me.
Mr Revell: There is the classic damned if you do, damned if you don't. I was thinking back to Gary Larson's Far Side a few weeks ago where there is the devil and two doors, damned if you do and damned if you don't. We have this problem, and we have always had it in legislative drafting. I agree that the proposition you put forward of legislative interpretation which, like every other legal concept, has a Latin expression to describe it, called ejusdem generis, which means that like things --
Mr Harnick: I could not remember that. I have not seen that for a while, but that is what I meant to say.
Mr Revell: -- shall be interpreted like. On the other hand, we may recall that because of the way sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 set out long lists, we have spent a long time interpreting what those lists are. I am not trying to defend this as the best approach. If the members think there is a better approach, I will take your advice on that. But I can say that my research indicates, and after a great deal of thinking about the plain language issues and having regard to the concept of ejusdem generis, if we list 20 things and something comes along that is a thing that is not exactly like those 20 things you list, and you have a list that goes on, "Da da, da da, da da, da da, and such other things," the court is going to interpret that "and such other things" having regard only to the first part of the list. You have two different problems. If you want to limit it, then by all means let's start with the list and -- no, we will take instructions. After all, it is the House's bill and not mine. You see, I do not think you really have that problem, only because you are dealing with items as opposed to things included in an insurance policy. But it does not bother me.
1650
Mr Sorbara: Let us move on, Mr Chair.
Mr Winninger: I agree with what Mr Harnick has said. In fact, he literally took the words out of my mouth. I do, I believe, have a very simple, elegant amendment to the language used which would omit the word "things" and still connote exactly the meaning that is already there.
I would simply say after the phrase, "owing to a payor," "for expenses reimbursed under a medical, health, dental or hospital insurance contracted plan," and that omits the two lines including the word "things" but it embraces the concept connoted by this drafting. So I would simply say, "to a payor for expenses reimbursed under a medical, health, dental or hospital insurance contracted plan."
Mr Harnick: Yes, that is essentially what I said in the beginning. The only other thing I can add, and I do not know the answer --
Mr Winninger: I can now yield the floor. I have said what I wanted.
Mr Wessenger: Could we perhaps stand this item down again? Legislative counsel has cancelled it.
Mr Harnick: Could I make one comment? If we are going to stand it down and it is going to be examined, you may wish to differentiate or include any group plan of insurance or private plan of insurance and go back to your definitions in the earlier section. I just throw that out, but --
The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent to stand this down?
Agreed to.
Mr Sorbara: The government still has not got it right.
Interjection: Lawyers do not like the word "things." That is the thing.
The Vice-Chair: Now we move on to amendment 19, please. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Noting that page 18a which we will be looking at next takes into consideration 19, I withdraw the PC motion number 19.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Now can we move on to 18a please?
Mr Sorbara: Sir, I could not hear what Mr Carr said about 18a.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Carr just withdrew page 19.
Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 3c(12) of the act, as set out in the government motion, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(12) The director or the income source, individual, corporation or other entity, as the case may be, may, on notice to the other of them bring a motion to the court that made a support deduction order or to the appropriate court under subsection 3k(9) to determine,
"(a) whether the income source has failed to comply with the order;
"(b) whether the amount the income source is deducting and paying to the director's office under the order is correct;
"(c) whether the individual, corporation or other entity is an income source.
"(12a) In a motion under subsection (12), the court shall determine the issue in a summary manner and make such order as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
"(12b) A motion shall not be brought by an income source under clause (12)(a) or (b) unless the income source has given written particulars of the proposed motion to the director at least 14 days before serving the director with notice of the motion.
"(12c) A motion shall not be brought under clause (12)(c) by an individual, corporation or other entity, until at least 14 days after the date that notice was given under subsection (11).
"(12d) Subsection (12c) does not apply to the director."
Mr Wessenger: This redraft was in response to the Conservative amendment, and we thought it was a good amendment. It is the same terms, except we provided for 14 days to enable the director to attempt to resolve the matter without the necessity of having a court application. It seemed to make good sense.
Mr Harnick: A couple of things: The words "to the other of them" really make no sense. Why is it not like any other motion, "may, on notice, bring a motion"?
Ms Pilcow: The difficulty in this area is that there are a number of parties. There is the party to the support order and then there is the director and the person paying support. So it is not always clear who the other party on a motion is, and in many cases the other party is the recipient or the payor. In this case it is the director and the support payors. So that is why --
Mr Harnick: Why do you not just put, "on notice to the director and the support payor"?
Ms Pilcow: Well, it is not. They have to give notice to the other of them. I do not know what other way you can say it. It depends who is bringing the motion. If it is the director bringing the motion, the director has to give notice to the income source. If it is the income source, the income source has to give notice to the director. Only those two.
Mr Harnick: I would still submit that any lawyer knows that "on notice" means notice to all concerned.
Ms Pilcow: But it is not notice to all concerned. It is only notice to the other. The support recipient here does not receive notice of this motion.
Mr Harnick: Because the words, "to the other of them" --
Ms Pilcow: Perhaps legislative counsel can speak to those words.
Mr Harnick: There has to be a better way to draft those words. Do you want me to finish with my other bits of confusion, or do you want to deal with that alone?
Mr Revell: I did not draft the motion, Mr Harnick; that was moved by Mr Carr at the last session. In fact, this picks up the language from the motion that was moved by Mr Carr in the last session.
It was drafted in my office after consultation, in the normal fashion, I assume, but I have to say that I was of the same impression from this as has been given by Ms Pilcow, that it is the people in this list that we are looking at -- the director, the income source, the individual, corporation or other entity -- who is bringing the motion. So whoever is bringing the motion has to give it to the other ones in this list.
Mr Harnick: We have listed them all.
Mr Revell: But there are other parties. This is the point that I am getting at. This operates at two levels, because there is a support deduction order and there is a support order also operating and there are different considerations at these two levels. I think this says quite simply that we are dealing with the people on the list.
Mr Harnick: I do not disagree with you. There is no fundamental disagreement; I just think it is badly worded. It looks unprofessional.
Ms Pilcow: The alternative is to make it unclear as to whether the support recipient is going to be a party to this motion. It would be most unfortunate if support recipients were dragged into these disputes where they did not need to be. That is why the wording is the way it is.
1700
Mr Harnick: Is there no way that instead of the indented (a), (b), and (c) you cannot use (i), (ii), (iii)? Because you have so many a, b's, and c's.
Mr Revell: Mr Harnick, the Statutes of Ontario have existed for over 100 years now, and there has been a slow evolution of the style. In this case I submit that what we are looking at is labelling, and there are many, many labelling systems. You are right; there have been criticisms of whether you should use a, b's or c's or i's, ii's and triple i's and whether we use Romans or Arabics and whether we use decimals or do not use decimals. When it comes down to it, the only thing I can find is: Do we have a system of citation that is uniform? In fact, the system that is used in Ontario is uniform with what is being used across Canada. That is my justification for it.
Mr Harnick: I do not dispute that. But if I am standing in front of the judge, and certainly if I was the judge and I referred to section 12a I do not know whether you are referring to 12a or 12(a). You have essentially two 12a's.
Mr Revell: Yes, I realize the problem you are talking about.
Mr Harnick: From a purely practical point of view.
Mr Revell: Yes. We have had this kind of problem --
Mr Harnick: Can you not just change it to 12(i)? Just so that within the section it is not confusing.
Mr Revell: Okay, the 12(a), that is the most traditional method of the first level of subdivision within a section or subsection. As to the rest, the criticism that you have with respect to the difference between subsection 3c(12) and the immediately following clause, which is (12)(a) and (12)(b) and (12)(c) --
Mr Harnick: Right now I do not even know which (12)(a), (b), and (c) you are talking about.
Mr Revell: Let's take a look. Subsection 3c(12) is a first level of subdivision, followed by the clauses (a), (b), and (c) and --
Mr Harnick: That is right, but if I want to refer to 3c(12)(a), I am going to say section 12, clause (a)?
Mr Revell: If you wanted to deal with the director, "whether the income source has failed to comply with the order," that is clause (a) of subsection 3c(12).
Mr Harnick: People do not speak that like that in courtroom, but you go ahead if that is the way you like it.
Mr Revell: Probably the best way to handle this is -- I would be quite willing to meet with the member to discuss this issue. People think that some of these decisions are taken arbitrarily and willy-nilly, and they certainly are not. I appreciate the member's concern. It is something that has taken up a great deal of time, for example, at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada where some of the very best legal drafters have been thinking about these issues off and on over long periods of time. I certainly would like to come up with a system that is truly the ideal system. We live with this constant problem. I do not know if you have the reprinted bill or the small version of the bill.
Mr Harnick: I have that one; I have the reprinted one as well.
Mr Revell: In the small version of the bill, this kind of numbering problem, and I do not want to belabour the committee's time with this, but if you take a look on page 32 you will see that there is section 12 followed immediately by section 18. Section 12 is the bill; section 18 is the amendment to the existing act. You always have these kinds of numbering problems and citation problems, and I can assure the member that we have been working and working and working to try and resolve them. I would certainly be willing to meet with the member at length to discuss suggestions and recommendations for improving, because anything we can do -- we did try to help the members in this 12-18 thing by putting the section 12 in bold type and section 18 in light type to distinguish between plumbing words in the bill and the actual substantive provisions. But I am afraid that at this stage I cannot help it very much further than that. l can say that when the bill is reprinted, what you see as idem (12a), idem (12b) and idem (12c) will be renumbered into Arabic numeral sequence so that that will at least be cured of that problem.
Mr Sorbara: I do not have a problem with this. I think it is nice to see that the government is accepting Mr Carr's amendments. They could have done that with his other amendments without the world caving in.
Ms S. Murdock: It is the grammar teacher in me, because I see where Mr Harnick is coming from. Maybe I am wrong or I am interpreting it incorrectly, and if I am I am most happy to be corrected. "The director or the income source, individual, corporation or other entity," are four different things, correct? "As the case may be, may, on notice to the other of them": I understood from your comments that you are only dealing with two parties at any one time, but the way that reads grammatically is that any one could give notice of motion to any one of the other three or to all of the three.
Ms Pilcow: There will only ever be two parties. There will be the director and one of the other three people listed: an income source, individual, corporation or other entity. That will be one person. It will be one of those or one entity and it will be one of those listed. There will only ever be two parties, though. But we do not know who is going to be an income source, because one of the disputes that can be brought is that, "I am not an income source." In that event that entity may not be an income source. It may be an individual; it may be, l cannot remember what the --
Mr Wessenger: Corporation or other entity.
Ms S. Murdock: So "the other of them" would be one of the other, whichever one it was giving notice of motion.
Mr Sorbara: You know why the government is stalling on this bill, Mr Chairman, on these technical small --
Ms S. Murdock: Is the pot calling the kettle black?
Mr Harnick: I just want to ask legislative counsel, can we just get rid of the words "of them"?
Mr Sorbara: We would object to that very strenuously.
Mr Harnick: Because it is just "to the other." Then it sounds professional.
Mr Sorbara: Is there unanimous consent, Mr Chairman, to stand the question of deleting "of them" down and we will consider this section at a later time?
The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent to stand 18a down?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
The Vice-Chair: No. Mr Harnick, are you moving an amendment to strike down those two words?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Harnick moves an amendment to delete the words "of them" in subsection 3c(12).
Any comments or questions on the amendment to the amendment?
Clerk of the Committee: This looks out of order.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Harnick, I am sorry, you are out of order. You cannot amend an amendment.
Mr Harnick: So we end up with a badly worded bill. Okay.
Clerk of the Committee: It is an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. There is already an amendment to an amendment on the floor and Mr Harnick would technically be the second amendment. We can only have one amendment to an amendment on the floor at a time.
The Vice-Chair: My apologies to the committee.
Mr Wessenger, would you accept Mr Harnick's amendment as a friendly amendment?
Mr Wessenger: I will leave it up to legislative counsel to make a decision on this, because this is a technical question.
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I would like to know whether unanimous consent is needed to consider a friendly amendment so I will know what amendment to what amendment we are discussing.
The Vice-Chair: No. As long as Mr Wessenger wants to accept it, you do not need unanimous consent.
1710
Mr Wessenger: No, you do not. On the basis that legislative counsel has indicated that he does not deem a difference in the interpretation by the deletion of the words "of them," I have no objection to having that amendment. I consider the motion amended.
Ms S. Murdock: If I may answer that: I did teach grammar for a number of years, and he is correct because it is an adjective clause and it would not change if it was removed.
Mr Sorbara: Do I take it, then, that the motion before the committee has been amended to strike out the words "of them" then?
Mr Wessenger: Yes. It is accepted.
Mr Sorbara: This is truly great progress. We are getting our lessons in grammar.
I just want to tell the committee that on questions that are purely of a drafting nature, through five and a half years of this work I have, I think in almost every case, deferred to legislative counsel, and I do not think have ever got in trouble as a result of that. I do not think it is of any importance whatever whether the words "of them" are in there, but this province has the benefit of probably the most outstanding legislative counsel in Canada, if not North America, and our statutes are the pride of North America. I do not think committees should get into the business of second-guessing on these very technical matters, although I know that Mr Harnick is very interested in them. I suggest to him that he take up legislative counsel's invitation to pursue these matters, because we are, after all, lawmakers.
But, for example, on the question of a, b and c or i, ii, iii, it is just that this is the form we have, and I do not think this committee is charged with investigating that. If this committee wants to get involved in a long discussion about whether we are going to have substantive amendments to this bill --
Ms S. Murdock: I will remind him of that, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I am always ready to discuss substantive amendments, and you know our party's position. We are looking for some changes to certain sections of this bill and we are trying to create a period of time for the government to let us know one way or the other whether it is going to be open to that. I have not heard anything from the parliamentary assistant or from any members of the government of this committee as to whether the principles of this bill and the particulars of this bill are going to be changed at all.
With all due respect to Mr Harnick and Ms Murdock and Mr Wessenger, an active debate on the words "of them" is interesting, but it does not get to the heart of the bill and it does not deal with some of the legal rights that are in it. We are here to discuss the legal rights of people affected by this, and we are trying to make a point. The only way we can is to harass the government a little bit with rather insignificant speeches from myself and others in the opposition. But maybe the government will get the point that it is not a question of whether "of them" is in the bill; it is a question of whether people's legal rights are appropriately dealt with by this committee.
So I am not going to support the amendment to delete "of them."
Mr Winninger: While I realize that Mr Sorbara will avail himself of any opportunity to try to embarrass the government, even where it will stand in the way of making the language of this clearer, I can support Mr Harnick. I know the Chair will tell me if I am out of order here, but certainly the words, "to the other of them" after the phrase "on notice" seemed extraneous. l am just going by memory here, but it seems to me that a hundred times or maybe a thousand times I have seen these words "on notice" and there is no magic to them. Notice is presumed to be taken on the appropriate parties, and it could be any one or more of the parties listed here.
So I would suggest, on reconsideration -- and I might be opposed by people even on my side -- that the matter be stood down, that legislative counsel look at this section again and see whether the words "to the other of them" are really necessary for this section.
Mr Sorbara: Agreed.
Mr Harnick: I had originally said that and we had some dialogue. I agree with Mr Winninger and I agree with that suggestion.
But just to reply to Mr Sorbara, it is quite evident in what Mr Sorbara says that he has not spent a great deal of time standing before judges attempting to interpret words. The easier we can make the words -- and I have the greatest of respect for legislative counsel, who knows far more about this than I do -- the easier it is to interpret these words, the less contentious litigation we are apt to have. I think Mr Sorbara, by making the statements he has made, only indicates how little experience he has had in arguing these kinds of matters before courts. The precision with which we draft this document is certainly a very important element of what we are doing, and in addition to the substance, this has a great deal to do with the amount of litigation that will be born out of the statute.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I think I am next on the speaker's list.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. We do have a stand-down motion now. I need unanimous consent to reconsider the standing-down motion.
Mr Sorbara: I am not prepared to grant consent until I have dealt with Mr Harnick's little --
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: No, I do not think, Mr Chairman, that my experience --
Ms S. Murdock: You do not think; that is right.
Mr Sorbara: Now Ms Murdock is attacking. I do not know why I am the subject of attack here.
Ms S. Murdock: You said it. I did not say it.
Mr Harnick: The remarks I made were made with the greatest of respect to Mr Sorbara. I did not intend to imply otherwise.
The Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Harnick, Hansard would appreciate it if one person at a time spoke.
Mr Sorbara: And so would the speaker who is speaking.
Now, I do not know why, Mr Chairman, the member for Willowdale began a personal attack on me.
Mr Harnick: It was certainly not intended and I will withdraw my remarks. There you go.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, we are getting closer to the point now. I do not know why the remarks that have now been withdrawn by the member for Willowdale -- he was pointing out my lack of experience in a courtroom. He is right. I only practised law for some two years before being elected to the Legislature of the province of Ontario in 1985, and immediately after that was appointed to cabinet and thereafter could not practise law. During my period of practice -- I would not mind getting into it in detail if the committee so wishes -- I had very little experience in a courtroom. I did do a little work on statutory interpretation and have, I should tell my friend the member for Willowdale, spent five and a half years as Chairman of the regulations committee of cabinet where I reviewed the work of legislative counsel in exhaustive ways, looking at hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of regulations. It is on that basis that I say to you and to the other members of the committee that this province is served by an outstanding team of lawyers and legislative draftspeople, and the product that they bring to the government and to ministries and through government and ministries to the Legislature is first-rate.
I do not mind if this committee wants to get into a long discussion about whether to strike out the words "to the other of them." It serves my purposes. You might notice that I am using some rather crude delaying tactics here in this committee. I am giving long speeches where short speeches would do the work. I am doing that because I would like the government committee members here to try to understand that we could make certain minor improvements to this bill which would make it a better piece of legislation. If the government is not willing to do that and the members of this committee are not willing to do that, then we oppose in the only way we can oppose, and that is by doing what politicians do too much of, and that is talking. We do not have any other tools.
Remember Peter Kormos? For 17 hours in the Legislature he talked, and he became a hero. I am told, as a matter of fact, that at the recent convention of the New Democratic Party he received an ovation louder even than that of the Premier.
1720
The Vice-Chair: Stay on the issue.
Mr Perruzza: You mean you were not there?
Mr Sorbara: My friend from Downsview asked whether I was there. No, I was not there, but we had people there as observers. They paid the fee and we observed carefully, as you will do at our conventions when we return to the government part of the House four and a half years from now.
Mr Perruzza: Maybe you will invite me and I will attend.
Mr Sorbara: Excuse me, I am speaking to the motion.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara, please stay on the motion.
Mr Sorbara: I am speaking to the motion, Mr Chairman. I think I am, in any event. We are talking about subsection 12 and we are talking about the tools we have available to us to try and convince the government to consider the changes we would make to this bill. Ultimately you are going to get the bill in the fashion you want. Pretty soon the government will get to the sections of substance of this bill, the ones that actually affect the rights of men and women and children who are affected by this legislation.
I have been dealing with this bill in this committee for a good, long time, and no one from the government, nor from the bureaucracy -- I will get to that in a second -- nor from the government members of this committee, nor the Chairman has come to us, me or any of my colleagues and said, "Can we just talk about what you would like to do on this bill a little further, sit down and discuss it with you outside the formal nature of this committee? Do you want to do that, Sorbara? Do you want to sit down and tell us what the concerns are?" Howard Hampton has not done it. He has been the Attorney General now for some five months. He did have a little meeting with Ian Scott, I will grant him that. Generally, as a courtesy, ministers, once they are appointed, sit down with the critics and say, "Look, I have just been appointed and we would like to know where your party is coming from." I have not heard from Howard. I have not heard from the parliamentary assistant on this bill, sitting down over a cup of coffee about what concerns we have.
They have read our amendments, maybe, but nothing, just: "We are going ahead with this bill. This is what the bureaucrats want, this is what you are going to get." So, if the government members of this committee want to stand down a consideration of whether to strike out "to the other of them" in the face of good drafting from legislative counsel, I have changed my mind, Mr Chairman. I am willing and we are willing to grant unanimous consent to stand it down, and I just wanted to let you know that.
I want to move a brief adjournment so my friend from Prescott and Russell can go outside and indulge a habit that I used to really love.
The Vice-Chair: We adjourn until 5:30.
The committee recessed at 1725.
1733
The Vice-Chair: I would like to call this committee to order for consideration of 18a. Any more questions on 18a?
Mr Sorbara: Help us out here. My understanding was that there was a request by Mr Wessenger to stand the matter down for further consideration.
Mr Winninger: You are confusing certain people.
Mr Sorbara: Well, there are so many new people in the Legislature.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara, that has already been defeated.
Mr Sorbara: But there was a further request from Mr Winninger, the member for London South, the one who got that little private member's bill upgraded to a government bill on the quick.
Mr Winninger: Passed.
Mr Sorbara: Upgraded and passed on the quick, despite the fact that it violated every word of parliamentary procedure that I have ever --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Sorbara. I have to ask for unanimous consent in order for you to ask to stand this down again, because the standing down motion has been defeated twice already.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to defer to the clerk.
Mr Winninger: I am withdrawing my motion.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, Mr Winninger. Thank you very much.
Mr Sorbara: Then I want to know what the status of these poor little words "to the other of them" is.
The Vice-Chair: "Of them" has been struck out.
Mr Sorbara: So it is just two little words. I have got two little words for you, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Please.
Mr Sorbara: So "of them" is out. Those are the two little words I was referring to.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, "of them" is out.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. That is to say the amendment before us does not contain the words "of them." At least not in the third line of subsection 12.
The Vice-Chair: That is correct, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I think that is regrettable, but so be it.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments or questions on 18a? Shall 18a carry?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, this is Mr Carr's motion still -- I am sorry, it is a government motion now.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Could we just have it on the record -- after all, some people might read this -- that although the government takes credit for this motion this is really the work of Mr Carr, a newly elected member with not a great deal of experience in the House. But he has worked on it and he has convinced the government members --
The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock?
Mr Sorbara: -- and the government --
The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, please?
Ms S. Murdock: Actually --
Interjection.
Ms S. Murdock: I have the floor. Just for clarification, Mr Sorbara, since Mr Wessenger is going to say it, he stated right at the beginning that this was because of a Conservative amendment that this amendment was even brought forward.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Murdock.
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate Ms Murdock's help on that matter, because that had slipped my mind. But the thing that disturbs me, to tell you the truth, Ms Murdock, is that I expect all of you will vote for this. I have a terrible suspicion that --
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: If Mr Sorbara wants to speak to the issue at hand or he wants to applaud Mr Carr on his amendment or he wants to move in on Conservative turf out in the community, that is one thing. He should do it on his time and at his leisure, and he should not be taking up the time of this committee to do that. If he wants to stick to the issue at hand then that is fine and --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Perruzza, actually you do not have a point of order. Mr Sorbara is speaking to the issue. Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point I was trying to make before my friend from Downsview interrupted was that I have a sneaking suspicion that all of the government members are going to support this motion. I also have a sneaking suspicion that had Mr Wessenger, as the parliamentary assistant, not indicated his support for it the government members would have been unanimous in their rejection of this amendment. I am disappointed in that, Mr Chairman. I have had an opportunity to look at the amendment and I think Mr Carr is right. Just a second, I am about to finish. I think Mr Carr is right in proposing these matters and I am glad he brought it to the attention of the committee. I am glad the government members are going to vote for it although I would suggest to them that it is not only Mr Wessenger as the parliamentary assistant --
The Vice-Chair: Can I please talk for one moment? You are imputing motives, which is contrary to the standing orders.
Mr Sorbara: Imputing motives? If I have done that, Mr Chairman, I want to apologize to the members of the committee. I expect that they are going to vote for it. I hope and pray that they vote for it. I just encourage them as Mr Carr brings forward motions that are not supported by Mr Wessenger and the government; or motions brought forward by myself on behalf of my party, that they at least consider it, that they do not simply vote based on directions from Mr Wessenger, or the Attorney General or the bureaucracy. We have some serious concerns with some sections down the road and if I could ever get some indication from the government, whether through the parliamentary assistant or the Attorney General, if he ever calls the critics -- Charles, have you ever been called by the Attorney General?
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: I guess that is not relevant. I was wondering out loud.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: In any event, I was going to let you know that we are prepared to support this.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sorbara. Are there any further questions on page 18a? Seeing none, will 18a carry? Those in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I believe that was unanimous?
The Vice-Chair: Yes it was, Mr Perruzza.
Mr Sorbara: Do you want a recorded vote?
The Vice-Chair: Shall page 18 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Perruzza: All of that was unanimous, Mr Chairman.
1740
Mr Wessenger: Mr Sorbara had some concern about section 1, and I believe he would like to clarify with respect to that. We stood down section 1, so I would like to just return to that in a moment.
Mr Sorbara: I wanted to advise you --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Sorbara, one moment please. The only way that we can move back to section 1 is with unanimous consent. Do we have it?
Mr Harnick: Hold on a second. You are way ahead of me. You may have unanimous consent, but I would like to know what it is you are seeking unanimous consent for.
The Vice-Chair: To move back to section 1 so Mr Wessenger can clarify something for Mr Sorbara.
Mr Wessenger: No, I think Mr Sorbara had some concerns about section 1.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, perhaps I can just help you for a moment and tell my friends that after consideration of the matter my friend from Prescott and Russell raised, we stood down final consideration of section 1 because I had some substantive concerns about drafting. I have resolved those concerns with legislative counsel and the members of the ministry and no longer have those concerns. So if the committee wishes by unanimous consent it can return to section 1 and we can dispense with it. We do not have to deal with it any more. We are taking one small step forward on the bill. Section 1 of the bill as printed.
The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent to move back to section 1?
Agreed to.
Section/article 1:
Mr Sorbara: On the subject of section 1, I would point out to members of the committee I did have some concern about whether or not the definition of "support deduction order" as drafted could be challenged in a court because it refers to the requirement to have an income source. I am satisfied now, having talked with legislative counsel, that the definition is secure and a support deduction order that is issued in blank, that is to say, without any name of an income source, will not be charged successfully as a nullity in court, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of "support deduction order" makes reference to "any income source."
I have had that discussion, I am satisfied with it, and so I am prepared that the section proceed and we are going to support it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sorbara. Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Seeing none, carried.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Article 1, modifié, est adopté.
The Vice-Chair: Now I would ask the clerk to speak on a clarification of the motions.
Clerk of the Committee: The next motion that we are going to is 26, and although your yellow pages have a 25a and a 25b those have been renumbered 26a and 26b.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I must confess to a little bit of confusion at this point: 26 is a motion moved by me and the clerk just suggested to me that there is a yellow version of that?
Clerk of the Committee: No, if I can just clarify. What is on the floor right now is the motion on pages 24 and 25. There are numerous amendments to that amendment. The first amendment that we will be dealing with is Mr Sorbara's amendment on page 26. When we finish with that we will then go to the amendment on 26a, the amendment on 26b, the amendment on 27, the amendment on 28, the amendment on 29. Then we will go back and pass 24 and 25, amended or not amended.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any comments or questions to Mr Sorbara's amendment 26?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I should perhaps begin speaking to that. It may well be, Mr Chairman, it being a quarter to six, that the members of the committee want to defer consideration of this matter, because this really does get to the heart of our concerns with the bill. Looking around the room, I do not see any enthusiasm from the government members to set this matter over to our next day of considerations so I will just go ahead. You do not even have to ask for unanimous consideration. I will just go ahead.
If the members of the committee will just direct their attention to page 26, as we were referring to it, the amendment that we are proposing says, "it finds that there is, having regard to all of the circumstances, a substantial reason for suspending its operation." If you just read that, you will probably think, "What in the world is he talking about?" So let me put that amendment into some context which speaks to our specific concerns about this bill. In order to do that, Mr Chairman, I am afraid I will have to go into a little bit of history.
The previous government, under the direction of the member for St George-St David, who was then Attorney General, undertook substantial work trying to figure out how to improve the operation of the support and custody enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The problems there were problems that were familiar to virtually every member of the Legislature who paid any attention to his or her constituency office -- and I remind my friend from Sudbury that she was once a constituency assistant so she knows very well about the kind of problems in the office.
So what happened? Ian Scott, as Attorney General, undertook some work to figure out how the enforcement of support orders could be improved, and I think his ministry did what any competent ministry should do: It looked around to various jurisdictions not only in North America but around the world to see what other jurisdictions were doing.
Lo and behold, the Ministry of the Attorney General found that many jurisdictions were moving towards a system of automatically deducting from the paycheque of individuals who were the subject of a support order the amount owing on the support order.
The evidence, if you can believe the then Attorney General, was fairly clear that this was pretty strong medicine but it was a trend in jurisdictions similar to Ontario and ought to be considered by the province of Ontario. So the then Attorney General had some work done to determine how such a measure might be incorporated into the laws of the province of Ontario.
I made that point when Howard Hampton introduced the bill. I wish, when he introduced the bill, he had talked less about child poverty and at least mentioned the fact that the initial work on this bill had been done by the previous government and the previous Attorney General.
In any event, Mr Scott's version of this bill had a number of opportunities for the branch to be relieved of the responsibility of collecting this money.
What does that mean? It means that in Mr Scott's view of improvements to the bill, there should be room, he thought, for people to free themselves from the enforcement function of the government. So he proposed that there be what we were calling a kick-out provision.
Once the office was satisfied that payments were being made regularly -- in our view a year would be a good amount of time -- there would be no necessity for the branch to continue to enforce these orders, so a support deduction order would not be necessary, that is to say, the continuing enforcement of a support deduction order would not be necessary. It would not have to be done by this branch.
1750
Then we had an election. We thought we were going to win the election but we lost, and the New Democratic Party was called upon to form the government under the leadership of the now-Premier Bob Rae. He appointed Howard Hampton as the Attorney General. Howard Hampton took up the responsibility of doing the business that was ongoing in the Ministry of the Attorney General and the first file he picked up, lo and behold, was SCOE. Do you know what that means in practical terms? The folks in the Ministry of the Attorney General brought this matter to the new Attorney General's attention, suggested that most of the work was done and that the new government could proceed fairly quickly with the bill to be introduced into the Legislature amending the enforcement of support and custody orders in the province of Ontario.
I guess the matter was reviewed by cabinet. The tough questions were considered by cabinet, and it appears that cabinet decided to make it far more difficult than our government had considered appropriate, far more difficult for people to resolve the matters of support between themselves rather than using the office of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The amendment that we are proposing would change that slightly. It would in fact allow a court to determine, at the consideration of the matter, that the force of the office would not be necessary under certain circumstances. Have a look at it: It says simply that under appropriate circumstances, "having regard to all of the circumstances," there is a substantial reason for suspending the operation of a support deduction order.
As the section reads now, the government is proposing to make it almost impossible for two parties to go beyond the enforcement by the director and his or her office. We are probably going to get into that in more detail the next time we consider this matter, but as the section stands now it reads as follows: "The court may suspend a support deduction order under subsection (1) or subsection 3k(6) only if" -- now here is the operative section -- "(a) it finds that it would be unconscionable, having regard to all of the circumstances, to require the payor to make support payments through a support deduction order."
Now, that is a very strong test. The test of unconscionability is one that, I think, the lawyers on this committee will agree is very difficult to meet. In fact, it gets even more difficult if you look at subsection 3 because subsection 3 tells the courts of certain things that might, under normal circumstances, be considered in considering unconscionability but they cannot be looked at by the courts, like the record of payment so far. The court is not allowed under their amendments to look at that.
What is left? I say, if you are going to take out those things, then get rid of the section altogether. Do not create a charade that you will be able to establish unconscionability before a judge in a family court in the province of Ontario. In fact, the government does a highly unusual thing in saying not what the court might look at when it considers unconscionability but what it cannot look at, without any statutory direction at all about what it might look at. Now that is really rather silly. That is rather bizarre that it would say you cannot look at "the payor's payment history in respect of his or her debts, including support obligations." You are not allowed to look at that.
A payor might be able to bring before a court evidence that he or she has always paid the bills, always paid a support order, always paid the American Express on time, has a perfect credit rating, but when the court looks at unconscionability it is not allowed to look at that, if the government has its way.
The court is not going to be able to look at "the fact that the payor has had no opportunity to demonstrate voluntary compliance in respect of support obligations." A payor might come before the court and say, "Give me an opportunity to prove that I will never default." The court cannot look at that in considering unconscionability.
If the payor wanted to bring witness after witness after witness about his desire to pay on time, even to voluntarily have the payments deducted from his pay, the court cannot look at that. It says, "The following shall not be considered by a court in determining whether it would be unconscionable."
What are we saying about our citizens? There are lawyers here; the lawyers on this committee should think about the presumption of innocence that is at the very foundation of the common-law system and the criminal-law system, the presumption of innocence, the presumption of goodwill. I would like to hear from Mr Winninger about that and I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General about the presumption of innocence and what this section on unconscionability says about that presumption of innocence which is the foundation of our law.
The court, when it is considering unconscionability, cannot look at "the fact that the parties have agreed to the suspension of the support deduction order." I tell my friends in the government party to read that section carefully. Two spouses who are separated, but who have come to a voluntary agreement that they do not need the enforcement of a support deduction order in order to make sure that money is paid on time, even if they agree that it is not necessary -- the court cannot look at it.
What are we saying about the people we are elected to govern? Talk about intellectual totalitarianism; talk about the fact that even if the parties agree -- how many people on this committee have gone through a separation or a divorce? If statistics prove right, probably about half, so those of you who have, or those of you who might, understand the pain and the agony and the acrimony and the bitterness. Yet, even having known that, there is room to come to an agreement on some things like, "By God, we are not going to fight over the stereo and we are not going to fight over the kids," and litigants can agree about that. And yet we are saying in this government bill that even if they agree they do not need the support deduction order, the court cannot look at it. Ask yourself whether you want to be the sponsors of that particular bit of business.
Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that it is now, as the Speaker says, six of the clock, I move adjournment of the debate. Is that what I do?
The Chair: Yes. All in favour of adjourning? All opposed? Seeing none, carried. We are adjourned till 25 March after routine proceedings. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1759.