MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FAMILIES AGAINST DEADBEATS CHILDREN AGAINST DEADBEATS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 3 December 1996
Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, Bill 82, Mr Harnick /
Loi de 1996 sur les obligations familiales et l'exécution des arriérés d'aliments, projet de loi 82, M. Harnick
Ministry of the Attorney General
Hon Charles Harnick, Attorney General
Ms Susan Himel, assistant deputy Attorney General, social justice services
Mr Ken Goodman, legal counsel
Ms Tina Riley, legal counsel
Ms Shanthy Weerasekera, manager, business registration
Families Against Deadbeats; Children Against Deadbeats
Ms Renate Diorio
Ms Samantha Diorio
Mr Heinz Paul
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
*Mrs MarionBoyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
*Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
*Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
*Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
*Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L) for Mr Chiarelli
Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / -Est ND) for Mr Wildman
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC) for Mr Hudak
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Swift, Legislative Research Service
J-1517
The committee met at 1533 in committee room 1.
FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS
Consideration of Bill 82, An Act to establish the Family Responsibility Office, protect the interests of children and spouses through the strict enforcement of support orders while offering flexibility to responsible payors and make consequential amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Bureau des obligations familiales, visant à protéger les intérêts des enfants et des conjoints grâce à l'exécution rigoureuse des ordonnances alimentaires tout en offrant une certaine souplesse aux payeurs responsables, et apportant des modifications corrélatives à des lois.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): I call this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order. We are considering Bill 82.
The first order of business: We have distributed the subcommittee report of November 28, 1996. I would request a motion to accept that subcommittee report.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'll so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion regarding the subcommittee report?
Mr Ramsay: In some of the discussions I've had and some of my colleagues have had with some of the witnesses and potential witnesses who would be coming before us over the next couple of days, now that the subcommittee report -- it hasn't been accepted yet, but I just want to say that part of the subcommittee report is a recommendation to the committee as a whole to assist where a request has been made for financial assistance for witnesses to come before us.
I think in another place and in another time, House leaders may discuss this in general. But I think in this particular case it is very necessary, since we're not travelling and the people we're speaking of have very few resources, that I sort of implore the committee to accept the subcommittee's recommendation that we assist with some resources to assist people to come before us.
The other thing I would say, which was not discussed at the subcommittee and I would put before the committee, is that in making some of those calls over the last couple of days, many of the people said they were not in a position even to upfront the cost of, say, a train ticket to come from Ottawa to here. I don't know how we would physically do this because time is very, very short and some of these people would be coming tomorrow and Thursday, but I would also like to add to that report or make a friendly amendment to it that where requested, we endeavour where physically possible to send an advance or a ticket or something, whatever the clerk feels secure about, in order to facilitate the witness coming before us.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, perhaps worded another way, would ask that the subcommittee be authorized in our meeting after this meeting today at 6 o'clock to consider individual requests and approve them in advance rather than after the fact as we traditionally have done.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I guess the only question I have to Mr Ramsay is what happens if -- in all committees that I've ever been on, from time to time there may be personal problems, people may reconsider coming for different reasons, and they decide not to come. Meanwhile, the province of Ontario has sent them a cheque.
Mr Ramsay: I would say that in this case I would think you'd find that the witnesses are people in receipt of money from the province of Ontario and in a sense the control is there. If somebody reneged on rebating the travel advance, I guess in a sense they're not getting it anyway from the family support program, but the family support program could keep the money. I think the control is there through the family support program.
The Chair: Does the clerk have letters at present requesting this arrangement?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): I've not yet received letters. I understand some may be received this afternoon by fax. I've had a good number of inquiries by telephone.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This is really a situation around accessibility. Because the government is anxious to get this bill passed so that it can get the measures into place, we've all agreed that we're going to do the committee meetings in this way even though the issue has involved the closing of regional offices. It certainly seems to me that we need to be very mindful of the fact that it is important for us to have the input from people who are affected by the changes, the concerns that they have, as we look at this bill.
Because we're not travelling, which normally we would be doing on a bill that's as important as this, and it would cost a great deal if we look around the table at how many people would have to travel, it seems to me that we ought to be fairly clear that this is not going to be a major issue.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Could I just ask what amount of money we're talking about? What's the framework?
The Chair: Unfortunately, as the requests have not yet been received, we do not know. I assume we're talking about travelling costs for one person making the presentation. Sudbury may be one place; Ottawa may be another. Because of the time frame, the only possible solution is to have the subcommittee be authorized to deal with it, and that's really what we're discussing right now.
Mr Klees: I'm just wondering what information someone from Sudbury, for example, would be able to bring forward on this issue that either couldn't be represented in a written submission or wouldn't be represented by others who are prepared to be here, just to help me understand what the issue is.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Maybe I can respond to this. The woman in question who would like to come is the director, president, whatever you want to call it, of a group that has recently formed called SOS, Securing Ongoing Support. She wants to come. She wants to make a public appearance here in front of all the committee members to express not only her concerns but the concerns of the group. She is also bringing a written submission from the regional municipality of Sudbury and she is probably bringing a second written submission from a family lawyer who cannot attend at these proceedings because he's going to be in court this week.
Had we been able to travel, and normally we would have on a bill of this importance, we would have been in Sudbury, I suspect, because it is a community that had a regional office. So I do think it's appropriate for us to pay this woman's mileage to make sure she can come to this committee and represent the concerns of not only herself but a number of people in her group. She is taking the additional step of bringing with her the written submissions of a number of other people.
The Chair: Mr Tilson, one moment. In view of some controversy regarding this request, may we put this down till after the Attorney General makes his presentation and we've asked him the questions, and then we can deal with it?
Mr Ramsay: Yes, I would allow that. I would ask then that I withdraw at this time this particular request but that we now consider the subcommittee report, at least get that issue of paying expenses. This debate I think will become more complicated because of my question of the advances. I would certainly like, though, in order to give as much notice as possible, the subcommittee report as submitted to committee at this moment to be considered right now.
1540
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Ramsay. That is not suitable because item 7 sets out that we would approve the expenses after the fact, and therefore I would suggest we move that down too. You've suggested something entirely different than item 7 of the subcommittee report.
Mr Ramsay: The dilemma we're in is that right now several of the witnesses are not in a position to accept the clerk's invitation to appear before us because it's not clear whether the committee will be able to pay their expenses or not. I think we have to very quickly agree or disagree as to whether we're going to assist witnesses who request assistance with some help to get here.
The Chair: I understand that. All I'm suggesting is we move the subcommittee report and your request until after the Attorney General's presentation.
Mr Ramsay: After the Attorney General. Okay.
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Chair: Excuse the delay. The committee welcomes the honourable Attorney General for Ontario. Please proceed.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Before the committee begins its deliberations, I would like to make a few remarks concerning Bill 82, the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996. I appreciate the opportunity to be here before the committee.
Bill 82 contains three critical building blocks. These three building blocks will provide the foundation for a new and more effective family responsibility program. The three building blocks are tougher enforcement measures, automatic filing with voluntary opt-out and private sector partnerships. I would like to highlight Bill 82's key provisions and how the new Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act will improve the current support enforcement program.
The new enforcement measures in Bill 82 are among the toughest and most stringent of any jurisdiction in North America. They close the loopholes that in the past have let defaulting parents avoid meeting their support obligations. These new measures make it clear that defaulting on support payments is no longer acceptable in Ontario and that it will not be tolerated. We are introducing 10 tough tools. They will close the loopholes and help get money flowing to women and children, money that they rightfully deserve and that they are legally entitled to receive.
The first tool is driver's licence suspension. Under part V of Bill 82 we will suspend the drivers' licences of payors who refuse to meet their family support responsibilities. Suspending a defaulting payor's licence will not depend on the province's licence renewal program. Defaulting payors will get 30 days' notice either to make payment in full or to arrange a payment plan. Failure to do so will result in the suspension of the payor's current licence. It will not be reissued until all arrears are paid or the payor arranges a satisfactory repayment plan.
Often defaulting payors fail to advise a lender of their support payment obligations. As a result, money is lent without the full knowledge of the payor's financial circumstances. Under section 47 of Bill 82, we will close this loophole. We will report the name of a payor who is in default to a credit agency. This will make it tougher for defaulting payors to take loans. This tough new enforcement tool will be very useful in enforcing payments by self-employed payors.
Under section 43 of the bill we will register child support payments as security interests under the Personal Property Security Act. This will provide notice to commercial lenders that an individual has a support debt. Any added borrowing by the support payor will be subject to the Family Responsibility Office's registration and priority. When an asset is sold, child support will be given priority over subsequent registered and unregistered interests.
Another tool in section 66 of the bill amends the Creditors' Relief Act to give priority to all support arrears over other judgement creditors. This means that when a sheriff takes steps to collect on the support payor's judgement debts, support arrears will be paid even if there are other judgement creditors.
Defaulting payors often try to avoid support orders by sheltering their income and assets through arrangements with third parties. Section 41, third-party enforcement, closes this loophole and lets us crack down on these third-party arrangements. At the same time, section 41 has built-in mechanisms to protect innocent third parties.
Section 45 closes another loophole, one that let support payor shelter funds in joint bank accounts with other parties. The new Family Responsibility Office will have the authority to garnish 50% of the money in a joint bank account. Again we are building in mechanisms to protect innocent third parties.
Sheltering of income and assets with third parties by defaulting payors is a huge problem in the plan's effectiveness in enforcing support orders. Sections 41 and 45 of the bill close the loopholes that have helped defaulting payors to avoid fulfilling their support obligations.
In response to the concerns raised by some opposition members that this legislation is not constitutionally valid, let me simply say that I am prepared to defend it if it is challenged.
Another important tool is found in section 46 of Bill 82. It gives the Ontario Lottery Corp the authority to deduct support arrears if a defaulting payor wins a prize of $1,000 or more in an Ontario Lottery Corp lottery.
Under the existing Family Support Plan Act the definition of "income source" is too narrow to be effective. Section 1 of Bill 82 expands the definition of income to include commissions, advances, severances and lump sum payments. This will make it easier for the Family Responsibility Office to collect arrears from payors who are intermittently employed or have non-standard employment arrangements. Again this closes a loophole that let defaulting payors avoid their legal responsibilities to pay support.
Section 54 of the bill gives the Family Responsibility Office better methods to trace and locate defaulting parents. In addition to the existing authority to get the address of a payor and the name and address of the employer, the office will now have the authority to get information about the source and location of income or assets. This may include an undisclosed interest in a business or real property, shares or other investments.
In addition to these legislative changes, we intend to screen all provincial government appointments to the judiciary and to agencies, boards and commissions. This will ensure that we do not appoint people who do not pay their child support. Although this does not require a legislative amendment, I am highlighting it to further illustrate how seriously our government views the issue of non-payment of support.
These 10 tough enforcement tools close the loopholes in the old plan that for too long have let defaulting payors avoid their responsibilities. They form the first critical building block in the foundation of a new and more effective support enforcement program.
The second critical building block is found in section 16 of Bill 82, automatic filing with voluntary opting out. This section gives responsible parents the choice of making their own private support arrangements without the necessity of government intervention. Section 16 fulfils the commitment we made in the Common Sense Revolution that parents who are acting responsibly do not need to have the government peering over their shoulders monitoring their behaviour. Automatic filing with opting out recognizes that there are many responsible parties in Ontario who have reached and are fulfilling amicable agreements about their support payments. This will enable program staff to focus resources on problem cases and resolve them more quickly.
At the same time our government is very aware that there are, regrettably, far too many situations where a spouse is vulnerable and could be subject to coercion or abuse. In some cases a spouse, for a variety of reasons, may be in an unequal bargaining relationship. These spouses may want to remain in the program. They may want to have contact with the payor or they may fear that without the program they will not receive their payments. To protect women in these situations, section 92 of Bill 82 gives judges the authority to prohibit spouses from opting out of the family responsibility program where they find it is inappropriate. Any recipient who has initially opted out will be able to return to the family responsibility program at any time and at no cost.
There are two issues concerning voluntary opting out. The first issue is, if, where and how should government get involved in the lives of individual citizens? The second issue is, where and how can government resources best be issued? If the parties have reached an amicable agreement, if they are acting responsibly, why should the government intrude unnecessarily into their personal business? Why use government resources to monitor situations that don't need monitoring?
However, if an amicable arrangement cannot be reached, if a payor is not acting responsibly, if a payor is not meeting his or her support payment obligations or if the court considers that a recipient is going to be at risk, then this government is going to get involved. Those parties are definitely going to be in the government program.
1550
If a recipient decides to return to the program -- again, she can do so at any time -- she will be returning to a support enforcement program that has some of the toughest, most stringent enforcement measures in North America. There will be no administrative fee on entering the program, as some opposition members have suggested.
Section 4 contains the third building block of the new program. It gives the Family Responsibility Office the authority to enter into private sector partnership. In the Common Sense Revolution, we made a commitment to review all core business and to enter into partnerships with the private sector where it can provide services more effectively and efficiently.
The three building blocks contained in Bill 82 -- tougher enforcement measures that close the loopholes, automatic filing with opting out and private sector partnerships -- will provide the foundation for a truly effective support enforcement program in Ontario.
Some members have expressed concerns about the provisions of section 7 of the bill which give the director of the Family Responsibility Office the discretion to close cases where all reasonable efforts to enforce the support order payments have failed. I would like to emphasize that closing FSP cases is not a new initiative. Under section 2(2) of the support and custody order act and the Family Support Plan Act, the director of the family support plan has always been charged with enforcing support orders in a manner that appeared practical.
The director has also always had the authority to refuse to enforce cases. However, the existing law was silent on how the power was to be exercised. Until now the administrative closing of cases under the old plan was covered by informal policies and procedures established by the director of the family support plan. These policies and procedures are substantive and detailed. They outline the specific and numerous steps the old plan has had to take before a decision is made not to enforce a case filed with the plan. There were in fact three directives and 22 pages of procedures on administrative closure.
When our government undertook its review of the old plan, we decided that the closing of cases was too serious a matter to be guided by policies alone and should be codified. Therefore, the process which guides the decision to close a case will now be covered by statute. Section 7 accomplishes this.
I recognize that there are people who are concerned about the impact of section 7, and certainly I'm prepared to look at any constructive means of amending section 7. It's certainly not our intention to use section 7 to write down moneys owing. We don't want to write down moneys owing. If it's merely a matter of repealing section 7(d) but providing the plan with the opportunity to carry on and close files in inappropriate circumstances so we don't waste time and resources on them, that's something I want to hear from the committee, and certainly I'm open-minded about how that should occur.
I want to assure the committee that the decision to close a case will not be made lightly nor in haste. Each case will be considered individually to determine if it is impractical or unreasonable to enforce it. If the determination to close the case is made, the case will be deemed withdrawn from the director's office and we will notify the support recipient and the support payor.
Guidelines will be put in place setting out the specific circumstances where cases can be closed. The director of the Family Responsibility Office will be accountable to the Attorney General for the manner in which he or she fulfils their statutory obligations and remains subject to review by the Ombudsman as to the manner in which the program operates.
I want to emphasize that the program will cease enforcement on difficult cases only where it is clear that recovery is not possible and in situations where the programs has exhausted all its options, for example:
Where the amount of support can't be determined on the face of the order, meaning that the two parties have to go back to the judge and clarify what that order is.
Where the support payor is serving a term of incarceration greater than five years and has no other assets available to satisfy the support obligations. When the person comes out of jail and if they become gainfully employed, we reactivate the file. The fact that you're going to close it doesn't mean you can't reactivate it at any time in any circumstance where the plan receives information that indicates the case should be reopened.
Where the support recipient bypasses the program by continuing to accept direct payment from the payor, we want the opportunity to close that file.
Where the financial situation of the payor changes so that he or she has no income; in other words, a situation such as a person being on welfare and without any income for a lengthy period of time.
No case will be permanently closed. If at any time the Family Responsibility Office receives information on a closed case that would lead to the payment of money owed to a recipient, the case would be reactivated. When that happens, we are going to go after that defaulting payor. For example, a defaulting payor may return to Ontario and enforcement action can be taken, or a payor may ultimately become employed.
Giving the Family Responsibility Office the authority to close files is not about improving statistics; it is about being able to focus our resources on those cases that need government intervention and services. These are the cases that under the old plan were hard to enforce, the cases where experience has shown that government intervention can realistically make a difference in getting children and women the money they deserve and which they are legally entitled to receive.
Today, defaulting payors owe Ontario's children and women nearly $1 billion in support payment arrears. Today, three out of four families are not getting the money they deserve and to which they are legally entitled. Today, money is not flowing regularly in nearly 50% of family support plan cases. Ontario's children and women need and deserve a better, more effective support enforcement program, one that will get money flowing to the families who depend on their support enforcement orders for their economic security.
Bill 82 establishes a new legislative mandate for support order enforcement. It imposes tough new enforcement measures. It closes the loopholes that let defaulting parents avoid paying their support obligations. Bill 82, the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, gives the children and women of Ontario a support enforcement program that will help them get the money they rightfully deserve and that they are legally entitled to receive.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. Each caucus will have five minutes for questions. We'll start with the official opposition.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good afternoon, Minister. We all know what happened in terms of the situation in the summertime when the regional offices closed and the new system was put in place with the banks. In fact, you and I had the opportunity to meet to discuss it some time in September, I think. Can I ask you -- I know we have very little time -- if you could do it over again, would you do it differently? Would you have considered making the transition one that might have worked better? I don't believe you expected the system to collapse, but it did. Do you think you would have done it by having the bill in place first and making sure the transition could have been more orderly that way?
Hon Mr Harnick: I suppose in hindsight we can always find ways to do what we intended better. I have always wanted to get money into the hands of women and children as fast as I possibly could do it, and certainly that still remains the commitment.
One of the things we learned as we went through the transition was that so much of the family support plan has been running in an antiquated way. We found out that cheques continued to come in in an improper form month after month after month, that we had developed a workforce that was dedicated to fixing those cheques month after month after month and the way they were coming in became commonplace.
We have not moved to a situation where we've totally moved into the electronic banking world. As a result, we have been slow to be able to use technology to make the plan operate as efficiently as it should. Certainly we're dedicated to doing that.
The last government entered into a partnership with the Royal Bank, yet the fact that they had that partnership didn't advance the electronic banking system as it should have. Today, we found out, I think the statistic is, that about 50% of the cheques are being sorted by hand. The technology in the program as it links between the Royal Bank and the family support plan office is woefully inadequate in the sense that cheques that are essentially okay to deal with are presented at the Royal Bank and, for whatever reason, they're not accepted.
1600
Mr Gravelle: I just really wanted to know whether you would have done it differently, and I appreciate that I think you're saying you might have.
Another quick question. We know there was a computer problem, a glitch or however you want to describe it, this past weekend. I think it was even addressed in the House to some degree today. We understand that some files did disappear. Can you confirm that?
Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding is that no information, no files in this computer problem disappeared. We understand that the problem did not involve the MECA system and was something totally unrelated to the MECA system. I can tell you as well that the system shut down on Sunday afternoon at about 5 o'clock and reopened again I think at 7 o'clock Monday morning. It was not a situation that involved the family support plan and the MECA computer. It involved a network of government computers that shut down briefly. It had a marginal effect in slowing down the ability to process some cheques. But again, my understanding is, and it's been confirmed to me, that no information was lost.
Mr Gravelle: On another aspect, the voluntary opting out, I appreciate you addressing it as you did this afternoon, but I still think one can argue -- we don't have a lot of time -- and argue fairly, I think, that there still could be some reason for concern. Despite the fact that there can be judges involved who will basically force people to stay in the system, one doesn't have much difficulty seeing a situation where indeed this voluntary opting out can be coerced. I guess I'm having a problem understanding exactly how you go to, "Gee, a judge will deal with it," if a person's in a situation where they can't go to the legal system. We think there are still reasons to be very concerned about that. Would you accept reasonable amendments to that particular section if we could find a way to recognize that? I see a real gap between reality and what you've got so far.
Hon Mr Harnick: This was something that was debated here about four or five years ago, and I know the Liberal Party position was to allow opting out. I think the scheme the Liberal Party proposed was to allow a mandatory automatic opting out if a good payment record was established. I understand that the commentary on that was that it would be the worst of both worlds, because it would force people out of the program who may want to be in it and it would place some women at risk in forcing them to enforce their own support order directly. It would be something that would be mandatory: If you were a payor and you complied with your order for a certain amount of time, you automatically would be out.
What we're saying is that you're automatically in and that there has to be a positive step taken to be out. Judges who deal with the cases that are most heated, the most difficult of these cases, would have the opportunity, on their own or with the submission of the parties, to make an order that says, "This is not an appropriate case to opt out."
Mrs Boyd: First of all, thank you very much for coming and thank you very much for your indication that you really are prepared to listen to constructive suggestions. There's been a lot of rhetoric about the fact that the NDP is against this bill, and we're not. We want you to be very clear with yourself and your members that the enforcement things in here we have always said we want to support, and the issues we have problems with we are quite prepared to bring constructive suggestions to bear. Let us be very clear about that. Our argument with you and with the ministry has been around what has happened since August in the plan, not around what will change with this act. I want you to know that very clearly.
I won't talk about the enforcement measures with you because I do want some indication of how those will work from the staff you've brought with you, so I won't take our time up with that. You made a comment that there was no plan to charge women who opted out of the plan if they came back in, yet your own compendium in fact says that is one of the charges that would be levied. I would refer you to the compendium on page 15, "Ability to charge fees," where one of fees you want to charge is when women opt back in. I need you to know that we're relieved to hear you say that's not your vision of it, and I would hope we will be able to come to some clarity around the fact that that will not be one of the regulations brought forward.
On the closure of files, this is the first time in any of the discussion on this that I've heard anyone say they would automatically be reopened when someone came back to the province or got off welfare or anything else. That's our only concern. How do we tickle this file so that they come back on to the system? Are you planning that to be done automatically, once you get a fully automated system, or will this always be the responsibility of the recipient, whose last wish in many cases is to know anything about where the payor is?
The second question on that would be, how many files have ever been closed? Is there a change, because of the changes you've got here on cost of living, on percentage of income, on support of the exclusive possession of the home, that would cause a lot of these files to be closed now? How many files do you think would be closed?
Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly it was never my contemplation that files would be closed without the ability to reopen. The nature of collections is such that you know at a certain point that you're not prepared, and no client would be prepared if they were a paying client, to put more money into a collection at a certain point than they already have, because it's not bringing any benefit back. Certainly the idea is that if you exhaust the ability to use the remedies you have and you're not making collection, it's something we would contemplate, for the number of reasons laid out in the bill, that the file would be closed. On gaining any new information that might give you an opportunity to successfully start to collect some money, you would reopen the file.
One of the things I recognize, and I make this commitment to everyone today, is that we have a number of good things in this bill that I think are going to make enforcement much easier and much more successful; I will not permit any of these files to be closed for at least a year so that we can start to implement all those things. There's no point in closing a file if we haven't tried to exhaust taking away somebody's driver's licence or reporting them to a credit bureau. So many of the things in this bill by way of enforcement are geared towards ensuring that the payor come forward, as opposed to what we've always done, which is to try to go out ineffectively and chase the payor. What we're trying to do is bring the payor to us, and certainly we want to exhaust all of those remedies.
But there are a number of areas, and we've outlined them in section 7, where there is just nowhere to go on these things. What we're saying is that we will put those away until the parties go back to the judge to get an order that is appropriate for the plan to enforce, as opposed to a percentage of income that's always fluctuating.
Mrs Boyd: Quite frankly, if your compendium had indicated that you would suspend any closure of files until all these new methods had been applied to them, our response would have been very different. I need you to know that. In none of the discussions were we assured by the parliamentary assistant or by yourself that that would be done. We're delighted to hear that, because that's one of the major issues we wanted to make sure would happen: that all these new enforcement measures would be tried with these files that haven't been paid. That's a really huge concern of ours, so I'm very relieved that you've said that.
1610
Hon Mr Harnick: We're not doing this to write down debt. Collections are very difficult; there are times when files will not move for a long time but in the strangest of ways you find a piece of information that gives you an opportunity to collect. The other day $27,000 showed up on a file because some years ago there was a writ of execution put on somebody's property. With lower interest rates, people decide to refinance their mortgages. They pay off the old mortgage, they go get a new mortgage at 6% or 7% less and they get the $27,000 and they pay it off. That was a file that in reality was a closed file; it was just sitting there because there was nothing you could do on it.
I don't think anybody should get the impression that because a file will become inactive, it's being written off, debt is being written down and you can't reopen it as information comes through to us.
Mrs Boyd: If the wording had been "suspended" or "inactive," we wouldn't have had the argument with you in the first place.
Mr Tilson: One of the concerns of family law lawyers and indeed of recipients around the province is that there could be some cooperation with respect to the federal government. In particular, quite often amounts are owing to recipients and lump sum payments of income tax refunds come back to a payor, but this is beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial government. My question is whether the ministry has entered into any discussions with the federal government or officials of the federal government with respect to those types of reciprocal agreements with respect to passports, with respect to moneys coming from Revenue Canada. It sounds like the staff should be answering this question; it's a question that's come to me from people in the family law practice.
Hon Mr Harnick: My understanding is that this bill will remove a step that is needed to make a garnishee from a federal tax reimbursement. That is I think part of this. I know there are discussions to make available the database that the feds have in terms of location and tracing. That is also part of the broader opportunity that the bill provides us to access personal information about individuals, and certainly the federal government has given us every indication that they would cooperate in that regard.
Mr Tilson: A second question: The one criticism that has come -- or comment; I don't know if it's a criticism -- the one comment that has come from individuals in my riding has been that the provision dealing with the suspension of drivers' licences could result in payors being out of work because their licence is dependent upon their job, and hence those individuals not only might not pay any more but they might be on social assistance. I wonder if you could comment on that criticism.
Hon Mr Harnick: The bill sets out the procedure that will be used. What will happen is that an individual will receive 30 days of notice, so they won't get a notice that their licence is suspended. They'll receive a 30-day notice and as a result of that 30-day notice, they will have an opportunity to either pay the arrears or, if they can't pay the arrears because they're considerably high, they can go to the plan and enter into an arrangement with the plan to begin moneys flowing. What we really want to do is use this to get people to come forward and begin moneys flowing. Right now, chances are, in the situation you posed, that there are no moneys flowing at all. This at least starts the process of moneys flowing to a family that doesn't have anything coming to them now.
Mr Tilson: If there's time, Mr Klees has a question.
The Chair: Mr Klees has one minute.
Mr Klees: Mr Minister, a great deal of our problems with the existing system is the inefficiency within the system. This follows on what Mr Tilson was asking: What safety measures do we have in place to ensure that someone doesn't lose their licence or some of the other measures aren't implemented against the payor as a result of an inefficiency in the system? Is there some form of valve that is there that someone can call a time out in this process to ensure that in fact the problem isn't with the ministry and the process as opposed to the payor?
Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly the enforcement unit that will be doing this will be set up to deal specifically with the protocol that surrounds the driver's licence issue. It will also involve the liaison between that unit at the Family Responsibility Office and the Ministry of Transportation.
If you're asking me can I give you a guarantee that it will never happen that something goes awry, the answer is no, I can't. But there's a unit that will be set up or is being set up in the enforcement unit that will deal specifically with this and will ensure that the 30-day notice goes out, that someone has an opportunity to respond, where they have to respond to, by when they have to respond and what their options are going to be. That will all be set out when they're notified.
Mr Klees: Can I just make a very quick comment on that?
The Chair: Mr Klees, I'm sorry, our time is up. We each did have five minutes.
Mr Harnick, the committee thanks you for your attendance here today. The staff will come up to the table.
We are now going to deal, if we may, with a motion on the floor to adopt the report of the subcommittee dated November 28, 1996. This is very important because item 7 of that subcommittee report -- the subcommittee, in case you don't know, is composed of Mr Ramsay, Ms Boyd and Mr Tilson; I chair it but I do not vote -- says: "That requests for reimbursement of witnesses' travel expenses be considered by the committee on a case-by-case basis after receipt of a recommendation from the subcommittee on committee business." In other words -- and I understand that's been our policy to date -- it's a decision of the committee on a subcommittee recommendation, after the fact, to reimburse.
This is very important because the clerk advises that some individuals who have phoned and may be on our agenda have indicated they expect to be reimbursed. They don't mean it badly. It was sort of a condition of their attending. Otherwise they felt they could not afford it. For instance, the only formal amount we have before us is an indication of two individuals from the north representing an organization. Their total costs would be $880 for plane flight and meals, not for any stayover.
So we're talking about a large number of people, and we do not have time unfortunately -- and that's not the fault of this committee. The only way I could see it working is for the subcommittee to be empowered with the spending of this money in advance, and that's something we have to consider. Therefore that's the reason I delayed item 7, because if that had been passed, I think that would have been the final word.
Mr Ramsay: I would like to make a recommendation to the committee that we accept this. I only make this recommendation because in the normal course of considering legislation we do have public hearings that travel across the province in the intercession.
Because of the interest of all three parties who support this legislation, in order to get it passed and to give due process to the people who want to come before us and make their views known, this is a much more cost-effective way of doing it. Instead of inconveniencing ourselves, going on the road -- it's not an inconvenience to me; I enjoy doing it and enjoy getting across the province -- because we don't have the time, we're inconveniencing the people who would like to come before us.
Especially in this case, we're talking about a group of people who do not have the financial resources to come to Toronto. The essence of this bill is about helping people get those resources. They're short of funds. So particularly in this case, it would be I think a requirement of this committee to assist those people who are from out of town, who make a request for assistance.
1620
The Chair: The only advice I have is that we're going to be hearing approximately 36 individuals over Wednesday and Thursday.
Mrs Boyd: We will be hearing that many, but there certainly is no indication, at least on the list the clerk has given us, that a huge proportion of those are from out of town. The clerk has given us a list that includes the organizations the people are from. We can count how many are from out of town, and of those, we know of only a couple who have said they cannot come unless they're supported.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't get other requests, and I think Mr Ramsay's motion is to say that if the only way in which people are able to access their government to deal with this important issue is to have an assurance that their expenses will be paid, then surely in order to meet the government's desire to have this passed before the end of the session, and given the extraordinarily lower cost of doing that even for 36 people rather than travelling around the province, with all of us plus our equipment and our translation equipment and so on, I really think this is not an unreasonable request.
The Chair: We do not have at this moment a formal amendment to the motion. I just point that out.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Further to what Ms Boyd just said, even if all 36 people sought compensation or reimbursement, in view of the fact that a minimum of 18 people travel when this committee travels, it would be the equivalent of no more than two out-of-town ventures or trips by this committee. At the end of the day, if the argument is that this is being done for expediency, surely the argument of cost isn't relevant when in fact it's perhaps far more inconvenient for the people from out of town but it ends up being a more economical proposition.
Mr Tilson: This isn't the first time this has happened in the past with committees. It happens fairly frequently in fact that the subcommittee reviews it, it's then introduced to the committee, and the committee votes as to whether or not individuals should be reimbursed. Generally speaking, it's a perfectly reasonable request of individuals. I don't think I can support paying individuals in advance, for the main reason that I've given. I do throw out the alternative, however.
I appreciate the comments that particularly Mr Ramsay made about individuals from other parts of the province who for different reasons may not be able to attend where normally the committee may attend. I know Mrs Boyd and I have participated in a televised conference with experts. I don't know how practical or difficult it is for certain individuals to participate in a telephone conference.
The Chair: That was suggested but it's too late to set it up. I think we should all consider that for the future, but here it's impossible, unfortunately.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, if there's no amendment, that's fine. We're just chatting.
The Chair: There is presently not an amendment on the floor.
Mrs Boyd: I'd be happy to make an amendment. I would amend section 7 of the subcommittee report to say: "That requests for reimbursement of witnesses' travel expenses will be confirmed by the subcommittee upon receipt of an estimate or an actual ticket to be either faxed to the subcommittee or presented to the committee at the time the testimony is made."
If I might speak to it, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Please do.
Mrs Boyd: The reality here is that this is a very unusual circumstance. The government has agreed to hearings because it knows this is a burning issue, but the government has requested the opposition parties and the witnesses to expedite this matter so that these measures can be in place by the end of the year. I think all of us want that to be possible, because it suits our convenience and our rules as legislators and because we are doing this in a time when we have late-night sittings, so it's really very difficult for us to travel on the weekend or in the evenings in order to meet this. Surely under these circumstances and given the really quite substantial cost savings compared to having the committee travel, we could agree to this.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a question with regard to this before voting on it. It has to do with the procedure and time restraints on Monday next, "3:30 pm to conclusion." What is the procedure to be followed, or has it been agreed upon? Should we not conclude by 11:59 pm on December 9?
The Chair: The order of the House merely stated -- and it has been amended. It was originally 5 o'clock. I think that was extended to --
Mrs Boyd: To 8 o'clock.
The Chair: To 8 o'clock. Clause-by-clause, as you know, is not governed as to time limits as far as debate goes, but by 8 o'clock that evening, if in fact that was the end of debate, amendments would be put and voted on without any further debate, any other amendments before this committee.
Mr Guzzo: That's agreed upon by the subcommittee?
The Chair: No, that's an order of the House.
Mr Guzzo: An order of the House. I'm sorry. Thank you.
The Chair: Is there any other discussion?
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Is my name down there?
The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, Mr Preston. The committee welcomes Mr Preston to the committee.
Mr Preston: Thank you very much. I'm going to turn it that way.
The Chair: I'm sorry I missed you.
Mr Preston: We are spending upwards of 15 grand to send this committee out. That's what it costs, between $15,000 and $16,000 a day. Like Mr Kormos says, if we can do it in two -- this is what it's going to cost us for two days. But the fly in the ointment is, if a person can't afford to spend $800 to get here, they can't afford to spend the $800 to get here. We're going to have to make arrangements for a ticket at a ticket counter. If they don't pick it up and don't use it, it doesn't cost us anything. So that's what we're going to have to do. If I haven't got $800 to go somewhere, I just haven't got the $800 to go somewhere. I can't find it and then get it back. So we have to make travel arrangements for them; no money in their pocket, just travel arrangements.
Mr Gravelle: That's the answer.
Mr Preston: Thank you, sir.
The Chair: We are dealing with the amendment moved by Ms Boyd. Is there any further discussion regarding that amendment which would, in effect, authorize the subcommittee to pre-pay expenses for individuals where they requested it?
Mr Klees: I certainly agree with the principle of reimbursing. I think the comment that was made about prearranging the travel arrangements is a practical one as well. I would like to have an undertaking, though, that where an association is appearing before the committee, we limit this to one representative from the association so that we're not going overboard in terms of the costs here. I think that would be a reasonable request to make of the approval.
The Chair: The only request we have so far is for two individuals for one organization.
1630
Ms Martel: I don't know why we're spending so much time on this, but let me just make one point. You've got two people coming from Sudbury. The most they are going to claim is mileage, probably for the single vehicle. But the two people should be able to make a presentation because I don't think they should be driving down five hours here to present and five hours back, because they've got to get to work the next day. I don't know why this is becoming such a big problem for this committee.
We're talking about people who, if we had done this any other way, we would be in their community and they would be taking a bus or driving their car over to see us. We're not talking about everyone asking for money. Surely we're not going to start worrying about two or three etc if, for safety reasons, those people are driving together.
Mrs Boyd: Can we call the question?
The Chair: I've had a request --
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): For one or two people.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Johnson. We have Mrs Boyd's amendment to the subcommittee report of November 28, 1996, on the floor. Discussions have been completed. All those in favour of the amendment?
Mrs Boyd: Do we need a recorded vote, Mr Chair?
The Chair: If you request it, we will have a recorded vote. Are you requesting a recorded vote?
Mrs Boyd: Yes, I am.
The Chair: Let's have a recorded vote.
Ayes
Boyd, Doyle, Gravelle, Guzzo, Klees, Martel, Preston, Ramsay.
NAYS
Ron Johnson, Leadston, Parker, Tilson.
The Chair: I take it the amendment carries, and we are now dealing with the report of the subcommittee, as amended by Mrs Boyd's amendment. All those in favour of the subcommittee report, as amended? That is carried. The subcommittee will deal with that matter.
Welcome. How do you wish to proceed?
Ms Susan Himel: I would like to make some introductory remarks, if I could, and introduce our staff, who are going to do a brief overview for committee.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Ms Himel: My name is Susan Himel and I'm the assistant Deputy Attorney General in charge of the social justice services division at the Ministry of the Attorney General. I'd like to make some brief introductory remarks to committee and I would like to introduce the staff who are here to brief you on and give you an overview of the legislative provisions that are before you.
As you've just heard, the Attorney General has given you an overview of the purpose of the legislation and has outlined for you the three critical building blocks that form the new Family Responsibility Office, and has outlined for you the 10 new enforcement measures and other tools which will make a difference in the collection of child and family support. I would just like to give you a very brief contextual background to the legislation, and then you will be given a more detailed overview of the provisions.
As you are aware, in June 1985 the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act was first introduced and the goal of the government at that time was to enact legislation that would provide justice for children and women by ensuring that they received the economic security to which they were entitled. The legislation was later proclaimed, in July 1987, and the support and custody orders enforcement program was established. The mandate of the program was to enforce support orders and contracts entered into between the parties, together with the enforcement of custody orders. All support orders made in the province were automatically filed with the program for enforcement. Recipients were free to opt out and opt back at any time.
In March 1992 the legislation was amended and renamed the Family Support Plan Act. While recipients continued to be able to withdraw their support order, they were unable to withdraw their support deduction order from the program. This legislation saw the introduction of a new tool, the support deduction order. The enforcement tools available under the Family Support Plan Act then included the automatic wage deduction tool, informal discussions, garnishment, seizure of assets, liens and default hearings, and possibly jail for payors who were not living up to their support obligations.
Despite the existence of these measures, there were certain deficiencies and loopholes, which the Attorney General has just outlined for you. The new legislation is designed to provide more effective enforcement tools and allow the program to focus on cases which require services the most.
There are four major themes to the legislative provisions. I will just briefly outline the four major themes.
The first theme has to do with the question of allowing the program to focus its resources and expertise on problem cases and to provide services to those who need the services most. This will be done by providing that all court orders will continue to be automatically filed with the program but will allow recipients and payors who agree to withdraw from the program and arrange for payments to be made directly between them. You've heard the provisions that will provide safeguards to those people where there are circumstances where a judge believes the order should not be withdrawn from the program.
The second major theme is that the existing enforcement tools do not really reach intermittently employed and self-employed defaulting payors, so the new tool of driver licence suspension and the tools of reporting to credit bureaus, registering support orders as security under the Personal Property Security Act and other such tools will achieve the result of reaching self-employed and intermittently employed people who were not caught by the automatic support deduction scheme.
The third main theme is that even the best enforcement tools cannot be effective unless the payor and the payor's sources of income and assets can be located, so we will now expand the opportunity to get further information from payors so that the program can take the necessary enforcement action. We can then expand access to provincial and federal data banks to obtain better and more timely information.
The fourth main theme is to try and close the loopholes that exist in the legislation in allowing payors to evade enforcement actions commenced by the program, which is done through the sheltering of assets with third parties and in joint bank accounts which are not subject to garnishment. The solution is that under the new legislation, the program will be able to garnish 50% of money held in joint bank accounts, and the new legislation will allow, where a person has sheltered money with a third party, to gain access to financial information and to receive an order of the court in order enforcement take place against the third party. Those are the four major themes of the legislation.
I'd now like to introduce the staff who will be present for you and will outline for you a more detailed overview of the legislation. On my right is Ken Goodman, who will review the legislative provisions dealing with the structural issues that have been highlighted for you. On Ken's right is Tina Riley, who will review the legislative provisions dealing with enforcement, and on my left is Shanthy Weerasekera, who is here to answer any questions about the operational transition issues that may be raised.
Ken, I'd like to turn things over to you.
1640
Mr Ken Goodman: Bill 82 replaces the Family Support Plan Act. Those provisions of the Family Support Plan Act which remain have been reorganized for clarity and ease of reference. That is why an act which was previously 14 sections is now over 70 sections in length.
What we will be covering this afternoon are the new provisions. The new name is established under section 2 of Bill 82. It replaces the family support plan with the Family Responsibility Office. There will be a director of the Family Responsibility Office, and she or he, under section 5 of the act, has the duty to enforce support orders that are filed in the director's office.
Bill 82 also provides in section 12 the prompt and automatic filing of every support order and support deduction order made in an Ontario court with the Family Responsibility Office.
The act also provides in section 16 a mechanism which enables voluntary withdrawal from the program if both the recipient and the payor consent. If the parties agree to withdraw, both the support order and the support deduction order are withdrawn from the office for enforcement. This is established under subsection 16(5).
Any withdrawal must be with the consent of the Minister of Community and Social Services if the support order and the related support deduction order are assigned to the ministry. Subsection 16(5) provides that the support recipient and the support payor can withdraw an active support order which is no longer assigned to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and the program is still able to enforce any arrears which remain owing to the ministry.
Under the terms of subsection 16(6), either party, the recipient or the payor, can refile with the Family Responsibility Office.
I'd just like to clarify the issue with respect to fees. If on the making of a support order the parties consent that there be no filing with the program and they withdraw, and the recipient should decide at a later date to come back, there will not be a charge for that initial return to the program. The provisions in the regulation-making power in 63(i) provide that there is an opportunity to charge a fee when there has been repeated opting in or opting out of the program. So it is not to cover a situation where there's an initial decision not to be in the program and then to come back in, but if there are situations which involve repeatedly coming in and coming out, at that time there'll be a regulation-making power to charge an administrative fee, and I'd like to clarify that it is an administrative fee and not a penalty.
In subsection 9(2) the court has the authority in appropriate circumstances to order that the support order and the related support deduction order be enforced by the program and not be withdrawn. This is a power that the court can make on its own initiative. It is anticipated that such orders will be made at the time when the court is making the initial support order. It's generally based on the evidence or information that's presented to the court during the deliberations in determination of the amount of support.
The section is very broad, and that's to allow for judicial determinations to determine how it should operate. This section, however, is subject to the program's authority under section 7 to cease to enforce support orders in the appropriate situations. That is contained in subsection 9(3).
Subsection 7(1), on which I believe we've had some substantial discussions from the Attorney General today, states that the Family Responsibility Office may refuse to enforce a support order or support deduction order in cases where enforcement is impractical or unreasonable.
Under the existing provisions of the family support plan and, before it, the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, subsection 2(2), provided that the director, family support plan, had the duty to enforce support orders. That obligation was to be carried out in a manner, if any, that appeared practical. The provisions in subsection 7(1) of the types of cases where the director will have the option to consider ceasing enforcement codifies the existing practice where the family support plan has been administratively closing cases.
Subsection 7(2) authorizes the Attorney General to establish policies and procedures concerning the operation of subsection 7(1).
Subsection 16(6) states that if a support order and/or a support deduction order that has been resolved was withdrawn as a result of the operation of section 7, it can be refiled at any time by either party. There's actually codification in section 16, the right to refile even if enforcement has been ceased under section 7.
Section 7 also goes on to deal with cost-of-living adjustments. These are contained in subsections 7(4) to (7). This provides that the Family Responsibility Office will enforce cost-of-living adjustment clauses which are in accordance with the Family Law Act, and these are the only types of cost-of-living adjustment clauses that will be enforced. Any COLA adjustments completed prior to proclamation will continue to be enforced, but if the COLA is not in accordance with the Family Law Act, no further adjustments will be made by the program.
Subsection 8(2) provides that the director will no longer enforce cases upon receiving notice of the support payor's death. The effect of this is that upon death of the support payor, the involvement of the Family Responsibility Office will cease.
There has also been a change in the definition of support orders contained in subsection 1(1). The existing provisions of the Family Support Plan Act which dealt with the definition of support include many provisions in the nature of property such as exclusive possession of the family home. The definition of support orders in subsection 1(1) has been amended to focus on support orders which deal with the payment of money directly to support recipients.
In addition, the Family Responsibility Office will no longer be enforcing custody orders. Subsection 6(5) provides that the director will no longer enforce custody orders filed with the program. The director's office will continue to act as an information and referral service on the issue of domestic custody enforcement.
Section 4 deals with the assignment of director's powers. Section 4 permits the Attorney General to assign any power, duty or function of the director. Section 4 is flexible enough to accommodate any number of differing arrangements. Any assignment under section 4 must be made by the Attorney General and not the director, and in addition must have the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Any assignment made under section 4 can be subject to the limitations, conditions and requirements as approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Section 4 also goes on to provide that an assignee can be exempted from the provisions of clause 22(a) of the Collections Agency Act, which states that no more than the maximum amount of the debt can be collected from the debtor. This will allow for the option of charging the fees to the debtor for collecting outstanding child support debts.
I'd like to turn to Ms Riley, who will deal with the enforcement provisions of the legislation.
Ms Tina Riley: I'll first deal with driver's licence and motor vehicle permit suspension. Under part V of the bill, when a support order that is filed in the director's office is in default, the director may direct the registrar of motor vehicles to suspend the payor's driver's licence. Before a payor's driver's licence is suspended, the payor will be given 30 days during which the payor can pay the arrears or enter into a payment arrangement with the director. Within the 30 days, a payor will also have the option to ask the court for an order refraining the director from suspending the payor's driver's licence. The refraining order can only be made within the context of an application to vary the support order and terminates the earlier of the day the application to vary is determined or six months after the refraining order is granted. A court that makes a refraining order must state the amount of the arrears owing when it determines the variation application. The court may also make an order respecting how the arrears will be paid. A refraining order can be extended only for one further period of three months.
If within two years of a payment arrangement or a court order being made the payor defaults on the arrangement or the court order, the director may send the payor a second notice informing the payor that his or her driver's licence may be suspended. The second notice will give the payor 15 days as opposed to 30 days to comply. If a payor defaults on an arrangement resulting from a second notice, the director can notify the registrar of motor vehicles to immediately suspend the payor's driver's licence.
It is important to note that the suspension of motor vehicle permits will come into force at a later date than the driver's licence initiative. This will permit the proper computer systems to be put in place.
1650
A similar suspension system will apply to motor vehicle permits. A motor vehicle permit can only be suspended if it is for non-commercial use and the portion of the permit that is being suspended is owned solely by the payor and not by the payor and a second party.
The next initiative I'll deal with is third parties on a default hearing. A frequent problem encountered by the program is payors gifting or transferring assets for no consideration to third parties, who are often relatives or close business associates, to avoid support enforcement. The program will often bring a payor before the court on a default hearing and show that while the payor's financial statement shows no assets, the payor is living at a great standard of living and previously had significant assets.
The court does not currently have the power to order that third party to provide evidence in this regard. This left the court and the program with little ability to uncover or prevent the sheltering of assets in this manner. Under section 41 of the bill, however, the court will have new powers in relation to third parties on a default hearing. Where there is some evidence of sheltering, the court may order a person who is financially connected to the payor to file a financial statement or to be added as a party to the default hearing.
If the court is satisfied that a person who is made a party to a default hearing sheltered assets or income of the payor such that enforcement of the support order was frustrated, the court may make any order against that third party that could be made against the payor except incarceration, and up to the value of the sheltered assets or income. For the protection of the third party, subsection 41(20) provides that a financial statement or other documents filed by the third party will be sealed in a court file.
The next initiative I'd like to deal with is garnishment of joint bank accounts. Hiding funds in a joint bank account is one of the most common and easy methods support defaulters use to shield assets from support enforcement. As a result of a 1991 court decision, the program cannot garnish joint bank accounts. Bill 82 remedies this problem. Under section 45 of Bill 82, the director can garnish up to 50% of the money held in a joint bank account where one of the account holders owes support arrears. Where the bank notifies the director that the funds are in a joint bank account, the director would hold the funds for 30 days. The director may release the funds after 30 days unless the non-debtor joint bank account holder files a dispute with the court, on notice to the director, claiming ownership of the sum seized under the garnishment. At the court hearing, the onus would be on the non-debtor joint bank account holder to prove ownership of the funds. The non-debtor joint bank account holder may also bring a private action against the debtor, which the director is not involved in, to recover any part of the garnished funds.
The next initiative is reporting to credit bureaus. The director is authorized under section 47 to report payors who are in arrears to consumer reporting agencies. Registering debts with a credit bureau is a common method of collecting debt. By notifying potential creditors of an existing obligation, the registration could prevent the debtor from obtaining credit, which may encourage debtors to pay up on the arrears.
Section 46 of the new act requires that support arrears be paid from lottery winnings of $1000 or more prior to distribution of the winnings to the support defaulter. This ensures that the payor cannot benefit from a large windfall when child support is outstanding.
Under the Family Support Plan Act, the FSP can currently register a support order as security for the payment of support against any land in which the pair has an interest. There is currently no ability for the family support plan to register the support order against a payor's personal property. Section 43 of the new act permits support orders to be registered as security against the payor's personal property. Security of personal property is done by way of registration of the financing statement under the PPSA, the Personal Property Security Act, which allows for seizure of the property on default. The Family Responsibility Office will take priority over unregistered interests and interests registered subsequent to the FRO registration.
The next initiative is access to information. Support enforcement depends in large part on having an efficient, timely and cost-effective manner of locating and obtaining information about support payors. Section 54 gives the director expanded powers to obtain information about support payors. Under the Family Support Plan Act, the program could obtain from any person or public body information that is shown on a record in the person's or body's possession or control that indicates only the place of employment, the address and the location of the payor. The FSP had no ability to obtain information about the payor's wages, salary, income, assets and liabilities. Section 54 of the new act permits the director to obtain from any person or public body information that indicates not only the employer and place of employment, but also wages, salary, other income, assets, liabilities, address and location of the payor or payors. The director will also have access to records in the possession of a ministry, agency, board or commission of the Ontario government in order to search for the same types of information.
Clause 54(1)(c) gives the program the ability to enter into agreements with any person or public body, including the federal government, which you heard about earlier, to permit the director to have on-line access to payor information.
We've also made some important changes to the definition of "income source" in subsection 1(1) of the act. Currently the Family Support Plan Act defines income source as an individual, a corporation or other entity that owes "periodic payments at regular intervals to a support payor." An income source, for your information, is usually an employer. This definition has limited the program's ability to use the support deduction plan to reach anything other than income flowing on a regular and periodic basis. This has excluded whole categories of payments that are similar to the payor's wages. Examples of this include lump sum payments such as severance, dividends and salary advances. The new act changes the definition of income source for the purposes of the support deduction plan and includes things like irregular periodic earnings and lump sum earnings.
The definition of income source has also been amended so that, similar to garnishment, the Family Responsibility Office can attach 100% of the payor's income tax refund, which you also heard about earlier.
These changes result in more consistent treatment of lump sum and periodic payments and of payors receiving irregular versus regular employment earnings.
Bill 82 makes a number of improvements also to the support deduction plan. First, it corrects an oversight in the 1992 act. The Family Support Plan Act provided that a payor may apply to court to reduce the amount that is being deducted from his wages for support arrears. The Family Support Plan Act did not, however, permit the director to ask the courts to reinstate the original amount when the payor's circumstances changed for the better; for example, when the payor got a higher paying job or got full-time work. This was an oversight that is corrected in Bill 82.
Second, under the Family Support Plan Act, the total amount that can be deducted from a payor's wages for support cannot exceed 50% of the net amount owed by an employer to the payor. A problem arises where the monthly support order is greater than 50% of the payor's net monthly wages. This means the payor automatically goes into arrears for the accumulated monthly difference between the support order and the amount that's being deducted from his or her wages.
Subsection 23(2) of the new act remedies this problem by providing that the amount deducted from a payor's wages should be the same as the amount of the support order unless the court orders otherwise. Furthermore, for existing orders, the director can bring a motion to court to increase the amount being deducted from a payor's net wages to meet the level of ongoing support. This is set out in subsection 23(4) of the new act.
Section 4 of the Creditors' Relief Act gives priority to support orders over other judgement debt. When the sheriff receives moneys as a result of an enforcement process, support orders have priority over other judgement debts currently if the order is for periodic payments only in an amount not exceeding one year's support if the order is for lump sum payment in the full amount of the lump sum. Since the majority of support orders enforced by the program are for periodic payments, the plan only receives one year's worth of arrears and loses the opportunity to realize on the full amount of the arrears.
1700
Under section 66 of Bill 82 support orders are always given priority over other judgement debts under the Creditors' Relief Act for the full amount of the arrears owing.
Section 48 of the Workers' Compensation Act provides for garnishment of compensation payable to a worker where the worker owes support arrears. Under section 48 the family support plan was able to receive a portion of the compensation payable to workers in each periodic payment made to them. However, it is possible, under the Workers' Compensation Act, for a worker to receive lump sum compensation payment. Under subsection 7(1) of the bill the Workers' Compensation Act would be amended so that if a parent is receiving a lump sum instead of a periodic payment from workers' compensation, the director will be able to garnish that as well.
That's my overview. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you. Is that the end?
Ms Himel: Yes, it is. Are there are any questions?
Mrs Boyd: Thank you all very much for the presentation. I'm well aware that these are a lot of measures, which you've worked long and hard on for years. I'm sure you're quite relieved, as people trying to deal with the plan, that some of these are going to come into place.
The only concern we have around the enforcement measures themselves is the legal advice you received about how likely they are to be upset by a court or suspended by a court during an appeal procedure. That certainly was the legal advice we got about joint property and joint bank accounts. I would like to hear from you, Tina, or your colleagues, what legal advice you have received.
Ms Riley: As the Attorney General stated earlier, we feel confident that we could successfully challenge or defend any challenge brought to these sections. They've been structured in such a way as to minimize any constitutional challenges.
Mrs Boyd: On the issue of the kinds of orders you will no longer enforce, those that can be interpreted to be property provisions under the Family Law Act, first of all, can you tell us how many there would be?
Many of these would probably date from around 1986-87 just after the changes in the Family Law Act, when there was an encouragement on the part of lawyers in the courts to try and deal with the exclusive possession situation and so on. Do you have any idea how many orders that currently exist, that are currently on the books, simply will not become part of the plan when this section comes into effect?
Mr Goodman: I don't have any number of orders that will no longer be enforced by the plan. The orders that would most likely be affected are those that would simply provide for reimbursement of certain expenses and coming in with receipt payments at that point in time. They would have to be valued and reviewed by individual case when we look at those cases. I don't think there's any way to identify the number.
A number of the other provisions which were no longer incorporated as support were types of orders that we really weren't able to do anything with in the first place, so we didn't deal with them, such as exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. I think the intention has always been that we should do the collection of money and paying it out and dealing only with actual property issues. We were never able to deal with that kind of enforcement.
Mrs Boyd: So where an order provided for the payor to pay a mortgage on a home that's under exclusive possession, that's just lost?
Mr Goodman: If the payments are being made directly to the third party and not going to the support recipient.
Mrs Boyd: Have you any idea how many dollars that are currently in that amount, which you talk about not being collected by the plan, would be in that category?
Mr Goodman: No, I don't.
Mrs Boyd: Could you get that information? The Attorney General has said on a number of occasions that he expects somewhere between $450 million and $500 million of what is currently listed by the family support plan statistics as outstanding, arrears that are outstanding. It's really important for us to get an idea of what those amounts are and how this bill will impact upon those amounts, which are owing to women and children for the most part.
Mr Goodman: I anticipate that the effect will be really minimal because most of the provisions were, as I was saying, the types of provisions that were not being enforced under the old program, because we couldn't deal with it. I don't know whether there's any way for the system to identify anything specifically, so I don't know if there's any way of indicating the information on that basis.
We do not now enforce payments directly to a third party. We're still enforcing them, through the program, directly to recipients. That's why I think the change in the definition of support will probably have a minimal effect on the cases we currently have.
Mrs Boyd: Then where does the $450 million to $500 million the minister says he wants to be able to -- he said today he didn't want to be able to write it off, but he has said in the House that closing these cases means that this amount of money would no longer be owing. Can you explain to us what that is?
Mr Goodman: That does not relate to the definition of support orders being property division, the $451 million or whatever figure that is, with respect to uncollectible. I think a portion of that would relate to cases where the payor has died and we have no effective enforcement measures to deal with that. A number of cases may be situations where the courts have ordered a suspension of all enforcement. We have situations where we continue to show arrears on the system, where support will continue to accrue, but we have no ability to take any steps because there are court orders preventing us from taking action on those cases.
There also might be situations, and I can't be certain of this, where they may have identified some of the administratively closed previous cases where no steps could be taken to enforce it, so a portion of that may be included in there. Section 71 includes as one of the enumerated subsections that if the court has made an order suspending enforcement, then we would cease enforcement in our case. That would allow us to be effective in the other cases as well and deal with what we have.
Mrs Boyd: But when a court orders suspension, it may be because of the particular circumstances of the individual at that moment, and that is why the provision has been there for the arrears to accrue, because it's still owed to those children.
Mr Goodman: Correct.
Mrs Boyd: The notion there is that if the person then begins to earn, they owe that much money and they have to start paying that much money. You're saying in this case that you would close those files where that has happened and then it would depend upon the recipient to come by some information that the person was employed. The real concern here is that there is every incentive for people to flee the jurisdiction. We have all answered letters from people who know that their partner has quit his job and gone on welfare to keep from paying the support; we've all seen those. What is there in your proposals that is going to prevent a wholesale encouragement for people to evade payment even further if they know that their file will be closed eventually?
Mr Goodman: First, the difficulty with respect to court orders where there is an order suspending enforcement relates to cases where, until the court order itself is changed, there can be no enforcement by the program. In those situations it would involve, generally, the support recipient to take some steps to have that support order changed which deals with that. If the suspension order is only for a time-limited purpose, I do not envision, in those cases, that you would actually be ceasing to enforce if you're looking at a time period. The difficulty is with these general stays of enforcement on cases which are adjourned sine die, which often are made in the midst of variation applications and for whatever reason the variation application is never heard and continues to remain outstanding. In those cases the plan is ineffective, we are not allowed to take any action and there will be steps needed to take care of that.
Mrs Boyd: The real worry is that with the change in the federal law there are likely to be hundreds and hundreds of variation applications very shortly. Our real worry is that this provision would impact very negatively on women and children in particular. Because of the change in the federal income tax, things could be suspended for that period of time. Given the situation with courts administration in this province, this becomes a very serious issue.
1710
Mr Goodman: We were dealing with amendments to the enforcement legislation itself, so we weren't able to deal with the variation processes. One of the things we did to address that very concern: If you look at the driver's licence suspension mechanism we had set up, there is included a right for a payor to apply to the court for a refraining order. One of the terms in our legislation is that we're requesting the court to consider making up conditions to the granting of that refraining order such as making payments, making a payment on the arrears or maintaining some sort of regular payments as well.
In addition, we have put a time limit on that refraining order for six months, with one possible extension of three months. I recognize that there are situations where the variation proceedings are drawn out and dealt with, so we attempted, at least with our new enforcement mechanisms where we could look at some of these processes, to put something in place which would encourage the parties to proceed with the matter through the court and resolve the issue directly, or at least to put some terms and conditions.
Ideally, when a court makes a suspension order, I would prefer that there be some conditions or terms attached to it so that if those terms are not met, we could at least take action to enforce those terms or conditions. Unfortunately the problem is when those terms are not there and we have no power to enforce it.
Mr Preston: Is there any provision made for a person staying within the program but opting out of the payment stream? For instance, if GM is sending cheques to the plan and giving a copy to the payor, is there provision for GM to pay directly to the recipient and sending a copy to the plan?
Mr Goodman: No, there is not. The situation set up in section 16 is that if the recipient and the payor agree to withdraw from the plan, they will withdraw both the support order and the support deduction order payment. If there is a decision to withdraw from the plan, then the support deduction order will in effect be suspended while the parties are outside of the plan program.
Mr Preston: Is there any reason for that? Is there any reason it can't be instituted?
Mr Goodman: I think one of the major reasons is that you would be looking at especially some of your major employers having to make payments not only to their employees but then to make a payment, in addition, to every single support recipient directly. The system under the support deduction order is set up so that you have an employer with a support deduction order scheme making one payment to the program, then the program has the responsibility to disburse those payments to the individual recipients.
Mr Preston: In order to streamline the system, could there not be some kind of compensation for a large company that's doing this, preventing the money from coming through the plan and back out to the recipients? It's done electronically. It's not like somebody is sitting down and making out 45 cheques instead of one. Now it's going to take 30 seconds instead of 25. Is there any reason why this cannot be facilitated?
Mr Goodman: I can't answer that. I think you're talking about some additional form of electronic disbursement of funds directly to recipients with additional notations to us. One thing that's so important is that we need to have accurate records of the amounts being paid, and I'd be very concerned, if you have people within the program and having the payments going directly to recipients, that our records would not be accurate. There's nothing in this legislation that would allow that.
Mr Preston: We're talking electronic.
Mr Goodman: Yes.
Mr Preston: We're talking about a person sitting down there and pressing a button which says they've sent $300 that way and they inform you that number 526 has gotten $300, or they send the money to you and they tell the employee that they've sent it. Electronically, there's no difference. It's just that the money is going to go directly to the recipient and you're going to be informed of it rather than getting the cheque. It's going to come out on your computer. It says, "This has been paid," instead of "This is what you've received."
Mr Ramsay: Put an amendment and I'll support it.
Mr Preston: There's no extra equipment needed.
Mrs Boyd: Yes, there is. The system can't bear that.
Mr Goodman: We can check with the operational people. There is nothing in this legislation that would allow that, but I think there are concerns with respect to conditions and court orders in place, the monitoring of the payments going through and the accuracy of the amounts going through too. We check with them, but I can't answer that question.
Mr Preston: I've sent a form to your office. Do you know the form I sent?
Ms Himel: Yes.
Mr Preston: Would you take a look at that and get back to us about whether it's feasible?
The Chair: We have four and a half minutes.
Mr Guzzo: I think my question would probably be addressed to Ms Riley. I would like you to look, if you would, at 41(9) of the act and tell me whether in your opinion that's a reverse onus. Let me read it to you:
"Powers of the court
"(9) The court may, unless it is satisfied that the payor is unable for valid reasons to pay the arrears or to make subsequent payments under the order...."
On whom rests the onus?
Ms Riley: Subsection 41(9) is the powers the court has on a default hearing. That is actually -- I'm just reading it quickly -- something that was in the current act that had no change by Bill 82. I would hesitate to offer legal advice in this forum. I can report back to you if you like.
Mr Guzzo: The original act, going back to 1984, placed a reverse onus. There was some tinkering with it and some debate with regard to subsequent amendments. What's your intent right now? Is this not a perfect situation for a reverse onus?
Ms Riley: I'm sorry, I'd have to report back to you. I would not want to give legal advice right now at this moment. I would want to look at the cases, if there have been cases on the section etc.
Mr Guzzo: Thank you. I don't really require anything back.
Mr Tilson: Just a brief question. With respect to some of the new enforcement measures, particularly the reporting of cases to the credit bureaus and the prevention of sheltering of assets, those sorts of things, some of these issues may be of concern to Mr Wright, the privacy commissioner. Have you had any discussions with Mr Wright or his people, his office, and can you tell us whether he has expressed concern about any of these provisions?
Ms Riley: We have had ongoing discussions with the privacy commissioner and we're continuing to have those discussions with an aim to resolving any and all issues that have been raised. Those issues will come out when we do the motions to amend.
The Chair: If there are no further questions by the government, we'll proceed to Mr Ramsay. You have eight minutes.
Mr Ramsay: I want to go back to section 7 of the bill which says, "The director may at any time refuse to enforce a support order," and then gives varying reasons why the director could do that. I know the Attorney General, when he was here, said he would be open to some amendments or even maybe the deletion of clause 7(1)(d) "arrears of long standing are owed under the order." I certainly would welcome that because that's a concern. But I want to ask about that. If this were to pass and the director decided to no longer enforce those arrears, does that wipe out the legal obligation or does it just mean the plan's not going to enforce it?
Mr Goodman: No, it would mean the plan would not enforce it. The Family Responsibility Office would have no authority to rescind any arrears owing to a recipient or to the Ministry of Community and Social Services if that order is assigned. So it has no legal effect on the obligation itself, it only deals with the enforcement.
1720
Mr Ramsay: Switching to what's going on currently, I was wondering if I could have the latest information as to moneys coming in and disbursements going out. I read in the weekend paper about Thursday's incident with the computers. Where are we today? How are we doing with money coming in and disbursements going out? Are we catching up at all since October?
Ms Shanthy Weerasekera: I believe the approximate amount is about $11,000 going out, but I need to confirm that.
Mr Ramsay: Eleven thousand?
Ms Weerasekera: Some $11 million disbursed.
Ms Martel: Since when?
Ms Weerasekera: For the month of November, but I will confirm that.
Mr Ramsay: We would still be looking at amounts of around $28 million coming in? Has that fairly well changed? Receipts in October of this year were $28.7 million.
Ms Weerasekera: I'd like to confirm those numbers for you tomorrow.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. If I could just ask you a few questions about the plan, if there was a plan. What really puzzles us, because of all the pain that's been caused by this, is exactly what plan you had in mind when you wanted to streamline the organization. We hear all the stories about the office not being open yet, not up and running yet, and the regional offices were closed. We've heard the stories about the boxes and the files. Could you just give me an overview of what the plan was? The idea was to try to streamline it, because I know it wasn't running all that well and you wanted to make it better. So I wouldn't mind just an overview of what the plan was and what you were attempting to do.
Ms Weerasekera: The plan involved centralizing the eight regional offices to one office in the Downsview area, to consolidate that. That had to happen in an orderly way and also over a period of time. We couldn't close all those down at the same time. We had to lay off staff in accordance with the collective agreement, give them appropriate time to make decisions, and we had to also hire new staff as a lot of the staff from the regional areas were no longer staying with us.
It was a plan that started in August. It was approximately a six-month plan for the consolidation into Downsview, a plan that went from August to March, for the entire transition, and it basically went in various stages. So far the moves, the construction and the consolidation have gone according to schedule. Phase 1 was open in early October, with part of the operation operating out of Downsview but most of it operating out of our Toronto regional office. The operations are being transferred in an orderly way up to Downsview, have been over the last month and will be over the next few weeks as well.
Mr Ramsay: I find that's an incredible statement you've just made. You tell me you had a plan, and actually it's been staged and it's going according to plan. What's the problem? I think the evidence is that, however bad it was before, it has gotten worse since the implementation of this plan.
Ms Weerasekera: There were definitely problems before. Most of the problems related to getting payments in on time, processing those payments. We did have delays of a day or two when we closed regional offices down and cheques were rerouted through Canada Post to us. But in terms of processing, we are on top of that. There are no delays in that area.
There are problems if payors do not identify clearly on the cheques who the payment is for. If they don't identify their case number then we certainly have problems, because we have to then take that cheque aside and identify it. In the various regional offices we were taking up to a week to process cheques before. We're now processing all payments between 24 to 36 hours.
Mr Ramsay: What I really don't understand is that --
Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: This committee is reviewing Bill 82. My question to you, as Chair, is how far you will allow debate on something that goes beyond what this bill is, in other words, the transition stage of changing the system from a decentralized system to a centralized system. This bill is really with respect to enforcement. It's obviously a series of questions that Mr Ramsay is developing that go beyond the purview of this bill.
The Chair: I'm sure we'll deal with this subject again, Mr Tilson, but I do not think --
Mr Tilson: It may well be this is an appropriate topic for the committee to discuss, but now we're discussing --
The Chair: I do not think it is in my authority to delineate Mr Ramsay's questions, or evidence given by individual witnesses, which no doubt we're going to be bumping into along the way.
Mr Tilson: With respect, Mr Chairman, Mr Ramsay must stay on topic. The purpose of this bill is to talk about enforcement, and Mr Ramsay's getting on to other topics.
Mr Kormos: Administer some Novocain.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Tilson, I cannot agree. I find that the implementation and the history of what has occurred up to that bill is part of the deliberations in dealing with a new bill.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chair. I really feel this does relate directly to this bill. What I'm concerned about is, with the greater enforcement mechanisms that I support in this bill, I want to make sure the mechanism is in place in order that it can be enforced and carried out.
Moving on then to where we are today, you're saying you are now processing cheques with a turnaround of around 36 hours?
Ms Weerasekera: Yes, 24 to 36 hours.
Mr Ramsay: Does that mean now we're totally caught up? Or with this acceleration, when do you predict you'll be caught up and be current with the money coming in and money going out?
Ms Weerasekera: The money coming in and money going out is being processed. When I say 24 to 36 hours, all that money that can be then sent out is. Any money that is held back because of what I said earlier, because there are problems and we need to do further work to identify it, those are usually cleared within a couple of days, unless there is a reason that it has to stay in the expense account; for instance, there is a court order that says no moneys go out. But we are caught up in that area.
Mr Gravelle: How much time do we have?
The Chair: You have one minute, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: If I could just ask one quick question, I know when I met with the minister back in the late summer -- this is when the problems were really cropping up. The problems seemed to be when the regional offices were closed and the Royal Bank, I believe, took over the processing. It became clear that there were not enough staff put on by the bank to handle the process at the time. I think that was more or less acknowledged as being part of the problem. So I guess in terms of the smooth transition, again, I was somewhat speechless too, because probably that wouldn't be described as a smooth transition, I presume. It was a problem that I know the minister and the staff who were there said they were going to correct at that time. I wonder whether one would say that indeed it was corrected as quickly as they thought it was and whether that problem is now over.
The Chair: Unfortunately, the time is up on that topic. I'm sorry.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Tilson took some time.
The Chair: I allowed for that as a matter of fact. I provided one minute extra for your time.
Mrs Boyd: Mr Chair, this is just a request before the staff leaves. There was some discussion about getting statistics. One of the problems we've had is that the statistics that have been provided by the plan are incomplete. We do not have them for June, July, August or November. I wonder if we could make a request to the staff to give us the statistics from November last year to November this year, inclusive, for each month, so that we can look at the operation of the plan.
The Chair: Is that possible?
Mrs Boyd: November 1995 through November 1996. The minister in the House said there were $20 million disbursed and the staff member said $11 million. I think we need to have the firm statistics so that we know what's going on when people come in front of us and talk about their experience with the plan.
1730
The Chair: Is the question understood?
Ms Himel: I just want to make sure: The statistics from November 1995 through to November 1996 on a monthly basis?
Mrs Boyd: Yes, on the regular statistical form that we usually obtain but could not obtain for some of those months.
Ms Himel: I don't know whether it's possible to do it within this time frame but I will try to do that.
Mrs Boyd: We have them for September and October, so we certainly should be able to get them for June, July and August at least, if you can't do them for November. But the minister must have had something to base his comments on in the House that you had received X number of dollars and disbursed $20 million. He must have had some figures.
Ms Himel: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Boyd. An attempt will be made by the staff to report back to us prior to the end of our deliberations on December 9. I thank you very much for attending here today, but we are now creeping into our next presenter's time.
Mr Klees: Just very quickly to the staff who undertook to get back to my colleague Mr Preston with a detailed explanation of why his proposal would not work or why it can: I would like to request that I and all members of the committee receive that as soon as possible. I'm very interested in following that up.
The Chair: Thank you again for your presentation, and --
Mr Bill Flores: Excuse me, Mr Chairman. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Mr Arnott assured me that Kids Need Both Parents was going to be heard today, and we are not here, nor any other of the men's and children's rights organizations. Would you please clear this to us?
The Chair: I understand from the clerk, sir, that this is not correct. You have not yet been scheduled into it. Perhaps the clerk can speak to you and deal with that matter.
FAMILIES AGAINST DEADBEATS CHILDREN AGAINST DEADBEATS
The Chair: Right now we are dealing with two organizations, Families Against Deadbeats and Children Against Deadbeats. Renate Diorio, Heinz Paul and Samantha Diorio, welcome. Sorry, we're running a little bit behind time and we must adjourn by 6, so we have 25 minutes for you, and I would ask you to proceed with your presentation.
Ms Renate Diorio: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Renate Diorio, founder of Families Against Deadbeats. I stand before this committee today to detail how the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, Bill 82, will benefit single parents not receiving support, but most significantly the children.
Through our group, FAD, we have over 250 members, and my eyes were opened to the different avenues a non-support payor takes just to avoid paying child support. However, the strict enforcement measures that Bill 82 provides send a clear and precise message that this will no longer be tolerated.
For years we have let the non-support payor lead his or her life, because there are some women out there who are in the same situation, without the worry of getting caught, because they could get away literally with murder by losing themselves in a system that was created just for them.
The defaulter has the upper hand by either threatening to quit a job and/or turning to welfare. I personally know of some men who have not only threatened to but did go on welfare just to avoid paying child support, or even threatened to move away to another province so they wouldn't have to pay support. It is quite clear that they have their own agenda and set of rules.
It is a sorry situation, that we have to ask and depend on a government to forcibly impose a law to compel something that should come naturally, and that is taking responsibility for the children. It is also very sad that statistics show that three out of every four fathers are in default of child support payments. Again the majority are fathers. We speak and hear about child poverty in Ontario, and how tragic for this province, because we are one of the most prosperous provinces today. We produce hundreds of thousands of children who are living in poverty. The numbers could drop substantially if child support payments were enforced, and only by Bill 82 can we see the light at the end of the tunnel for thousands of single parents who had no hope of receiving money.
At this time of year the papers portray daily stories of single parents struggling, with nothing to look forward to but an existence in poverty. It is a bit distressing that we always read about a single mother who struggles with her children, or a single mother who has to cope with a job and still look after her children, or a single mother who is carrying the debts of her spouse that she is left to deal with, yet she still has to take care of her family. What happened to the fathers? Somewhere along the line we forgot that it takes two to create a child, and the emphasis is always placed on the single mother.
There are fathers out there who have to take back some of the responsibility to ensure that the children have at least the basic necessities they are entitled to. It is also very sad that it takes a law to educate fathers who have walked away with little forethought, who have moved in with new partners and started new lives and families without a glance backwards or who move away to another province or country. This is totally against nature, and perhaps we should take a look at some of the animals in the wild kingdom, where there are two parents and the predominant male very rarely deserts the family. So why in supposedly civilized society did this situation get so totally out of control?
Close to $1 million is owed in family support to women and children, and this amount is increasing steadily, with almost 1,400 cases added on each month. It is visible, by this staggering figure, that something has to be resolved to change the way the FSP has been operating. Improvements to the old system are long overdue, and Bill 82 will produce the formula that is required to force the non-support payor to live up to her or his responsibility.
Through tougher enforcement measures we hope to see the calculation of women forced on to social assistance reduced. In some cases women are working and receiving sort of a top-off assistance to help them get through, but if the support money were paid, the dependency would no longer be required. I think that would ease a little on all of us taxpayers. A substantial amount of money would be saved by the taxpayers. So why on earth, we're asking ourselves, are we supporting our own children as well as somebody else's children?
We want to draw out the defaulters to bring them back to reality, and the reality is that they have left their children behind in not supporting them. We have to ensure that they come forward. I think, with most of the laws that are coming through with Bill 82, they will have no way of hiding any more.
On a personal note, my husband left me with two children, in March 1993, to pay off existing debts that he had incurred through loans and charge cards and to this day has not contributed one penny to help with his debts or his children. I was unemployed for seven months in 1994, and he never once asked if he could help me or the children. As recently as one week ago I found myself staring at unemployment yet again but I still have to go on supporting myself and my children somehow. I cannot depend on the taxpayer to take over because my husband refuses to accept his responsibilities. I was able to obtain a lawyer one year after his departure, and to this date I have not been in the court system because:
(1) He dodged all court orders to appear before a judge.
(2) He is on welfare, although I know he's working under the table, yet his friends shield him.
(3) My legal aid lawyer is limited as to what he can do for me, and I'm stuck in the system.
(4) My husband does not want to sign over an RRSP that comes due in seven years that his previous employer, CN, has in a closed certificate. He denies his children this money, yet I can pay off his debts for the next several years, struggle with the fact that I am unemployed and still have the responsibility of paying for our two children.
My son turns 18 in March, and there's no funding for further education. My daughter is 13, and there's no hope for her future education. They have goals, just like every other child, but in their case that were snapped away by their father. Had it not been for my parents to help us, my children and I would have been left without a home. My parents are on a fixed income, only collecting government pension, and the strain has left us all financially and emotionally drained. It is not fair that their lives have to be placed on hold to help us while my husband and his family have abandoned us.
The effect of a non-support-paying parent leaves a trail of destruction for the children who are the innocent victims, and it is for my children and all the others who deserve a better start in life without the presence of betrayal and in most cases poverty.
Over the last few months we have heard the Attorney General voice his concerns to crack down on defaulting parents, and Bill 82 provides the teeth to a system that has failed. Through driver's licence suspension, credit bureau reporting, third-party enforcement, garnishment of joint bank accounts, expansion of the definition of income sources, better tracing and locating of defaulting payors, registration of support orders under the Personal Property Security Act, private sector partnerships and amendments to the Creditors' Relief Act, it sends a clear message that all escape routes for these deadbeats will be blocked.
Through our membership a lot of the women in our group -- the majority are women but we have some male members -- these proposals are going to benefit them in so many ways. First of all, a lot of them are self-employed, so they have to have a driver's licence. They hide their assets. A lot of them have moved in with different partners and everything is written in the new partner's name. All the assets are hidden. There are so many aspects of this that are going to help them, so it's just going to benefit them, and they'll be speaking tomorrow on this too. I thank you for your time.
1740
The Chair: Thank you very much. Samantha, do you wish to add anything to that?
Ms Samantha Diorio: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Samantha Diorio, founder of Children Against Deadbeats. I represent not only the children in my group but thousands of children not getting child support.
Our lives have changed because of the fathers or mothers who have walked away from their responsibilities in taking care of us financially and emotionally. It is sad to see that some of these victims have lost their homes, have less to live on and have to struggle and watch their parents try to make a future for us, the children.
My grandparents are helping my mom, my brother and myself to get by because our father has left us with a lot of debts to pay off. Because he chose welfare, he does not have to pay for us. As we are too young to vote, we are showing our support for Bill 82 by speaking up today. I want to let everyone know how important it is to let this bill pass. Our futures are at risk and we, the children, have every right to be heard. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Paul, do you have anything to add?
Mr Heinz Paul: I have a very short statement. My name is Heinz Paul. I'm the co-founder of FAD and I'm a senior citizen, a grandparent who lives on a fixed pension. When all this occurred I took care of my grandchildren and my daughter. I believe that the family has to stay together. It is very important that we realize what family life means. Family life means not only us, the grandparents on the daughter's side; the grandparents on the other side have to support them too if the former spouse leaves the place.
It is very hard on the children especially, and in most cases -- we have over 250 members -- the wife was left in debt. She has to pay off the debt. By paying off the debt she takes away money from the children. It is very difficult for the children to cope with this.
We have horror stories. We have letters -- if the committee would see them, I can present some letters -- suicide notes; they're afraid to talk to the parents, afraid to talk to their mother. They have to go to school counsellors and talk with them or they go to psychiatrists and talk with them, and only very late does the mother find out how devastated these children are.
I received a phone call from one of my members yesterday afternoon. Her husband was underground for many years. He was supposed to be in Maine. He was found in Toronto. He is $79,000 in arrears. She lost the condo, she lost everything, and now she lives with four children in a basement apartment. That is a crime. These husbands, in my opinion, deserve to be punished.
This is all I have to say. That lady is going to address you ladies and gentlemen tomorrow afternoon. She's going to tell you the whole thing. Thank you very much for listening to me.
Mr Tilson: First of all, I'd like to say to Samantha that many of us see people much older than you come to these committees, and it's tough stuff for them. I congratulate you for coming because I'm sure it's particularly threatening to you. I know I speak for all members of the committee, and we appreciate your coming and offering your views.
My question is to either Mr Paul or Ms Diorio and has to do with the question I asked earlier. With respect to the suspension of drivers' licences, several men in my community have raised the question, "Oh, if we lose our licence we won't be able to work, we won't be able to carry on our job, we may even have to go on social assistance." Do you have a response to the payors who make those comments?
Ms Renate Diorio: Are we talking about parents who are paying child support or are we talking about ones who aren't paying child support? If they're working and they have a driver's licence, why aren't they paying support? I don't quite understand. Is it not logical? If they're working and they need their driver's licence to get to and back from work, there is money coming in somewhere. Why are they not putting that money through to the families?
Mr Tilson: I don't know. I have to agree with you.
Ms Renate Diorio: This is it. This is the most common reaction that we have heard too. To me, it doesn't make any sense. Even from the other groups we've heard, "Well, gosh, if you take my driver's licence away, how am I supposed to work?" Well, if you are working, for God's sake, where is the money?
Mr Tilson: You obviously are aware of the enforcement provisions that are being proposed by this bill. In discussions with members of your group -- and I don't know how large your group is -- have there been any other suggestions, or criticisms in fact, to improve or modify any of the other suggestions of enforcement?
Ms Renate Diorio: We want jail time for some of these guys, definitely.
Mr Paul: These are the suggestions that we came up with. It is the same thing that we came up with that we presented a year ago when we were meeting you. In January we met with you, and from that day on somebody listened to us. These were proposals from a group think tank. These were proposed through the group. We did it as a group effort. Everybody is strictly committed to this because everybody believes that with these new enforcements there are now tools to get these people.
In regard to revoking a driver's licence, that's fine. You need the driver's licence, pay for the children, nobody's going to revoke it. Make an arrangement. If you are in arrears $20,000 or so, make some arrangement; arrangements can be made, discussions can be held. We're not going to take them away. On the other hand, if I have a ticket and I don't pay it, the next ticket I get, the police are going to catch me. I might end up in jail if I don't pay it. These people are going with $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000, like this case; $90,000, $80,000, and he's still running around. But I have to go to jail for $100. It does not make sense. Finally, we may be able to succeed in something.
Mr Klees: Are you satisfied that this bill is practical enough in terms of getting at the kind of people you're talking to us about here?
Ms Renate Diorio: For the ones who are hiding underground, who are on welfare and who are really laying low, it might be a little difficult because we still have to get these people to surface. But I think the other ones, like the self-employed -- there are quite a lot of people out there who are self-employed -- and the ones who just don't want to pay, for any reason, I think there's a good chance that it will work for them.
Mr Klees: It seems to me we've still got a great deal of work to do. You mentioned the RRSP, for example. This bill does nothing for that, and of course it can't, because that's federal jurisdiction.
Ms Renate Diorio: That's right.
Mr Klees: One of the things we have to do is really put some additional pressure on the federal government to allow us to reach into RRSPs and other things. Quite frankly, I believe it's unconscionable that people should have assets and their children and their ex-spouses aren't getting the kind of support they should have. While this is a start, let me just say that I for one, and I know my colleagues believe the same, believe it's only a beginning in terms of what needs to be done in this way.
Ms Renate Diorio: I agree. But I think, as you say, we still have a lot of work to do, because we still have the real -- I call them dirty dogs, the ones who don't want to come forward, because that's what they are. Let's face it, there are a lot of kids involved here, and I see it in my own too. I'm really struggling with them.
Mr Klees: Do you feel that you've been listened to by this government in terms of some of the recommendations you've made?
Ms Renate Diorio: Yes. We have been very fortunate.
Mr Paul: Yes, 100%, because we worked with Mr Tilson. Our MPP helped us get to the government. We worked with the Attorney General's staff. We proposed a lot of the suggestions that came out in the bill. We are on the very bottom, people who never got anything, practically. Somebody did listen to us, and we're really very happy that we can succeed in getting something for the children. I have many grandparents standing behind me. Our purpose is that eventually the grandparents can relax a little bit; right now, we can't. Financially, emotionally, we're completely drained.
1750
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank you very much for coming before us, for your courage, for sharing all your stories with us. The first comment I'd like to make -- and I think Mr Klees has made a very good suggestion, and I'd like to add on that. All of us who get involved with these horror stories are just angered and, in my case, very surprised about how large this problem is across the province. I agree with Mr Klees. There may be some other things we could do. I don't know if this is a precedent or not, but I would certainly support that this committee would at some time entertain a motion that we would write the federal government to look at what it could be doing, and there's a specific example. I agree with you: Why should a child go without support when some deadbeat is piling up an RRSP? That's wrong, that's absolutely wrong, and there's got to be some mechanism to get to that. If it's not our government here, then let's go to Ottawa and tell them to get on with it.
I am very pleased that you support this bill; we do too. In these hearings we're hoping to hear any other ideas that might be there to make it even better. I think all three parties want to work towards that. I just want to know, is there anything you think we could do even better here, that we could entertain an amendment to make any improvements?
Mr Paul: I think our main purpose right now is to get this government working with the federal government. There are a lot of hidden assets in the federal government from these deadbeats. They have RRSPs not only in our case but in many other cases. They have bonds, everything done under federal regulations, because when they get a package, that's where it is. We're not talking $10,000 or $15,000. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in these packages. They are all safe for another couple of years, then it becomes legal that we can get them. This is something that has to be done with the federal government. It would be the greatest help.
Also, if the provincial government can get into the tax revenue to get more reimbursement from the taxes, to get a reading of how much they are making, because they have to make a declaration for taxes which is not available at this moment, only under certain circumstances, this would help tremendously. We could save the province a tremendous amount of money in family benefits. We just found out that $300 million is paid out. We could save that. We don't even know how much is paid in welfare. This all has to be combined.
If you are a young man, you can work. I can prove that there are jobs out there. We have jobs available. There are jobs available, but these men don't want to work because they'd rather go under the table. This is where they hide their money, and that's where the third party comes in. When they hide their money, they're not going to keep it in their pocket, so they put it in the bank under a different name. This is where it comes in. That is what we believe in. This is the strongest thing that ever came out. There is no more hiding. Like I say, we have that case, that one man surfaced already. There are going to be more.
If I understand correctly, in Alberta since the driver's licence thing, they have an 85% success rate. Instead of 77% non-payment here, maybe we can bring it to 85% positive. This is our goal.
Mrs Boyd: I'll just be a minute, and then my colleague wants to ask a question. First of all, thank you for coming and thank you for your eloquent presentations the other day at the press conference. They really helped people to understand what the reality is that people are facing.
We have concerns about other parts of the bill, not the enforcement issues, but even on the enforcement issues, one of the things that you've brought up is very valuable. There need to be some changes to the Family Law Act to deal with some of the issues you've dealt with here. For example, the excessive debt that you've been left with and the issue of pensions, whether they're RRSPs or anything else, in the Family Law Act that is the part of the Family Law Act that has been very difficult to deal with in these cases of separation. Thank you for bringing that forward. That was very helpful.
In your case that you mentioned, Mr Paul, about the person with the $79,000, that had accrued over a lot of years.
Mr Paul: A lot of years, yes.
Mrs Boyd: You can understand that our concern about this closure of files is that we don't want those people to get away with it; we want them to be found and for them to be able to attach. We are really hopeful that as we work at this bill we can be sure that that kind of a case won't fall through the cracks with this bill.
Mr Paul: That is exactly what it is: If we all work together, believe me, we can bring this province back up to its feet. Right now we need that money. It's not us; the children need the money.
Mrs Boyd: The other thing that you should know is, this act allows the Ontario government to interface with the federal government systems, but the federal government has only just passed a law that in fact allows access to those systems, so we are working together with them.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, you have two minutes.
Mr Kormos: I just want to respond very quickly. One of the first things that was put to you was the business of losing a driver's licence for not paying support and the complaint that will inevitably flow, and that is, "How can I work now that I've lost my driver's licence?" Well, there isn't a drunk driver appearing before a judge after being convicted of drunk driving who doesn't make the same argument, "Judge, I may well lose my job," and that may well be the case, but the fact is that that's a consequence that drunk drivers should face; it's a consequence that husbands and fathers in arrears should face.
Let me ask you this, though: In our lifetime -- unfortunately it's the very latter part of mine -- we've witnessed really pretty remarkable changes in attitudes about, let's say, drunk driving. It wasn't that long ago when educated, professional people would joke about who drove home drunk the night before, which of their friends drove home drunk from a party. It wasn't that long ago when men would joke about wife beating; it was literally a joke. Some remarkable changes have happened in the last few years about our attitudes.
It seems that the attitude towards fathers in arrears hasn't changed, though, because people are still prepared to assist the father who's the deadbeat. People are still prepared in the workplace, not everybody, to joke about how John Doe got away with only paying $20 a week and he must have had a really good lawyer.
One of the things I think is interesting is, how do we change attitudes publicly? People have no respect for the drunk driver, by and large; they have no respect for the wife beater. How do we change people's attitudes so that people have no respect for the deadbeat spouse, the deadbeat father? How do we change that attitude to make it really difficult for these people?
Mr Paul: I believe the only change we can make is by educating people to come back into the family, husband and wife and children, grandparents and grandparents. Family life has to be established; it's non-existent right now. Out of four people, three of them are divorced. It is non-existent. We have to educate the people that family is the most important thing. This is what I'm trying to teach people in our group. I'm trying to have town hall meetings, trying to enlighten the public that you have to stick with your family. If two people, if a husband and wife separate, that's fine, they can get along, but it has nothing to do with children. Children still need the father; children still need the mother. It could be arranged in a normal way. You don't have to be abusive.
You mentioned the drunk driver before. A drunk driver right now, the licence is being taken away for 90 days; a non-payor's should be taken away the same time.
The Chair: It is now 6 o'clock. Thank you very much for your excellent presentation here today. Yes, Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: I believe staff made reference earlier in their presentation to the fact that there are some discussions going on with the federal government around some of these enforcement issues. I'd like to request that this committee be given a status report on exactly what initiatives are being discussed, where we are in those discussions. I think that will allow us to follow up on the suggestion that Mr Ramsay made to see what else this committee could do to either be in contact with, to encourage, to make representation to the federal government to move those discussions forward.
The Chair: An excellent suggestion. I need the subcommittee for a couple of minutes after this meeting. This meeting is adjourned till 3:30 tomorrow, and that hearing will go till 9 pm.
The committee adjourned at 1759.