Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CONTENTS

Wednesday 4 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

Ms Carole Curtis

Securing Ongoing Support (SOS)

Ms Loretta Clipperton

Ms Barb Garon

Ms Elaine Holgate

Ms Ilene McGillis

Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears

Ms Regina May

Ms Dana Janes

Ms Brenda Quinlan

Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario

Ms Nancy Bass

Ms Melody Edwards

Ms Carol Jabalee

Ms Antonia Bellone

Support for Children: An Organization for Public Education (SCOPE)

Ms Judy Poulin

Ms Debbie Schiarriza

Ms Karen Birnstingl; Ms Tanya Callari

Ms Michelle Unger

Ms Jeannette Paquette; Ms Brenda Irving

Kids Need Both Parents

Mr Bill Flores

Mr Reinhold Knauss

Mr Gene Colosimo

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 PatHoy (Essex-Kent L) for Mr Conway

Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC) for Mr Doyle

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)

Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / Est ND)

Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre L)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Mr KenGoodman, legal counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): I see a quorum, if we may proceed. Mr Tilson has an answer to a question raised by Ms Boyd yesterday.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mrs Boyd asked a question of the ministry with respect to a comment made by the Attorney General about funds disbursed to recipients. I'd like to outline what those funds were.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The rather surprising $5 million on one day: Would that be the bank transfer day or would that be the total transfer of the dollars to Comsoc?

Mr Tilson: In my understanding, the amount paid to Comsoc was $8 million, so I would assume it was the final transfer day. Perhaps Mr Goodman -- Mr Chair, for the record, the speaker representing the ministry is Mr Ken Goodman.

Mr Ken Goodman: The figure on November 29 includes, I don't know the exact amount, but a large amount for Comsoc, because it usually is paid once a month.

Mrs Boyd: That's what I thought. Thank you very much.

Carole Curtis

The Chair: Our first presenter is Ms Carole Curtis, solicitor, and a written brief has been delivered. It should have been delivered to all of you. Ms Curtis was advised early this morning of a cancellation and she was the next person in line. Thank you very much for your expeditious work in regard to this. Would you please proceed.

Ms Carole Curtis: Thank you. I'm very happy to have this chance to speak about this bill. I'm a family law lawyer in Toronto. I've been practising for 18 years, and before the family support plan existed in 1986 I was probably one of the few lawyers in Toronto who actually did some enforcement work. This wasn't very attractive work and not very many people wanted to do it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Curtis. We have three minutes per caucus, and we'll start with the government caucus.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Thank you very much for your presentation. Let me tell you that it's always a pleasure to have practitioners take a look at this and I commend you for the slant you have adopted. You mentioned that you did some enforcement work prior to the act. Do you still do enforcement work?

Ms Curtis: A little bit. Yes, I've done some work for the plan.

Mr Guzzo: Would you mind telling me, with regard to the legal aid coverage here in Toronto, is that still covered? Is it easy to get a legal aid certificate for enforcement proceedings or is it something they try and slough off to --

Ms Curtis: There is no legal aid for enforcement right now. The legal aid plan right now is so restricted that legal aid is only available for two sorts of categories: one is if there's a risk of harm to a spouse or a child, and the other is if there's a risk to an established parent-child bond.

Mr Guzzo: But there is duty counsel at family court on default days or on enforcement days at all times.

Ms Curtis: Yes, there is.

Mr Guzzo: All right. Do you have a copy of the bill in front of you? Would you take a look at 41(9), I believe it is, in the procedure section on default hearings?

Ms Curtis: Powers of the court?

Mr Guzzo: That's right. What I'm asking you is, is that a reverse onus section, as you read it? If it is not, should it not be? From a practitioner's point of view, once it's established that there is a default, should the onus not immediately shift to the payor to satisfy the court?

Ms Curtis: It does under the current legislation, as I'm sure you know.

Mr Guzzo: In some jurisdictions it does and in some it doesn't. This is no change from what's existing. As far as you're concerned, I know it does here in Toronto.

1550

Ms Curtis: It certainly operates as a reverse onus in practice, and I don't think this wording is different from the current --

Mr Guzzo: It depends on whether you practise in Toronto or Kingston, if you want to know the truth. I can tell you right now that it doesn't in Kingston or in some other jurisdictions.

Ms Curtis: Default hearings were meant to be a reverse onus situation. You're quite right about that.

Mr Guzzo: All right. I thank you for your presentation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My question would come right after the first question of Mr Guzzo. I share your concern also about section 7 and the director's discretion to drop a file. You just mentioned briefly what recourse the client should have, and because it's difficult or impossible to get legal aid, what should be the review mechanism? What suggestions would you have for us, if we're to move an amendment, that could be the review mechanism for a client?

Ms Curtis: My first choice would be that the director not have this discretion. The director currently doesn't have this discretion. Unfortunately the discretion was put in to allow the plan to improve its stats about orders that aren't being enforced or are difficult to enforce. That's my threshold position.

Mr Ramsay: You mentioned the name, and if we want to change the culture, maybe getting it out there that it's a family responsibility is in a sense a positive way, I just suggest. I haven't really thought about it too much, but you'd rather have more of the enforcement name up front.

Ms Curtis: It was interesting, in 1986 when the program started, that the first two or three directors of the plan, in all their public presentations, talked about how important it was to change attitudes, that the goal of the program was to change attitudes. The improvement in the compliance rate in 10 years has been about 10% or 15%. It's pitiful. I think changing attitudes may be a longer-term goal. What we really need to do is collect that $900 million worth of arrears that is owing. We need to not be pussyfooting about the fact that this is an enforcement program and that it's enforcing child support.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned in passing the issue of removing enforcement against estates. We're quite concerned about that as well. If it said "after the estate is dispersed" it might make more sense, because that's the rationale given in the compendium, that often the estates have been dispersed.

Ms Curtis: I hadn't even gone that far with it. I was more concerned that the compendium suggests that the recipient in an estate situation has other remedies than this program. That's true, but they all involve going to court. Why should she be in a different position than somebody whose payor spouse is still alive? I can't help you with the joint tenancy.

Mrs Boyd: In terms of the issue you raise about closure of files, the minister has said a number of times that he and the plan regard $450 million to $500 million of the outstanding arrears to be uncollectible. What's your comment on that? What does that really mean for people who might suddenly be deemed uncollectible because somebody is too far away or has been gone too long?

Ms Curtis: I'm not certain of what criteria were used in coming up with that number, but if they were anything like the criteria in section 7 of the act, some of them are pretty soft criteria.

Mrs Boyd: That's very helpful. Do you know of many orders that would get lost under the part of this act that takes away maintenance of a home under an order that gives preferred occupancy of the house to the custodial parent? Do you have in your practice any people who have outstanding orders that probably were issued right after the Family Law Act changed in 1986 that would simply be closed as a result of this?

Ms Curtis: I don't, off the top of my head, but some of the shifts in the bill about what will be enforced, what the program will be willing to have enforced, will result in changes in the way we all do our business, which is not a bad thing in and of itself as long as people get advance notice and are not prejudiced; for example, that they won't enforce third-party payments which might be a payment to a day care, which might be the mortgage payment, which might be a payment to an insurance company. It certainly requires all of us to change that so that people aren't prejudiced.

Mrs Boyd: It would require variations, where that is now in an outstanding order.

Ms Curtis: It absolutely would, and the committee should be aware that legal aid is not covering variations right now. It's not going to cover them during the term of the memorandum of understanding, which is between now and the end of March 1999, because there's simply no money for that. Any variations that result as a passage of this new bill, for example, the licence suspension thing, might produce people wanting to go to court. They will be unrepresented litigants going to court. Legal aid will not assist those people.

The Chair: Ms Curtis, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

Securing Ongoing Support

The Chair: Our next presentation is SOS, Securing Ongoing Support, Loretta Clipperton and Barb Garon. Welcome. I take it you had a safe journey.

Ms Loretta Clipperton: Yes, we did. Thank you.

The Chair: Excellent. All members should have received a written brief, I believe. If you would proceed.

Ms Barb Garon: My name is Barb Garon. I'm a member of SOS as well as a representative of the Sudbury Women's Centre. I come before this committee today in support of SOS.

Ms Clipperton: We are concerned with our inability to get through either by phone, which is a 1-800 number, or to bureaucrats and policymakers. We prepared this presentation under extreme personal sacrifice and are here, miles from home and family, to speak about sections in Bill 82 which we know will not ensure our wellbeing, nor will they meet the standards around which Bill 82 is designed, specifically to protect the interests of women and children.

1600

Ms Garon: SOS therefore asks this committee to amend Bill 82 by removing sections 4 and 7, clause 57(1)(d), subsection 58(2), clause 63(i), and rewording section 16 to meet its concerns. In addition, SOS recommends strengthening part V of the act by extending it to all licences and permits issued by the province or bodies under its jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We only have two minutes per caucus.

1610

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming down from Sudbury today. We really appreciate your input.

Mr Tilson: I think that the Attorney General has indicated he's prepared to consider amendments to section 7. I think he's looking forward to that time in the committee hearings for that to be done. He may or may not have some amendments that he wishes to file himself, but if members of the Liberal caucus or New Democratic caucus have some suggested amendments, I know the government will consider those amendments.

Mr Ramsay: You certainly give us more food for thought here, that we would be bringing forward some amendments to address these concerns. I think we would try first to delete some of those sections, for sure, and then maybe our backup position would be to find some sort of review mechanism, as the previous witness had asked for. We really have to think hard and long about that because we want to make sure that it's simple, and of course, with no cost, because under these circumstances we're going to have to make sure it is a very simple system. So we'll certainly be looking at that, and thank you for your presentation.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Thanks to the two of you for coming and for putting together this presentation for us. I want to focus on the issue of opting out, because it was a concern that any number of us from the New Democratic Party raised in the debate on Bill 82. I'm looking at your page 7, where you go on at some length about your concerns. I wonder if you would tell the committee again why it is that you are concerned that this particular section is in the bill and what you think it might result in.

Ms Clipperton: I know my first support payment was delayed because my husband came and said: "My car broke down. I have to pay for my repairs first." Am I supposed to sympathize? "No, you can't see the kids unless you give me money."

Ms Martel: Part of the concern I have is that we received a document from the family support plan on Friday, and I believe that all members received it yesterday. It was a new action sheet that the family support plan is using when they get a call-in from an MPP or when they get a call-in from a recipient. What bothered me about the document is that at the bottom of it, it asks for the reasons for the inquiry, and the family support plan staff person is supposed to check one of those off. It says "late payment," "arrears," "enforcement" or "opting out."

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel. We must move on.

Mr Tilson: Thank you for coming and telling us your concerns. I know the government will consider your concerns. One of the issues I'd like you to speak to -- the government has expressed concern and I think members of the NDP and Liberal caucuses have expressed concern with respect to the current enforcement proceedings, that they are inadequate. This bill has made substantial changes, as you know, to the enforcement provisions. I don't know whether you have any comments for or against some of these provisions or want to elaborate on some of the things you've said. One, for example, is the redefining of income source. That's section 1, the definition section of the bill, which catches such things as wage supplements, commissions, bonuses, vacation pay, annuities, those sorts of things, and it goes on. That's just one of several changes that we believe will beef up the enforcement section. Do you have any comments on what the government is trying to do with this bill?

Ms Clipperton: We strongly endorse the enforcement measures that are spoken of in Bill 82. Income source, including bonus -- coming from a mining community, many miners receive bonuses; Falconbridge and Inco -- and commissions with our salesmen, these are very welcome changes to the bill. As we mentioned in our report, there are only a few things we want changed: section 4, section 7, section 16, any references to fees.

The Chair: I thank you both very much for your presentation here today.

Elaine Holgate

The Chair: Our next presenter is Elaine Holgate. Ms Holgate, welcome. I'd ask you to proceed with your presentation.

Ms Elaine Holgate: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? My voice is going.

1620

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Holgate. We start off with Ms Boyd. We have three minutes per caucus.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. I know it's very difficult to do this kind of thing in public. I certainly hope that the provisions in this bill will result as you hope they will as well. I think you know that there's a commitment on the part of all three parties to get these enforcement measures into place so that they can begin.

Ms Holgate: He's in real estate. There was a support order sent forth to his employer.

Mrs Boyd: But they're sheltering the income, I expect.

Ms Holgate: They're sheltering it in her name.

Mrs Boyd: That's the most common kind of a situation, isn't it? It's the most discouraging.

Ms Holgate: Am I worried about someone being coerced into opting out of this?

Mrs Boyd: Out of the family support plan.

Ms Holgate: I think that could happen, definitely. It depends on the relationship, when you have more communication than I have, probably.

Mrs Boyd: Would you prefer to have this so that you don't have to have communication with your ex-partner over money?

Ms Holgate: Oh, definitely, yes.

Mrs Boyd: You'd like to see everything done through the director of the plan at all times on the money issues?

Ms Holgate: That's the only way that it could be done, for me.

Mr Tilson: Ms Holgate, we know how difficult it is for you to come here. I'm sure all members of the committee will agree that yours is the type of case -- the situations you've described show how the legislation cries out for change with respect to enforcement. Irrespective of our political differences in this room, I think we all agree that change is needed. You talk about the emotional difficulties of all parties, both spouses, particularly the children. I don't know what sort of legislation can solve all of that, other than to give the financial relief that you're requesting.

1630

Ms Holgate: I think if they're not self-employed, with the enforcement incoming at their office, this should be done with the enforcement coming from the government to the direct employer. It would have to be followed through, though.

Mr Tilson: One of the things the government is trying to encourage, of course, is the direct payment by the employer to the plan, in other words, through electronic transfer, because generally one of the problems of the plan to date has been the manual completion of checks, which has caused delays. That's one of the things the government is trying to encourage or trying to develop, a system of direct transfer, particularly from the larger firms.

Mr Ramsay: Ms Holgate, I have some questions too. First of all, thank you very much for coming also. We really appreciate your coming forward. We understand and realize how tough it is, but I think your coming forward is going to help us make this bill even better.

Ms Holgate: From what I can gather, with the real estate it's a dual listing, both names were put on the sign. Apparently, with one sale she got the complete commission, but it should have been split. The enforcement would have to be with the employer there. But I don't know; it's like a magic act.

Mr Ramsay: I wouldn't mind being able to ask one of the government officials, in that situation, is this act going to be able to rectify that problem? You heard that a real estate commission was not being split but paid to the other party so that the partner was not actually receiving the money. Is there any way we could work that out with the employer to get that money?

Mr Goodman: We could attempt to, but I'm not sure about when it's jointly on that basis, because it does apply to joint bank accounts, not to the joint debt. But there are changes to the definition of income source which would allow us to get a lot of commission sales by removing the requirement that they be regular, periodic payments. That will allow us to attach those payments, especially from a real estate agent, who has payments at different times but they're not regular and periodic. So there are changes that will assist on that basis.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Holgate, for attending here today. We appreciate your advice.

Ilene McGillis

The Chair: Our next presenter is Ilene McGillis. Welcome.

Ms Ilene McGillis: Thank you very much for inviting me. It's been a long road to this committee, and I'm very pleased to be here. I am just going to read the first two pages. The rest of it is backup and proof to what I'm saying.

Mr Guzzo: Thank you very much for your presentation. Like you, we hope it's a start, but we're not unmindful of some of the areas that have been outlined and addressed here where improvements may have to be made.

Ms McGillis: Up until six months before we separated, he worked for the government of Canada as an immigration officer. The last six months he was in a private distributorship. I had a letter from his employer that he would be making $100,000 a year. His employer was ordered to garnish his wages and the employer said, "He owes me money. He took draws on commissions and he owes me too much money to be garnishing wages," so he didn't garnish.

Mr Guzzo: Thank you very much for attending.

1640

Mr Tilson: The addendum to your letter is interesting. We believe that even the threat of these enforcement measures will bring some of these people to their senses. For example, if one has the trouble of finding a deadbeat person -- generally it's a man -- one way is through the driver's licence because we know the address on the licence. If a husband isn't responding, it can be through the driver's licence. It is interesting that you make this comment, that the very threat of some of these things can spur individuals into (1) telling them where they are and (2) becoming a little bit more cooperative. I wanted to thank you for that observation.

Ms McGillis: This letter was dated November 22. It may be just coincidence. The last address we had was Portland, Maine, in the US, and now he gives us an address of Elm Street.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you very much for that good news. It is indeed a great way to launch this, and I'm sure it's even better news for you.

Ms McGillis: I hope they act on it.

Mr Klees: Actually, Mr Chair, my question is to staff. Ms McGillis brings out a very important point, that is, that there is obviously cooperation sometimes between an employer and an employee. I'm wondering if we have addressed in this bill the kind of manipulation that can take place. If we haven't, it's obviously something we should look at.

Mr Goodman: In fact we have. If you look at the definitions in clause 1(1)(a), we had wages before, but we've added "wage supplements," "salary," which was before, "or draws or advances on them." This amendment was put into the new legislation to cover those types of situations where they work out with advances before, and then when you try to obtain the money through the deduction they claim, "I'm taking off what's owed to me first," which they normally can do. That's why this change was put in, to address that very situation.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much for coming today. One concern that has continued to be raised is the opting-out arrangement, if an agreement is made by a couple and it looks like things are going well. Having gone through what you've gone through for so long a time, I wonder whether you have any thoughts on it. Let's say you arrive at an agreement and everything goes well and then all of a sudden you're able to drop out of the plan, as it were. Would you feel comfortable with that or would you prefer to see --

Ms McGillis: I am so very glad that somebody asked me this question. I think everybody should be forced to enter into the program first. If you choose to opt out, you don't have any protection. He can say, "I'll be a good boy," until you opt out and then, "I'm taking off." I would suggest that any parent, recipient be in the program. She has some measure. There are payors who are going to pay no matter what, but one day he can say, "I'm maxed on my credit cards; I'm not paying support." You'd never know when it's going to happen.

Mr Patten: We don't know what will eventually happen. It's not in the control of the total committee. The government will make that decision. If it goes forward that there is an opting-out possibility -- you personally may not agree with it, but it still may be there -- would you feel there should be stringent compensations for the recipient, if such a situation arose, to discourage people from opting out of their commitment? In other words, if they do, they're really going to be nailed for the compensation by virtue of the disruption or whatever may happen in the interim.

Ms McGillis: Are we always going to be assured we're going to get that money if we're out of the plan? I would ask them that: Are you assured you're going to get your support? If you've got it for the last who knows how many years, fine, the plan really isn't going to help you either way. But she should be able to go back into it at any time, at no cost, without spending months on paperwork, phone calls and whatever -- in or out.

Mr Patten: Let me just congratulate you on your persistence and survival capacity for your children.

Ms McGillis: It's a game of survival.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming and for sharing with us some of the frustrations you have had. As you know, this has been a growing experience in Ontario. You must have been under the SCOE plan to start with and then under the family support plan. Although each time there's been an improvement in the plan it's caught some cases, obviously it hasn't worked for you to this point, and I certainly share your hope that these provisions are going to make the difference for you.

Ms McGillis: Before Monday when this letter was received, the last known address was Portland, Maine. Whether he was living there, passing through, staying over, who knows?

Mrs Boyd: Exactly. And also the amount of money, which is quite large: $70,000. One of the things that concerns us about the bill is that the director can refuse to enforce an order if it is of long standing, in other words, if it's been outstanding for a long time; if the person is hard to locate; or if the arrears are very large and of long standing. It frightens me that somebody like you, who has worked so hard to try to keep things going for so long, if he should disappear again -- if you had come before your postscript -- would in fact find your order simply not enforced. Do you share that concern?

Ms McGillis: I don't think the director should have the option of not enforcing old or uncollectible. If some cases end up in collection agencies -- if I know there's a collection agency after him and hounding him, it's hope; it's maybe going to be more than a peanut butter sandwich for Christmas dinner next year. Maybe it's going to be better protection for my daughter. Maybe I'll have an answer for my children when they say to me: "When is this going to end? Who's helping us? Mom, what are you doing? Can't you write letters? Can't you make phone calls?"

Mrs Boyd: I appreciate that. The other part of it is the issue, of course, of the length of time it has taken to really find him and the possible collusion of his employer in terms of the salary draws. Do you think he has also sheltered his assets under someone else?

Ms McGillis: Oh, I know he has.

Mrs Boyd: In the United States?

Ms McGillis: I would guess and say yes.

Mrs Boyd: One of our concerns is that the promise of attaching joint property or attaching joint bank accounts, as I understand it, can only be done within our own jurisdiction, and that may not be a possible avenue for you in another jurisdiction.

1650

Ms McGillis: When my children's father dropped out of sight, he had $29,000 in RRSPs, $4,000 in a bank account, $22,000 from the sale of the matrimonial home and who knows what moneys that I don't know about, and he's gone, just like that. Now where did the money go? He left his lawyer in debt, thousands and thousands of dollars. My lawyer told me that. So where did the money go? Now we hear that he's in Portland, Maine. He probably converted it to travellers' cheques or bonds or who knows what, and off he went. My children didn't have anything to eat and I lost my home.

Mrs Boyd: May I ask for a clarification from staff as to whether this attachment of joint accounts or joint property or partnerships can happen out of our own jurisdiction?

Mr Tilson: My understanding is that if there's a jurisdiction that has a reciprocal agreement with the province of Ontario and that jurisdiction has that type of mechanism, that could be done. If that jurisdiction did not have that mechanism, then we'd have a problem. We can't force jurisdictions to have the same enforcement type of provisions that we have.

Mrs Boyd: My understanding is that this bill will make ours among the best in the world.

Mr Tilson: We believe it'll be one of the toughest, yes.

Ms McGillis: May I just say that I e-mailed the governor of the state of Maine. I said in about two paragraphs what the problem was and they sent me back a message saying: "Okay, note taken. If he walks into the office, we'll send him back to you." That was it, two lines, so my case is way down here in the state of Maine. It's right in the toilet.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms McGillis. Perhaps you might send Bill 82 to the governor of the state of Maine. Maybe something would be done.

Ms McGillis: Maybe you could send one to each of the states we have a reciprocal agreement with and tell them I'm coming.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears

The Chair: Our next presenter is Regina May. Welcome, Ms May.

Ms Regina May: Good evening. Unfortunately, Kaarina Pakka from Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears can't be here and I had an appointment at 4:50, so I'm going to speak on behalf of the group, as I'm one of the co-founders, and also for myself, if that is permissible.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I didn't get the group that you are speaking for.

Ms May: Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears, MAFIA.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Ms May: The letter from the steering committee is as follows:

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms May. We will move on to questions, if that's okay.

Ms May: That's great.

The Chair: We will deal first with the third party.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. I can tell how painful it is. You are certainly very representative of a large number of recipients who because their partners, first of all, are very well-to-do and are able to get the kind of legal help that helps them to shelter their income and shelter their assets, and then is self-employed so there's no employer to do a salary deduction order, have been the toughest of all to do.

1700

Ms May: If enforcement measures had been made a long time ago when we really asked for them to be made, the arrears wouldn't have mounted up to this particular amount. Also, demographically, I'm the leading edge of the baby boomers. I'm 51 years old, so there's going to be a big bulk behind me. The figures are going to increase. That's why it's more important to deal with the issue of enforcement first. Bring in the tools to enforce, to make them pay.

Mrs Boyd: Sure. When SCOE came --

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Mrs Boyd, I'm sorry, we have to move to the Conservative caucus now. You have five minutes. I've got Mr Klees and Mrs Marland on the list.

Mr Klees: Thank you, Ms May, for your presentation, and thank you also for the endorsement of this bill's enforcement provisions. I would like to direct a question again to the staff, if I might, only for the purpose of clarifying for the record the issue that was raised by Ms May, and that is the transfer of assets either into another person's name or into the name of a corporation. Could we have some clarification as to what this bill will do to address that issue?

Mr Goodman: Yes. One of the major initiatives of the bill are the enhanced powers on a default hearing, to actually have added to a default hearing a third party, which could include a corporation or other entity which may have been assisting in the sheltering of assets or income of the payor. There are things in that section that will deal with it.

Mr Tilson: The preventing of the sheltering of assets, Mr Klees, is section 41.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ms May, I just wanted to thank you very much. I have seen you in the Legislature and I know how much time and personal effort you have put into being involved with this legislation. I can only humbly express the appreciation of all of us that you have made that kind of effort and commitment.

Ms May: At the present time, I and the steering committee have had a good chance to study the bill and we just feel that enforcement was needed yesterday.

Mr Tilson: Ms May, congratulations for coming and telling this. It's because of your type of case that essentially this bill has been introduced, a number of men, generally -- not always, but generally men -- who have literally ripped off not only the women and children but also the state. Obviously there have been many women and children who because of, in many cases, zero payments have been forced to go on government assistance. We believe these tools, as has already been indicated, will be the best in North America, and we believe that many of the problems you've listed will be solved, particularly the issue Mr Klees has raised, the section 41 provisions of sheltering of assets, because that's the typical cute trick that's applied, where you put all your assets in someone else's name, generally a new spouse. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr Ramsay: Ms May, thank you very much for coming. I wouldn't mind getting some more detail on the $6-million transaction with London Life you referred to. We discussed here yesterday that there are some areas where we would need federal cooperation to go after assets such as RRSPs. So I'm interested in whether this was a RRIF or an annuity purchase of some sort.

Ms May: No, this was a business transaction. London Life gave him $6 million to the corporation, whereas on personal papers he showed he was bankrupt -- not bankrupt, but poor. Everything is leased to the corporation, everything is leased to his mother or father, his latest wife or his girlfriend, or his cat or his dog, but nothing is in his name. So there's nothing to get under the present legislation.

Mr Ramsay: I wouldn't mind directing a question to staff. Will the plan have the resources to track down these dummy organizations and companies to try to ferret this sort of transference out?

Mr Goodman: Generally section 41 is a default hearing, so that's a court process. It's hoped that other measures will be important beforehand. But when we're using the other administrative measures, then we'll be able to use the default in the court proceedings for these types of cases where they're involved with that. Also, some of the changes to the definition of income source include shareholder loans or things of that nature if individuals have their own corporation and they're taking remuneration through shareholder loans as opposed to ordinary salaries or wages.

Mr Patten: To build on that question, because this is a whole other procedure that would take time and presumably could drag out over a period, I wonder whether there is not the possibility of some kind of measure of an individual, by indicators, that suggest this individual is not poor, that this person has means by virtue of cars, accessibility to transportation, expenditures, use of credit cards, whatever it may be, whether there cannot be some measure -- that would have to be done very cautiously of course -- to very quickly say, "Come on, Bud, you know this person is pulling the wool over everyone else's eyes and is, by virtue of the complexity of our legal system, getting away with being abusive to a family," whether there isn't another vehicle that could be used to do such.

Mr Tilson: Are you asking a question to the government?

Mr Patten: Yes.

Mr Tilson: I think you have to look at the overall package of enforcement that's being put forward. We've zeroed in on section 41, which is trying to seize assets of individuals who are almost part of a fraudulent conveyance, which is another interesting piece of legislation, of course. But you have to look at all the other tools that will now be available to the director, such as the suspension of drivers' licences, that this person simply cannot get any more credit because it's going to be registered -- making registrations under the Personal Property Security Act. If you look at the overall package, if one won't work, we believe there are other provisions in the bill that will make it almost impossible for these individuals to use the cute tricks they've used in the past to literally evade payment.

The Vice-Chair: Ms May, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

1710

Dana Janes

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Ms Dana Janes. Welcome, Ms Janes. You may begin any time.

Ms Dana Janes: My presentation is very short and it's mainly about the opting-out provision. I've noticed there is interest in that provision because both previous speakers were questioned on it.

Mr Guzzo: Can I make a point? I think it would be very helpful from everybody's perspective if people would be willing to identify at the start, even in the case of this lady who has no problem, the nature of employment or the source of income of the payor.

Ms Janes: My ex-husband is a banker, and I have a very easy time collecting the money. He doesn't want the embarrassment. He wouldn't want anybody knowing. We settled between the two of us, and it was good for my children not to be involved in their father feeling resentful, and I wouldn't want them emotionally knowing that.

Mrs Marland: Ms Janes, you joined the group you belong to for --

Ms Janes: Moral support.

Mrs Marland: It's volunteer work for you to support people who are not as fortunate as you are. Is there something specific you've learned from your work with that group that has been a major problem that you think this legislation will address, and is there something that you think might still be a gap?

Ms Janes: I've learned that Bill 82 will address a lot of their problems and will help them to collect the money they need for their children and themselves. I'm sure that like any law it will have faults, but I see that the results we've had with semi-guerrilla tactics were very positive. It goes to show that there is still a way that even the most irresponsible person or person who thinks he or she is above the law can still be stopped and made to think of their responsibility. But you have to show them because they don't understand it themselves, and the law should look after it.

Mrs Marland: So in your case, when you say you don't want the resources of any other agency wasted, be it the government or someone else -- well, it would be wasted on your case because you have no problem.

Ms Janes: Totally.

Mrs Marland: If the problem is never initiated, they would never be involved in the beginning anyway, would they?

Ms Janes: That's right. If the case doesn't even require a postage stamp, like it was in my case -- we could resolve everything between the two of us and the lawyers. It wasn't that amicable but we were able to resolve it. Why should I or anybody like me draw on resources that are so badly needed in cases where you deal with people who are totally irresponsible, go on welfare, change addresses or hide, or who have the power to completely avoid responsibility because they have the wealth behind them?

Mrs Marland: I think it's very commendable that you do that work when you didn't need it yourself.

Mr Guzzo: It's interesting. You know that your husband has to pay because of the employer, and we're not fans of the bank, at least I am not. But we also know what would happen if the previous speaker had written to the dental association, to the governing body of the dentists of Ontario or Canada: the same reply that would have come if her husband or ex-husband had been a lawyer and she had written to the law society -- absolutely nothing.

Ms Janes: I agree with you. I think something should be done where professional organizations have a better understanding and a better commitment to the overall civilization of our society, because it's a matter of how civilized you are.

Mr Guzzo: It is a problem of self-employment. The self-employed are the people who present the problem, whether they're lawyers, dentists, taxi drivers or bookmakers. However, thank you very much for attending.

Mr Patten: Thank you for attending. I gather that your point is, don't waste time on cases that do not require work.

Ms Janes: Basically, and leave the opting-out provision in or adjust it so a person like me doesn't need to put any workload on an office like that.

Mr Patten: So you wouldn't be part of the plan.

Ms Janes: I wouldn't want to be.

Mr Patten: Did you say you were part of a support group?

Ms Janes: Yes, I'm part of Fathers Against Fathers in Arrears.

Mr Patten: Now, let's take your essential proposition, which is, "Don't waste time on those who don't need the effort," which I think is your principle. In cases where there may appear to be amicable arrangements but after a while it doesn't quite work out, do you think there may be a role for the plan in terms of making sure, for people who opt out, that they can also opt back in if something happens?

Ms Janes: I imagine that should be retained in it. That should be part of the opting-out provision, because circumstances could change and people may change their character, although I doubt it. But if that's the case, they should be able to go in. But I really don't like unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr Patten: I know what you mean. Thank you very much for coming.

Mrs Boyd: Your separation agreement occurred 10 years ago?

Ms Janes: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: It was an agreement, it wasn't a court order?

Ms Janes: It wasn't a court order.

Mrs Boyd: So it was never registered with the plan because it didn't have to be.

Ms Janes: No.

Mrs Boyd: That's the same under this law. Unless it's a court order it isn't necessarily registered, so the issue is not whether, when there's an amicable agreement, people would have to be under the law.

Ms Janes: My understanding is that now, if you get your divorce order and support payment is part of the divorce order, it is a court order and it goes to the support plan.

Mrs Boyd: Now it is, yes. But nobody would force you into the plan, that's all I'm saying, in your circumstances.

Ms Janes: Because that's how it was done in my case.

Mrs Boyd: Yes. One of the real issues around having everybody registered with the plan and having people pay through the plan was so that there wouldn't be any stigma on those like your ex-partner who did their obligations. What's being proposed with the opt-out provision, and even with the safeguard of having a judge say you can't opt out, is that the assumption of an employer -- in your ex-partner's case a bank -- on seeing an order come through, would be the correct one, that there's some problem with this order.

1720

Ms Janes: I don't know. I really can sort of feel for everybody who wants to be equal to everybody in respect of there is stigma, there is no stigma. We just didn't need it, and if you don't need it, why does it have to go through anything?

Mrs Boyd: Well, there's another reason of course, and that's that people often pay for the first couple of years, they get into another relationship, they have children by that other relationship and they stop paying. That's the case that you've seen with some of the people in MAFIA. I know, because I've seen some of the background for some people who have written me in the past about their cases.

Ms Janes: Well, then of course you would make the application, and only then would you create a file, rather than always have a file, always be a part of somebody's daily procedure, somebody who has to look it up, or just take up a space on the database on it.

Mrs Boyd: But the purpose of having --

The Vice-Chair: It's time to move on.

Mrs Boyd: Really?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, really.

Mr Goodman: I wonder if I could make a clarification around the issue of the stigma and opting out, that an employer would then know, because they're involved with the program, that they are in arrears. The way the situation works now, if there are arrears, an income source would know now or in the future simply because they would receive a notice to make deduction on the arrears. So even now or in the future there would be that notice to an income source of the arrears.

Mrs Boyd: But not on a regular payment.

Mr Goodman: If they were up to date and there were no arrears, they would just be remitting the ongoing support because they would not receive any notice of arrears.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Janes, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, because we do have a couple of minutes here, I have one question for you. The committee received a letter today from the Information and Privacy Commissioner dated December 4. We've just had it handed out this afternoon while we've been sitting here, so I haven't read it yet, but it brings to mind a question I do have.

The Vice-Chair: Just a quick point of clarification. The witness had provided that to be photocopied for committee members. Are you suggesting the committee members get it but not the public? Is that what you're suggesting?

Mrs Marland: No. I'm suggesting that with all good intention the deputant provided it to us, but I feel wrong in having it. No one else in the public, I think, at this point has this particular document this afternoon. I'm suggesting that because it has that personal case file number on it, we should agree as members of the committee that this particular document be protected in some way. We as members can protect this document is what I'm saying. I think we should be careful in the future, if there is a document that comes forth with that information on it, that it's not copied and circulated with that number on it; second, that this one doesn't go any further than it's already gone this afternoon.

The Vice-Chair: We can discuss this very briefly. Mrs Boyd, I know you had something you'd like to say.

Mrs Boyd: I would think the choice would be up to the deputant, and if the deputant gave the information -- it was not derived from any government record, it was given by the deputant, and those of us who deal with a lot of these cases in our office know that very often people who are concerned with the plan have no problem with people in the Legislature knowing their case number. They want it resolved through any means. I don't think we should be making the choice on behalf of the deputant. If in fact the plan were to come forward and identify somebody by a case number, that would be very serious, but the deputant has the choice.

Mrs Marland: May I just respond to that, Mr Chair? As members of Parliament, we all have these cases, I would say to you, Marion. We're all working on these cases all the time in our offices. I'm simply saying that for us as members to have this information is very different than the public having this information. As a member, I don't wish to circulate publicly the cases and the names of the people I am working on in my constituency and Queen's Park offices.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Marland, I do want to move on here because we do have some -- one moment, please.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Very brief? The participant in the hearings who provided that material is here. She's heard this conversation. Why doesn't the Chair ask her?

The Vice-Chair: One moment, Mr Kormos; I'm getting there. Just hang on a minute. I do want to move on to the witnesses, but what we will do is determine through the clerk whether the witness would like that distributed just to the committee or whether it's for the public to see as well. We will make that determination through the clerk. Is that satisfactory to everybody?

Mr Tilson: No, it's not. I understand the comments made by Mr Kormos and Mrs Boyd that obviously we can't stop an individual -- it could be a payor or it could be a recipient -- who comes forward. I mean, it could be the other way around than what you're thinking about; it could conceivably be a payor who is making comments, releasing information that he or she should not be releasing. It may affect children. It may go beyond the privacy protection. It may go beyond the deputant.

The Vice-Chair: We do have a couple of options as a committee. The deputant has already made the presentation. We can instruct the Chair to find out the individual's wishes, what they would like done with the material. That to me would seem the most obvious route to follow. Or it can be referred to the subcommittee to deal with it as well, so that's an option. I'm open for suggestions from committee members.

Mrs Marland: I think the parliamentary assistant has just made the point that there are two parties to that number. I don't know what Mr Wright, the privacy commissioner, would say, but I'm raising the point because I have a personal concern. I think it may have been given in all innocence in terms of where the stuff we receive is circulated, but unless people are used to coming before committees and bringing a copy of their printed deputation, I don't think for the most part the public understands.

The Vice-Chair: One of the options we have, and I think it would be the most expedient, is that the subcommittee apparently will meet at the call of the committee after this this evening, and it can be referred to the subcommittee so that we can get on with the witnesses. Is that fair by everybody?

Mrs Marland: Good.

The Vice-Chair: That's what we'll do. There's agreement? Good.

1730

Brenda Quinlan

The Vice-Chair: We will move on to the next presenter, Brenda Quinlan. Good evening, Ms Quinlan. You can begin any time.

Ms Brenda Quinlan: My name is Brenda Quinlan. I'm from Woodslee, just outside of Windsor. My present status is I'm separated since September 1994. I have six children aged from six to 14 by one father, Michael Quinlan. I work part-time as a school bus driver. My income is only $800 per month for nine months of the year and then I receive a child tax credit.

1740

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Quinlan. We'll hear from the opposition first. Mr Hoy.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): How much time do we have?

The Chair: We have approximately four minutes each.

Mr Hoy: You mentioned assets from a farming operation. Did you and your husband sell that operation? Where did those moneys come in?

Ms Quinlan: He had basically taken my name off the farm operation, so I had no control over where the money was going. He stopped making payments on machinery and the mortgage on the farm, so they took action against it and they were sold. Presently, to date, there is $45,000 sitting in term deposits in two banks, and I have notified the family support office to try to get that money seized, and nothing's been done.

Mr Hoy: Anything that you might have realized from that, any money that you might have got from that sale is gone now? You've spent it in order to survive over the last two years?

Ms Quinlan: Definitely. I have lost basically all of my savings just trying to keep up with the legal system.

Mr Hoy: The arrears you're talking about, over what period of time did that occur? Is it just in the last three months, for instance? How did that accumulate?

Ms Quinlan: The child support is just recently. I was receiving the money. The money was coming in. That has just been over approximately the last three months. In the month of November, I only received $650.

Mr Hoy: You drive a school bus?

Ms Quinlan: Yes.

Mr Hoy: That pays you about --

Ms Quinlan: Approximately $800 a month for nine months.

Mr Hoy: Are all your children at home?

Ms Quinlan: Living at home? Yes.

Mr Hoy: They're not --

Ms Quinlan: No, they're in my care.

Mr Hoy: Your point is quite clear to me: that, first of all, your husband is in an arrears situation and then you know that he has moneys elsewhere, particularly the registered retirement savings plan.

Ms Quinlan: Yes. I cannot understand why this money cannot be seized. I've left messages. I've given them the name of the financial institution it is at. No action has been taken.

Mr Hoy: But then there's other moneys in a regular banking account?

Ms Quinlan: As far as personal moneys, I don't believe he has much in his own account, but he does have to date $13,000-plus in RRSPs. The NISA account is definitely $15,000, which is readily available cash and can be withdrawn.

Mr Hoy: What's a NISA account?

Ms Quinlan: The net income stabilization account. It's a farming account where the participant contributes money and the government matches it. It's a type of a savings account. It's purely optional. Since our separation, he has put to date $10,000 into this account but yet is not paying the arrears.

Mr Hoy: As far as you know, the NISA account is being treated in the same way that a registered retirement savings plan is?

Ms Quinlan: Yes, it is.

Mr Patten: I have just a quick question. I thought your characterization of the difference between a local regional office and the centralization was quite pertinent and extremely important, because that pattern is going on throughout this government in many areas and many fields. I wonder if you might elaborate a little bit on that, someone who has an understanding and an appreciation of your case because they have a feel for your particular part of the province or they may understand the business climate or whatever that may be.

Ms Quinlan: At least if you had problems getting through to the Windsor office, you had the option of driving up and actually speaking to somebody. I've had great results with them. He had stopped paying for three months approximately a year ago, at the same time we were selling the farm. They put a lien on the farm, and within a week I had the $6,000. This should be handled in the same fashion. The money is sitting there.

Mr Patten: They don't know you.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you for coming and sharing with us. I need to be sure I understand. It's only in the last three months that the $2,000 a month on which you and your children were living has not been coming in?

Ms Quinlan: Exactly.

Mrs Boyd: Okay. That's as a result of the disruption in the plan, I assume.

Ms Quinlan: Because I'm unable to speak to anybody at the office, I can't find out exactly where the problem lies. I haven't spoken to anybody directly about my case, so I don't know if he is not paying or the money is being sent in and not being sent out.

Mrs Boyd: Not being disbursed.

Ms Quinlan: I cannot get that information at this point.

Mrs Boyd: We know that both have happened, so it could be either. The other issue, though, will not be resolved by Bill 82, if you understand Bill 82. Bill 82 is specifically saying that the family support plan will not enforce orders that are paid to a third party. So the issue that you have with your mortgage and the issue that you have with the other property things, the property taxes, cannot be resolved by Bill 82.

Ms Quinlan: Yes, I realize that. I've already been told that the outcome will be that I will receive X amount of money each month and I will be responsible for my own mortgage. At this point, the problem is that my husband will not sign off the house and continues to slap debt against it, so I'm in a very catch-22 situation. But yes, I do realize that.

Mrs Boyd: He's prepared to actually lose the equity that the two of you have contributed to this property for what purpose?

Ms Quinlan: I'm not sure.

Mrs Boyd: Is it vindictive, in your view?

Ms Quinlan: I'm sure it is.

Mrs Boyd: So even the provisions that are in this bill -- what I'm trying to get at is, in a circumstance like yours where someone is clearly cutting off his own nose to spite his face, there are going to be cases even with this bill that we're not going to be able to resolve, aren't there?

Ms Quinlan: I realize that, but in the situation where there is money to be seized, if I were responsible for my own mortgage payment, if I knew that you could go in and seize that money, I know that I could make my payments. The money is sitting there. There is no reason it should not be accessible.

Mrs Boyd: Yes. It's quite inexplicable, because even when you've got a court order from that other source that's not enforced through family support there ought to be some way of dealing with it. You're convinced that he's prepared to let this go until you actually lose the property?

Ms Quinlan: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: That's a pretty serious issue, isn't it, in terms of your children's future?

Ms Quinlan: I have already hired a separate lawyer, because you have to hire another one to handle the power of sale. Like I said, I don't have the money to deal with it.

The Chair: You have one minute, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate that Ms Quinlan is here explaining her circumstances. I don't think there's anybody here who isn't moved. She is not the author of any of the misfortune that she finds herself in, in no way, shape or form. I'm in no way treating this less than seriously when I say to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General that he, in my view, would be perfectly entitled, if Ms Quinlan were prepared to spend a few moments with him outside, to contact (1) the creditor who's involved in the power of sale to assure them that this bill is going to provide Ms Quinlan some relief -- his intervention could possibly save Ms Quinlan's equity in this property -- and (2) to ensure that the remnants of the family support plan, wherever it is operating from now, address this issue, Ms Quinlan's, immediately, tomorrow morning, post-haste, 8 am.

The Chair: We'll return to the government caucus. Are there any questions from the government caucus?

Mr Tilson: Mr Kormos, obviously the Attorney General's office will try to assist this woman as much as we can under the existing legislation, and obviously there are certain restrictions under the existing legislation that preclude us -- I believe that many of the changes we're proposing, if they were in existence now, would offer more assistance to you. They may not offer complete assistance, but they would offer more assistance to you. I hope Mr Kormos and members of the opposition will help us in proceeding with this legislation to help her.

1750

Ms Quinlan: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs Quinlan, thank you very much for your assistance here today.

Mr Guzzo: I'm sorry, could we just be clear about the nature of your husband's employment?

Ms Quinlan: Presently he's working as a commercial lender.

Mr Guzzo: Could I also make one other suggestion? I don't know -- well, I'll make it. Here's a perfect example. What we can do is intervene for a legal aid certificate. I've been through this before. There will be people who will get picked up tonight for rape, murder, drug deals, who automatically get a legal aid certificate, who have never paid a dollar's worth of taxes in this community or in this province. Here's a person who has obviously been paying taxes for a number of years, and is still paying taxes. That's a matter for the law society, but they don't understand.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, Melody Edwards and Nancy Bass. Good evening. Did I identify you properly?

Ms Nancy Bass: Yes, I believe so.

Ms Melody Edwards: Yes, I'm Melody Edwards.

The Chair: Your written presentation has been distributed. I'd ask you to proceed at this time.

Ms Edwards: I'm going to ask Nancy Bass to make the presentation today, please.

Ms Bass: As a member of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, just by way of introduction, we represent working women in Ontario and we've been organized since 1930. Our organization is open to all women who are working and our members include not only professional women and businesswomen, as our name implies, but also women who are employed as clerks, factory workers and contractors. Our members are across the ages from early 20s to 93.

1800

The Chair: We have three minutes per caucus. Government caucus, are there any questions?

Mr John L. Parker (York East): You commented on the privatization elements and the fees and you suggested that the Attorney General should be setting some sort of fee. I would have thought that what would happen here is if the director wanted to retain a private collection agency, he'd shop around in his area, find someone suitable, make the best deal he could and go with it. That might change from place to place and from time to time. What sort of mechanism do you have in mind? What sort of plan do you envision for setting up that regime?

Ms Bass: We don't particularly have a plan. I think our plan was to have the Attorney General set some sort of standard fees so that regardless of where you were these would be the charges for the costs that would be involved.

Mr Parker: Would that be in the statute or would that be in regulations?

Ms Bass: That I'm not certain about.

Mr Parker: Then how would the fee be established?

Ms Bass: Not being a legal expert, I would imagine it would be something probably for the regulations. If you put it in the statute, then you can't really change it very well without going through an act of Parliament. So I imagine it would be something that would have to be open to fluctuation over time.

Mr Parker: What I'm getting at is, you seem to be suggesting that there's something lacking in the legislation. I'm looking for some guidance on what you would like to see and how it would work.

Ms Bass: I guess the concern we saw was that one area would have one set of fees, one area another set of fees, and the shopping around business -- I'm not really sure if that's particularly appropriate. If you had something where there were lower fees or something, presumably that's where everyone would be going. I'm not sure how that would work. We were looking for some kind of regulation that would be standard, say, across the province. There wouldn't be maybe a bidding war or something from one private agency to another that may in fact reflect the amount of service they're going to do.

Mr Parker: Wouldn't that be desirable, though, to get the competing providers to bid against one another and then go with the best bid?

Ms Bass: Cheaper is not always better.

Mr Parker: No, the best bid.

Ms Bass: But how do you clarify "best"?

Mr Parker: I'm asking you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Parker. We'll move on.

Mr Patten: Thank you for your presentation. I would like to follow up in the area of the possibility of privatization of some of the services. We have before the committee a letter from the privacy commissioner, Tom Wright, who has two concerns. Quickly, his first concern is related to the broad base of government-held information to which the director of the Family Responsibility Office would have access and suggests the limitations that should be adopted by the bill.

Ms Bass: Let me see if I understand. The question is, do we have concerns that if enforcement was put into privatization, private agencies would have the right to information that in the past only the government had? I don't think we have addressed that particularly. I would say that we likely would not have as much concern with that if we were satisfied there were some kind of guidelines for qualified people that were involved.

Mr Patten: The commissioner recommends limiting this office to only certain kinds of information. There are nine -- I would be happy to share it with you because I think you may have an interest in it -- and that also would be applicable to any private agency. For example, they would not have access to medical records or any such information that could be used in other manners to threaten or bribe people or whatever.

Ms Bass: Yes. I guess the position that I would see us being in is that one of the things we like about this system, and it is one of the things we have said before, is that we believe that where the parties can reach an amicable agreement and the payments are made, they're not part of the system. That's what we like about this, that they're not automatically in it. I would have to say that when a party refuses their obligations to support their family, then they subject themselves to losing certain rights that they may or may not have thought they had.

Mrs Boyd: I draw your attention to sections 57 and 58 of the act, which cover fees. Subsection 58(1) clearly says the director shall not charge any fee to any person for his or her services, except as provided by regulation, so it's not a problem. Also, the assignment of anything to a private agency may, under subsection 4(3), despite sections 57 and 58, set out the fees, costs, disbursements and other charges. So it is covered in the act and that may give you some comfort, I hope.

Ms Bass: Coercion certainly is a problem. I guess particularly in the case of how intrinsic it is with battered women, that certainly is an issue, and that is an intrinsic part of the whole problem with laying charges. I think that would probably be something we would want to look at and would probably be something we could support, because it would imply that it's based on performance as opposed to the free will or the goodwill of the individual.

Mrs Boyd: I think in amendments we'll be looking for some way to do that and also some way to trigger the refusal of a judge to allow non-registration in the plan, to allow withdrawal in the plan, although that's difficult because it appears to set limits on a judge and that's something that legislation ought not to do. We'll be looking for that kind of protection through amendments to the act.

Ms Bass: I think that's probably a very good point.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank both of you very much for your presentation here this evening.

1810

Carol Jabalee

The Vice-Chair: We will move on to Carol Jabalee. Good evening. You can begin any time.

Ms Carol Jabalee: My name is Carol Jabalee and I've come here tonight to speak in support of Bill 82, which proposes changes to the family support plan under the new direction and the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996. I thank you for the opportunity to present my particular situation and how I believe Bill 82 would benefit not only myself but others, and I thank this government.

1820

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Jabalee, for your presentation. We're going to move on to questions now. We've got about two minutes per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Hoy: Thank you very much for your presentation. It took some courage to go through your history, your family's history and of course the history of your husband. You did state and point out certain areas where you think Bill 82 would be a benefit. Certainly, there are areas where it's better than what we had --

Ms Jabalee: Previously.

Mr Hoy: -- prior to this.

Ms Jabalee: If it's enforced, yes.

Mr Hoy: Yes, if you can enforce it. The sheltering of moneys and the hiding of moneys has been a problem in your case. I don't believe you spoke to arrears. This bill has, I believe, a loophole in it where arrears can be written off or forgotten about.

Ms Jabalee: Rescinded.

Mr Hoy: Do you have any comment on that?

Ms Jabalee: My comment to that would be that I guess there should not be that loophole, because to me it's what you would call damages. It's something that you owe. If you do something wrong and if you run away or you continue to do it -- in other words, the bigger the mistake you make, the better it is for the person who's doing wrong, because then they get away with it. Somehow that rings wrong with me. They should always owe that support. Those children, even if they're married and they have children of their own, should have gotten something. I can see where it's going to be written down possibly, but it's like you can financially kill them and it's okay. I have a hard time accepting that.

Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, just on a point of clarification: No government has the jurisdiction to repeal an order or to say that outstanding arrears are gone. Our government doesn't have the jurisdiction. No government can do that and this bill doesn't do that.

Mr Ramsay: But you could refuse to collect.

Mr Tilson: Yes, that's possible, but we cannot say that the arrears that continue to mount -- or indeed vary the amount. We don't have the jurisdiction to do that. We can't interfere with a court order.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for sharing with us. Your story we hear just too often. It's a very, very sad thing. I think some of the provisions will work, but as you say, enforcement processes are going to have to go ahead. One of our concerns in this bill is this proposal that the director be able to refuse to enforce, and a couple of the concerns are if arrears are large and of long standing and if the person leaves the jurisdiction and is hard to find. I think you're a little nervous about both those things in your case.

Ms Jabalee: Definitely.

Mrs Boyd: One of the things we believe very strongly is that, yes, those arrears should continue to be kept track of by the plan and enforcement should always be there. It may not be as vigorous after a few years, but if the person comes back into the jurisdiction or earns money in that jurisdiction or it is otherwise collectible, it ought to be done automatically.

Ms Jabalee: I guess what I'm saying, I made an investment of 20 years of my life and then I had to continue on my own. Because I took care of the children, I suffer so much because I don't have a career. I have a job that's 8 to 5, but it's still not a high-paying job, and then I have to live in poverty. I have to struggle for the next 10 years until the children are out of the house and on their own. I'm saying I came out of my marriage, if you want, with debts, and to me that money is owing, even to myself. If it's $30,000 60 years from now, I would like it. It doesn't seem right that he can do all this damage and then walk away. It doesn't seem right.

Mrs Boyd: And it doesn't address your issue around debts that were incurred together during the marriage when the other partner walks out on those debts.

Ms Jabalee: That's another battle. That's right.

Mrs Boyd: That needs to be done in the family law, doesn't it? There needs to be some remedy there.

Ms Jabalee: It does, because it leaves me kind of -- now what do I do with that? Like you say, it lets them get away with whatever they decide, the way it is now.

Mr Guzzo: Ms Jabalee, I want to thank you for coming. I too want to tell you how much I appreciate your frankness and I appreciate how difficult it is. With what I say here, I don't want you to think that I am not sympathetic, but just let me explain one thing to you. Between the fifth and sixth default hearings there were no changes to the family support plan, there were no changes to the judicial system and no changes to the law, yet after the sixth hearing you had a much better feeling about the system. So I would strongly urge -- and I think it would be helpful to you; I only suggest it as a suggestion for help -- that you can't be critical of the plan and you can't be critical of the system. You know what happened. You know exactly what happened. You've described it perfectly. You got a judge who had time to listen and could give a damn. That's what happened.

1830

Ms Jabalee: Nobody listens, though. You see, when you go in, the judges don't listen.

Mr Guzzo: Well, somebody did.

Ms Jabalee: But I agree with you. I am not criticizing the family support plan as it was. It did work for me in the sense that they did successfully, like I said, bring him to default hearings.

Mr Guzzo: I appreciate that, but all I'm saying to you is, sure, it worked after the sixth one. Whatever happened on that particular date, the sixth one was when you got the jail sentence, the threat of jail, and he had to pay.

Ms Jabalee: No, he's just lying. He goes to court and just says he doesn't have the money.

Mr Guzzo: Does he lie under oath?

Ms Jabalee: Yes, he's lied, because he says he --

Mr Guzzo: No, I don't want to hear it. You know what perjury is. You know perjury is a crime?

Ms Jabalee: Yes.

Mr Guzzo: Do you know it's punishable under the Criminal Code with 10 years?

Ms Jabalee: But nobody's doing anything.

Mr Guzzo: When you went to the crown attorney and asked that he be charged with perjury, what did the crown attorney say?

Ms Jabalee: I didn't ask no crown attorney.

Mr Guzzo: Did you go to the police?

Ms Jabalee: I've gone actually to the bankruptcy people, because he has declared a false bankruptcy.

Mr Guzzo: No, just a minute. Do you understand what I'm saying? Nobody told you to go to the police, nobody told you to go and lay a charge of perjury, correct?

Ms Jabalee: No.

Mr Guzzo: Think about it for a second. Don't worry about it because it wouldn't have helped. In matrimonial cases, they won't enforce perjury. If you lie in an automobile accident, you can go to jail for five or 10 years. If you do it in a matrimonial case, it's like spitting in the face of an umpire in front of 30,000 fans. You get away with it. That's not assault, but try it at your home and watch how fast you're charged with assault.

The Chair: Our time has elapsed.

Ms Jabalee: This should not be a private matter, though. It's a public matter now anyway. He's not just lying to me, he's lying to children and parents.

The Chair: Ms Jabalee, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

Antonia Bellone

The Chair: Antonia Bellone? We've had a no-show, Ms Bellone. If it's okay, we can adjourn, but otherwise you can go now.

Ms Antonia Bellone: Okay, good. I don't want to think about it too much.

1840

The Chair: Thank you. We have three minutes per caucus.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Bellone. Chair, I feel compelled to respond to Ms Bellone, because here you are, one of several representations here today. You've dramatically and eloquently, as have all the other participants, talked about the reality of your life in these circumstances. It's something I'm sure other members as well have heard in their constituency office weekend after weekend after weekend. I've spoken about it in the House, about women inevitably, who come in with legal fees of $15,000, $20,000, to the point where the lawyer says, "So long, it's been good to know you," and all they've got are a couple of orders that are unenforceable.

Ms Bellone: May I make a statement?

Mr Kormos: Sure.

Ms Bellone: The only thing my ex-husband is afraid of is jail, and I have asked for it time and time again and I've never got it. I keep saying, "Trust me, all you have to do is just threaten to put him in jail and he'll come up with the money like this," but no one listens, so what can I do? I can't put him in jail myself.

Mrs Marland: Ms Bellone, maybe I missed it, how long now have you been in this struggle? Did you say 10 years?

Ms Bellone: No, two and a half years.

Mrs Marland: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. The point is that I think what I'm hearing this afternoon is that the existing law hasn't worked, because you've been working under the existing law for two and a half years. I'm also hearing that Bill 82 will be a substantial improvement, that it will present some remedies for some of the cases that we have. But I also think it's very important when you tell us how laws are respected by some people and, of course, not by others, even to the point, you said, where they have the power and the knowledge, they know how to get around it.

Mr Ramsay: It's a good example.

Mrs Marland: No, no, he left voluntarily. I'm really digging myself in here. But very sincerely, and in reality, with these hearings, we're dealing with people's lives. We're also bound to deal with a process, and that process is a legal process. Legislatures pass the laws, and the enforcement and practical application of those laws is no longer in the hands of the Legislature, it's in the hands of the judiciary. If the Family Law Reform Act needs some amendments as well to address -- maybe there's a coupling here of two laws that need to be dealt with: the Family Law Reform Act and anything dealing with family support.

1850

Mr Ramsay: Ms Bellone, thank you very much for coming in this evening. Your case is very interesting, and with having spent so much money in legal fees and being able to get four judgements, I think you said --

Ms Bellone: Five.

Mr Ramsay: Five judgements -- yet not getting anywhere with them, I would like to direct a question to staff: Under the new legislation, will there be the investigative resources to enforce these judgements so we get this money?

Mr Tilson: The program will do the enforcing.

Mr Goodman: One of the other new initiatives in the legislation is the enhancement of the right to demand information about a payor. Previously and currently our only right is to demand the location and name and address of an employer. The amendments to section 54 will allow us to demand particulars about financial situations, assets and liabilities so that if there are bank accounts out there we'll be able to send demands to banks to find out if there are those assets available. That's a major improvement to the kind of information we can get.

Mr Ramsay: That takes care of those bank accounts. But how about a case where the person is self-employed, in this case has his own business operation, maybe other businesses like the leasing company we've talked about? Will you have the capacity to track those down and enforce those court orders?

Mr Tilson: Presumably, Ms Bellone, you would be providing the plan with some pretty broad hints as to where assets are and that the plan would take that information and endeavour to collect, whether it be hidden bank accounts or whatever.

Ms Bellone: I already have, and that's the only reason why I got something, but there's a lot more out there. In a way, sometimes I'm kind of afraid.

The Chair: Ms Bellone, thank you very much for coming in today.

Ms Bellone: You're welcome. Thank you for listening to me.

Support for Children: An Organization for Public Education

The Chair: We're a little ahead of time. Judy Poulin of SCOPE, Support for Children: An Organization for Public Education, has agreed to proceed at this time. Welcome, Ms Poulin. You have someone with you. If they are to take part in your presentation you have to identify them for the purpose of the record.

Ms Judy Poulin: This is a member of our committee. Her name is Rosemary Clarke.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Ms Poulin: SCOPE is a non-profit organization committed to improving the lives of children after a separation occurs. We're based in Ottawa but we have members throughout the province. Currently our membership list is around 3,000. We started the organization simply because of the problems most of us were having with the collection of child support. We've been around for about six years and we've been really immersed in this issue of problems surrounding collection.

1900

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I want to thank you, Ms Poulin, on behalf of the government caucus for your presentation. A lot of the concerns you shared with us here are things we're going to discuss as a committee in terms of some amendments that I know will be brought forward by the opposition and ourselves with respect to the bill.

Ms Poulin: I think under no circumstances. As I was saying before, perhaps if that person is incarcerated for a certain amount of time the case could be set aside, to be brought forward at a later date. But no, I don't think there is any instance where we should be closing files. I think it's very dangerous.

Mr Ron Johnson: It's interesting, the incarceration one as well. Although five years may seem like a long time, if there's a single parent with two or three small children, at the end of that five years I would fully expect the non-custodial parent to start at least contributing to those children again in a meaningful way. I think that needs to be addressed in the legislation. I thank you for your input.

Mr Tilson: Just very briefly on the topic of universality, which the government is suggesting we take away, which the NDP caucus in particular has opposed, I'd like to paint for you a couple of scenarios, because you've indicated that you don't like that either. I'd like to just describe a couple of scenarios and get your comments.

Mrs Marland: You're criticizing the judiciary as well, are you?

Mr Tilson: My question is --

The Chair: You don't have time for your question, Mr Tilson; I'm sorry. You've made your statement, in any event.

Mr Ramsay: It's very enlightening, though, to all of us in the room.

Mr Tilson: It may well be that staff may be able to provide some details, but there are obviously situations where it may be impractical to collect. This isn't something new. As I think the Attorney General has pointed out, from September 1973 to September 1974 there were 835 orders cancelled.

Mrs Boyd: September 1993?

Mr Tilson: Sorry. September 1993 to September 1994, there were 835 cases held off. From September 1994 to September 1995, there were 1,300 cases. From September 1995 to September 1996, there were 1,743 cases. So this isn't something new. There are obviously cases where someone may be in jail. An individual may be in jail and it may be simply foolish to spend great resources trying to collect if there's no income coming in and the person is in jail. The staff may have some other comparisons, but those are some that I could draw to your attention.

1910

Mr Goodman: What's it's geared towards are those cases where all steps have been taken to do enforcement, where nothing has been effective, where all the steps have been gone through. In those cases there's just nothing further that can be done unless something new comes up down the road. That's what it's geared to get towards, those types of cases. It's hoped with the new enforcement that there will be less of those, but that's the type of situation we're looking at.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming and presenting. I know you've gone very good work with some of the folks in my part of the world who have needed some support, so thank you for that too.

Mr Tilson: No action taken.

Mrs Boyd: But they're still there in the plan. I think that's what you're suggesting, that they be there so they can be tickled, hopefully, by this wonderful new system that's going to be there that supposedly reaches into all these various data banks and, if the person begins to appear in terms of the income tax rolls or in terms of paying UI or something, it will alert the plan to put them back on. Is that what you were envisioning?

Ms Poulin: That's what I'm envisioning, but my understanding from the questions I've been asking is that it's going to be up to the recipient to initiate those things, and I don't think that's fair. I live in Ottawa; my ex lives in Burlington. How am I going to know if he starts working? From my understanding, the onus is going to be on the recipient to provide new information. Where does that leave the kids? I don't think that's right.

Mrs Boyd: And in many cases they don't want any contact; they don't really want to know.

Ms Poulin: That's right.

Mrs Boyd: They would rather the plan took care of that and then there would be no contact at all.

Ms Poulin: Perhaps there could be a system where every two months or whatever they could look at, like you're saying, whether he's paid taxes or look at his SIN number. I don't know the answer to it, but there's got to be a way to not just set aside those cases and not look at them again unless new information is brought forward by the recipient, because she may not have the ability to get that new information. In fact, she often doesn't.

Mrs Boyd: On the opting-out issue, I share your concern about the coercion. The minister seems to think this notion that a judge can make a determination that it not be registered -- that really doesn't answer the coercion afterwards, does it, or any of those issues?

Ms Poulin: No, not at all. I think in lots of cases there's so much negotiating that goes on, and unless you've been through it you don't know the tension that exists and the back and forth, the things that go on. It's just incredible. Why put another tool there to be used against one party or the other? Why open that door?

The Chair: Ms Poulin, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

Debbie Schiarriza

The Chair: Our next presenter is Debbie Schiarriza. Welcome. I hope I came close, Mr Guzzo.

Mr Guzzo: You're improving.

The Chair: I doubt that.

Ms Debbie Schiarriza: It was close. Thank you. My name is Debbie Schiarriza and I am a member of FAD, Families Against Deadbeats. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of Bill 82 and show my total support for this bill.

The Chair: Could I just ask a clarification? When did you get your order? You said he went into arrears in June 1995.

Ms Schiarriza: My first court order was in December 1990.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll proceed with Mr Ramsay first.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Debbie, for your presentation and coming out this evening.

Ms Schiarriza: That's right.

Mr Ramsay: But it's a problem in many cases of people dodging around so quickly that it may be you never can keep up with them and find out what the information is so that you can report it to the authorities. This is frustrating for me because I'm not sure, again, how we can do that. The only resources, I would take it, that the plan's going to have in the future would not be sort of investigative at that level. It's going to be still up to you to supply the information. So it frustrates me because I still think some deadbeat dads are going to get away from their obligations. I don't know what the answer totally is, but we're going to keep trying.

Ms Schiarriza: Thank you.

1920

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. Your first court order was in 1990, but that was not enforced, I think you said, while you went through the divorce proceedings. Is that what you were saying?

Ms Schiarriza: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: So it was only in 1993 that you finally got an order that then was enforced.

Ms Schiarriza: It was only because our divorce went through.

Mrs Boyd: Right. Then, once the divorce was through and you got that order, it was enforced until he moved and you lost track of him.

Ms Schiarriza: Because they changed the plan and started garnishing his wages. He had bought out my interest in the house. I received a lump sum payment of the back arrears, but only because I agreed to sell him the house. Then they started garnishing wages. Had they not garnished wages, I would have nothing.

Mrs Boyd: You would never have had anything.

Ms Schiarriza: Never.

Mrs Boyd: That's why think it's so important for that support deduction order to accompany any court order for payment.

Ms Schiarriza: I totally agree, but you can't leave it up to them. You can't rely on them to give their information. I believe he's still working for the same employer.

Mrs Boyd: Really? I think there are penalties under the act, if that's the case.

Ms Schiarriza: But how do you prove it?

Mrs Boyd: The issue now in this act, the good news, and I think it's what Mr Ramsay was referring to, is that envisioned in this act are agreements between the provincial and federal governments that would allow access to each other's data banks. That's only possible because the federal government has passed a law allowing that as well. Previously you couldn't get access to the major source of information, which was the income tax, the statutory deduction kinds of plans.

Ms Schiarriza: I know quite a few people who have divorced and settled and payment is made via cheque every month. They have absolutely no problem. The kids mean everything to them. The father or mother, the payor, is paying on time, up front, always, and I think you should have that option to opt out if you can be trusted. But you should also have the option to go back into it. There are some people out in this world who love their kids and whom you can trust and there are many you can't. I do think that you have that option.

Mrs Boyd: What about the closure of files? There's a whole list of reasons why a file might be closed. You haven't been in the situation of arrears as long as many other people in your group.

Ms Schiarriza: No.

Mrs Boyd: But it's a real concern to us that long-accumulated arrears might be a reason to close a file.

Ms Schiarriza: I don't think it should ever be closed.

Mrs Boyd: So you would agree with the previous speaker who felt it should stay there.

Ms Schiarriza: It should stay there. It's not maybe going to be their top priority because there's been no action on it, and there are definitely cases that are a year or two years into it and there are little links, so you may be able to find somebody a lot faster. But you have people who have been around 10, 15, 20 years, and chances are, for different reasons, that they're not going to be found right away, and without any measures they're going to keep hiding. But I don't think it should be closed totally.

Mrs Boyd: One thing that's really interesting is that the government is trying to find a balance between spending all its resources in trying to track someone who isn't ever going to be found but also trying to ensure there's no incentive for people to disappear, that there's no incentive to make it as difficult as possible, and that's the balance I think most of us are trying to reach. We don't think the bill, as it stands, has that balance. We think there may be an encouragement to go on welfare or flee the jurisdiction. When we're doing our amendments we'll try to make sure that doesn't become an incentive for people to get lost.

Ms Schiarriza: How many of us could just pick up and move away to flee something? It's hard to flee. You've got another type of life set up for yourself. It may be away from your first wife and your first family, but it's awfully hard to just pick up and say: "Okay, they're going to come after me. I'm going to change my whole life again." I don't think that many are going to flee. If they're going to go on welfare, they're going to go under at some time, I believe.

Mrs Boyd: In fact many flee the jurisdiction.

Mrs Marland: I didn't sit in these hearings yesterday. Hearing these presentations today is the first time for me. One thing I must express, and I compliment you too in terms of your presentation, the very fact that so many of you are able to be here, that you have the courage to express to us your concerns and particularly what your experience has been, is that I am in awe of your courage and determination to try to make something right and help us make legislation that would be equitable and could do the best job that government can possibly do. There are always going to be the exceptions, that we can never reach deep enough into a black hole to pull them out. I would like to emphasize that I'm not talking about gender. Whether it's a man or woman of the type we're talking about today, as far as I'm concerned, they must be the kinds of individuals who live at the bottom of black holes with all that involves.

Ms Schiarriza: To begin the process --

Mrs Marland: Maybe they have been able to get a court order and maybe, through interpreters, they understand what the court order means and what they're entitled to. But after that there's no fight on their part when the court order isn't fulfilled. What do you think we can do to help those kinds of mothers or fathers?

Ms Schiarriza: It's hard to say. When I got my first court order in December 1990 I had gone back to work. I had stayed home with our kids for seven years and I had a job for $6 an hour and a mortgage to pay and no money coming in and I thought: "Wow, this judge awarded me child support. Life is going to be fine." Three years later we were still receiving no child support, and another court order. You find the drive in you somewhere. People don't, but you have to keep fighting.

1930

Mrs Marland: Thank you for that suggestion.

Ms Schiarriza: Thank you.

Karen Birnstingl; Tanya Callari

The Chair: Our next presenters are Karen Birnstingl and Tanya Callari. Welcome. We're running a bit ahead and you're here early, so that works out nicely.

Ms Karen Birnstingl: Great. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for taking the time to see us today on this issue.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I understand you wanted to share some of your time with Ms Callari?

Ms Birnstingl: Yes, we are going to split our time.

Ms Tanya Callari: Hi. I'm Tanya Callari. Good evening to everyone. My situation is almost the same as hers. I've been married twice and I have three children. From the first marriage I have two children. Initially he was paying $400 a month. He had his own company, but he declared bankruptcy. We went back to court and the child support was reduced to $1 per child. He has not paid anything for the past 10 years. He completely disappeared. I was thinking that he left town, but later on I went back to legal aid to get a lawyer and I found out he's been living here in Ontario quite comfortably, earning between $45,000 and $78,000 a year. He travelled all around the world. I went back to court and unfortunately the judge didn't believe me, even though I showed him all the documentation and everything, and the child support was nullified. He had to pay neither the arrears nor the ongoing child support.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you both for coming and telling us what you've experienced. I must say, Ms Birnstingl, you're the only person I've heard from who finds things better in the last few months with family support. Do you come from Toronto?

Ms Birnstingl: No, actually from Mississauga.

Mrs Boyd: Very interesting, because it's the very first time I've heard that. We've had floods of complaints, and so it's interesting that this has worked better for you than it did before. You were with the Whitby office before, were you?

Ms Birnstingl: Yes, I was.

Mrs Boyd: In both of your cases there certainly is some hope that Bill 82 would make a difference. There's no question that in the cases that have been most difficult to deal with, this issue of self-employment or the hidden wages, the kind of lump sum payment every once in a while and so on, has been the big blocker. There's no doubt but that the bill will help.

Ms Callari: He actually didn't go on welfare. His company was never shut down.

Mrs Boyd: But he did get a variation that put it down to nothing.

Ms Callari: Yes, he did.

1940

Mrs Boyd: It's very hard, even with a bill like this, to protect against that kind of problem. I think that in the last 10 years, though, the courts have become more sophisticated in looking at the disclosure issues, so it might be less likely that this kind of thing would happen now, but it still could, and that's kind of worrying, isn't it? There need to be some changes, it seems to me, in the Family Law Act as well to prevent some of those things from happening, and I know that the ministry's done some work on some of those issues. What you can do under the family support plan is one part of it, but what happens under the family law plan and how those orders come about, and under the Divorce Act, those things also have bearing on how applicable the orders are.

Ms Birnstingl: It depends on the parties involved and whether or not they're willing and have been continuously paying up until now and there have been no recurring issues. I don't think there's a problem with that. If both parties are willing to work with each other, then I think that in the long run it may let FRO work on the cases that need more concentration, the ones that are defaulting.

Ms Callari: Myself, I think that with my two cases, if nobody enforces, they won't pay. There's no question about it.

Mrs Boyd: So you'd rather see it kept in enforcement?

Ms Callari: Yes.

Mrs Boyd: I'm interested that you're calling the office the FRO.

Ms Birnstingl: Just from what I've seen on the letter that I received from the Legislative Assembly today, it's the Family Responsibility Office. Is that not appropriate?

Mrs Boyd: It is being created under the bill, but it has been the FSP office. I was just interested that you had caught on to that new jargon so quickly.

Ms Birnstingl: I wasn't sure if it was actually still FSP or FRO.

Mr Tilson: Thank you very much. As you know, if an individual declares bankruptcy, the arrears survive the bankruptcy, so that if your husband has been declared and deemed a bankrupt in the past, those arrears still remain outstanding. That's not this legislation; that's been in force for some time.

Ms Callari: I believe they would start to pay, absolutely, because with my second husband, who wasn't paying, at first he was working and he wasn't telling me where he was working. Once I found out, I reported that to the family support plan and he started paying, and there was no problem. With my second husband, when I took him to court, he was almost negotiating to start to pay me, but for some reason the judge ruled no arrears for him, not even ongoing child support. I don't understand how that can happen when I supplied all the information. To me, if no enforcement is done, they never pay anything, so if we leave it like this, they'll never pay at all.

Mr Tilson: The other issue is that different groups have talked about education and how we're going to make the public more aware of the fact that these individuals have a responsibility to honour court orders or just their commitments. The comparison has been made by a couple of members in the Legislature, one of whom is even in the room at this time, with respect to the awareness of drinking and driving and how, through different pieces of legislation that have occurred over a period of time, whether it be the suspension of licences or the new legislation that the Minister of Transportation has brought forward with respect to the immediate suspension of licences for 90 days, those sorts of things are making people who drink and drive a little more aware. I guess the question that remains is that if you get tough enough in these sorts of situations, and more men are -- it's slipping out, but it's generally men -- being caught under these things, the public will become more aware, particularly the payors, of their responsibilities. Do you have any thoughts on that, just the general topic of education?

Ms Birnstingl: I totally agree with you. Like you said, some of these individuals fall into the category where they feel they're above the law in some cases and can get away with almost everything. When it comes down to it, if you're taking away things from them that really do matter the most and are things that they enjoy out of life, then it's going to make them realize that society doesn't accept it, that this doesn't fall within our societal norms. It's only through the education that it's probably going to be possible.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation tonight. Consistently through these hearings we've heard complaints from women that most of the time it's impossible to find out where the ex-partner works. I wanted to direct a question to staff, to ask them -- I thought I saw something somewhere and I can't find it now -- are we working on arrangements with Revenue Canada to track down where people work through the Revenue Canada database? Is that going to be possible?

Mr Goodman: We currently have the authority, under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, to obtain from the federal government information on its records about a payor's address or his employer. The federal government has introduced amendments to the legislation to open up access to certain parts of Revenue Canada data banks. Of course, we would like to see more access and more information available to us, but there is movement that should take place, hopefully at May 1, to allow some additional information.

Mr Ramsay: Could you highlight for us what you have access to today and what you will have after May 1?

Mr Goodman: We currently have access to health and welfare records.

Mrs Marland: Income?

Mr Goodman: Not to income. We have no access to any income information whatsoever. Although we have access under our provincial legislation to demand rights for financial information, that is not binding on the federal government. There would have to be amendments to the federal government legislation to allow us to obtain financial information from them.

Mr Ramsay: This is something we've had a bit of frustration with, that in order to really try to make some movement in this area, we would need the cooperation of the federal government. We've had some initial discussions here. I proposed that after we've completed our clause-by-clause to get this bill on its way, maybe the committee could look at some request to the federal government to try to encourage them to move more quickly on some of the areas it has the jurisdiction of, for instance, RRSPs, Revenue Canada information, things like this that might even make it easier to try to track these people down. We're going to continue to work on this.

Ms Birnstingl: I guess one point I'd like to make to that is that from my situation my ex hasn't filed an income tax return in 10 years. He's basically running on a cash basis. That's another obstacle, but I think there are ways and means of working around that.

Mr Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you for your attendance here today.

1950

Michelle Unger

The Chair: We'll proceed to Michelle Unger. Welcome, Ms Unger. Please begin.

Ms Michelle Unger: I'm here today from Trenton, Ontario. Not only am I representing myself, I'm also here as a co-founder of a chapter of Parents and Children in Crisis. We've only been together for a week and a half and we already have 33 members. We believe there are some good parts of the bill, such as the licence-passport suspensions, credit reporting and access to data banks and joint accounts. However, there are many things that disturb us greatly as these things will have a great impact on our children's future.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Unger. You didn't mention, is your husband self-employed?

Ms Unger: Yes, he is. His company's incorporated.

Mr Tilson: Thank you for coming and providing us with your comments. I'd like you to comment on whether you think the enforcement provisions are suitable to your particular case. In other words, you've indicated that the program to date hasn't worked, and it clearly hasn't worked for -- well, one of the things they're doing is expanding the definition of "income source" so that commissions, lump sum payments, vacation pay, those sorts of things, you could have access to them. The driver's licences, which you have referred to --

Ms Unger: I don't feel it will help in my case. It may help some people, but it won't help in my case.

Mr Tilson: Why won't it? You mean none of the enforcement provisions that are being put forward in the bill will help in your particular case?

Ms Unger: I believe not.

Mr Tilson: Why is that?

Ms Unger: His brother had lost his licence due to drunk driving. He thought it was just hilarious that he drove for a year all over the place and never got caught.

Mr Tilson: Does he own anything? Does your husband own anything?

Ms Unger: He lives at home with his parents. He employs all of his relatives and his neighbours and the neighbour's dog to work for him, and he keeps claiming he has no money. But I've taken business courses and I know it's not hard to hide money. His business has been there for five years now and he has three offices. He bragged this past summer to me that he got a $3-million contract.

Mr Tilson: One of the provisions, as you may or may not be aware, is the ability to seize assets that are being held by third parties.

Ms Unger: Yes, that part we do agree with. That may help me, but I'm just wondering, how long is this going to take?

Mr Tilson: Clearly, you're like one of the early deputants who talked about how the payors across this province -- not all; we don't want to describe them all as like that, but a number of payors -- are literally laughing at the whole process, that if you're working for an employer with a regular amount of payment, you simply can't have access to other funds. The self-employed person, for example, the person who through various devious methods of having resources, whether it be a car or whether it be a condo or whether it be a building or simply funds being held in trust or just being held by other people, this plan will provide the tools to the plan to seize those assets.

Ms Unger: I have written the family support plan in the past to advise them of RRSP and bank accounts that he does have in his name. When I had finally gotten through on the phone to confirm they had this information, I was told they could not confirm that information. I wasn't asking for the information; I already knew it. I just wanted to confirm they had it, and they couldn't even give me those details.

Mr Tilson: The difficulty is up until this bill --

Ms Unger: I have a writ of seizure and sale and nothing has ever been seized.

Mr Tilson: The point I'm trying to make is that up until the introduction of this bill, the plan did not have the enforcement tools to do those things, particularly with the items that I've referred to. I guess I'm asking whether or not you feel we'll be able to get to those assets in your particular case.

Ms Unger: I would like to believe that possibly that would work.

Mr Tilson: I would too.

Mrs Marland: I just very quickly wanted to say something to you about this driving under suspension, because it was my private member's bill that dealt with that aspect in terms of drunk driving.

Ms Unger: I'll never give up on this case, never.

Mrs Marland: No, but don't. That tool in this bill I think is going to be a very useful tool. If you're talking to people, if we have Operation Lookout, it just takes a phone call to the police, and you don't have to identify yourself.

Mr Ramsay: Michelle, thank you very much for coming out and sharing with us your particular circumstances. All these cases seem to be slightly different, and of course we're trying to develop some legislation here that would try to be effective in the vast majority of cases. I'm interested about your husband's business when you say he employs all the neighbours, and even the neighbour's dog you said. Is the problem of getting the assets of this business that it's an underground type of business and it's a cash only, because it's run out of a house? Is that the problem?

Ms Unger: Oh, no, it's not run out of a house. It's an actual legal business. When we have gone to court before over arrears, and they have said, "Where's your financial statement?" he'll have a bunch of numbers scribbled on a piece of paper. Anyone can falsify a financial statement. It's not hard to do. He just keeps saying he has no money, he has no money, but after five years his business is growing, it's expanding. He has a nice car and goes on vacations and lives at home with his parents. That's sort of his way of saying to me: "You see, I have no money. I have to live with my parents."

2000

Mr Ramsay: He's operating his business maybe in a way that he reinvests in his business so there's no cash to make a grab, and maybe he can always show he's running at a loss because everything's going out in payroll. But he must show that he's getting some sort of payroll from the business.

Ms Unger: Apparently no. He's never drawn a paycheque in five years.

Ms Martel: Thank you very much, Michelle, for driving here this evening. You've come a long way to participate in the committee and the members appreciate that you took the time to do that.

Ms Unger: Right now, a lot of people are scared with the restructuring that's going on. A lot of their spouses, being male or female, have said, "I'll pay you directly and we won't even have to worry about this." A lot of them are for that, only because they're in a bind right now and they need the money, they want the money. But I feel if they opt out, they're going to have a hard time getting back in. Cases are going to be lost. If there are user fees attached to this, they're not going to be able to afford them because they're going to be in arrears to start with.

Ms Martel: You talked about user fees. The Attorney General said yesterday he didn't believe that if you opted out and then came back in for the first time, there would be a fee for that, but if you were repeatedly moving in and out of the plan, there would be a charge. Setting that aside, there are some other areas in the bill that are not quite clearly identified yet but there are indications that user fees will be charged for administrative items. I'm assuming that's for photocopying of documents etc. I wonder if you can comment on the fact that clients of the plan will be charged any kind of fee, period, when the money we're talking about is court-ordered payments.

Ms Unger: It's taking money away from our children. If there's any type of user fee, that's taking money away from the children. It's taking food off their plates, basically. Myself, I have my file right here. I probably have four pieces of information that the family support plan has ever sent me after all my phone calls and letter writing. I just don't get a response.

Ms Martel: Finally, just let me ask you a question about the discretion of the director, because one of the concerns we raised repeatedly during the debate was our concern with the director having some discretion, some authority to close a file. We strongly believe there are cases where if someone comes back to the province after an extended period of time, finally enforcement action can be taken. New information comes: He goes to work when he's been on assistance, and actually goes to work. Those things should always lead to a reactivating of the file. But we are concerned about some of the criteria that the government has in the bill which I hope will be changed which say, for example, that a director can close a file if the amount of the support is nominal; if the meaning of the order is unclear; if arrears are of long standing that are owed under the order.

Ms Unger: That's what I'm scared about, because it's 41 1/2 months, $20,750. I'm scared that I'll wake up some time in January after the bill passes and I'll have nothing.

Ms Martel: So in your view, we'd be best either to delete this section or look at very specific cases where there might not be action taken. That has yet to be defined by the committee, but the director should not have that kind of discretion; the file should be always --

Ms Unger: The file should always be there. Everyone should always have some type of protection on their cases, regardless of whether someone moves out of province and moves back in or it's a long-standing amount, because no one can predict the future, no one knows what's going to happen with these cases down the road. Someone might be on welfare so a case is put on hold, but they could buy a 649 ticket and be $10 million richer and have the money for their arrears. So no cases should ever be thrown out or put on hold.

The Chair: Ms Unger, thank you again for your presentation.

Mr Klees: Mr Chairman, if I might for clarification purposes, this last witness raised a very important question that I'm sure is on the minds of the public, and that is that she has $20,000 in arrears. Her concern is that this bill, if passed, would potentially mean that she loses any claim to that $20,000. I'd like the parliamentary assistant to clarify for the record whether that's the case.

Mr Tilson: Mr Klees, the order is continuous. The order never stops. The arrears continue. This bill isn't going to stop the clock ticking with the order. The order will continue. We're not writing anything off. There was a comment I made to one of the opposition members and I repeat it: Even if we wanted to, which we don't, if the amount of money is pursuant to a court order, the only person who could change that is the court, not the government. That amount remains.

Mr Klees: I felt it was important for that to be clarified.

Mr Ramsay: Michelle, I'm going to move an amendment on Monday to delete that part of the bill, okay?

Ms Unger: Please.

Jeannette Paquette; Brenda Irving

The Chair: We have the next presenters, Jeannette Paquette and Brenda Irving. Welcome. You both have 20 minutes in total, including all questions. Please proceed.

Ms Jeannette Paquette: Thank you for this opportunity to be here today. I'm a single mother of three wonderful little girls. I live in Nepean, Ontario, and I commenced working with the plan in January 1996.

2010

The Chair: Ms Irving, do you wish to add something to the presentation before we request questions?

Ms Brenda Irving: I have a few things to ask. I've been on my own for 12 years with my son. I've been fighting with the Attorney General's office since it opened. Last year I went down on December 4 and I asked them, "How many people do you have working in your office here in Ottawa?" They said 60. I said, "How many law enforcement officers do you have?" They said six. I said, "How many files does each individual law enforcement officer have?" They said anywhere from 1,200 to 1,400 files. Why did they have to close the office here in Ottawa?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Irving. We have about three minutes per caucus, and we'll start off with Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: I thank both of you for coming from Ottawa today to make this presentation to the committee. I know you did that on short notice when we could guarantee that you would be helped in order to do that yesterday, so we appreciate that you took the time to come and make a presentation.

Ms Irving: But you have cheques lying there, waiting. They're lost. Before you get any money you have to wait three months three quarters of the time. So you're getting interest on that money. Where is that interest going? It's not going towards our kids.

Ms Martel: You don't have to tell me about the family support plan office. I saw it. I saw Downsview. I know what the problem is and know the problems that have been caused by the shutdown.

Ms Irving: No. I don't think he should have the right.

2020

Ms Paquette: I don't think under any circumstance a file should be closed. Again, I think we've heard people talking about keeping them suspended, and I think that's a good idea. We've heard about incarceration, you know, people winning lotteries. There are many different examples that were presented here today that could reopen a file, if that's what we want to call it. I don't think anyone should have that sort of authority to deem something closed forever and put it aside. It's a court order. Again, I just don't see how the government -- in fact it cannot dismiss a court order. I have to say no, under no circumstances do I see that being acceptable.

Ms Martel: Do you think that user fees should be applied under any circumstance, whether or not there's opting in and opting out of the plan or for you or the payor or other people to have the ability to get documents photocopied? Should we be asking people to pay a user fee for documents that are in essence theirs?

Ms Paquette: No, I don't believe we should, especially when user fees -- again, that's very ambiguous in the bill. There's no statement as to what these user fees will be, whether it will be $25 a month, $50 a month, how much we're going to be charged for these things. No, under no circumstances, again, should I conclude that anyone in the private sector should be making money from us when these moneys are entitled to us, we have court orders.

Ms Martel: That would be one of the things that we would be worried about, because certainly if you look at the business plan that we reviewed, it very clearly shows that there will be a move to privatize the whole plan two or three years down the road. I think that's generally where the government is heading. I too am very concerned that the private sector will be able to charge fees to people whose money it is, whose court-ordered support payments it is.

Ms Paquette: I believe that you should automatically be put into the family support plan, but I also believe that there should be an option. I believe the percentages are very low, maybe 1% or 2%, of the people who are actually in the plan who have a working, healthy relationship with their ex partner, and perhaps for them that can work.

Mrs Marland: Ms Irving, you said that you have been having -- I think your words were, "I've been fighting the Attorney General for 12 years."

Ms Irving: No. What I'm saying is, basically since the Attorney General's office opened, "We don't know where he is, we don't know this, we don't know that." I do all the legwork for them, and I'm still not getting the money. Then I have to call and call. I got to the point where I had to call Richard Patten's office.

Mr Patten: Imagine that.

Mr Guzzo: If you lived in Ottawa West, it would have been solved.

Mrs Marland: Am I correct that you said you'd been fighting for 12 years?

Ms Irving: First of all, when I started -- I don't think the Attorney General's office has been around for 12 years, right?

Interjection: It's been around going on for a hundred years.

Ms Irving: When I first started, I had to go to --

Mrs Boyd: She means the family support office.

Mrs Marland: You've had difficulty for 12 years.

Ms Irving: Right from the beginning.

Mrs Marland: For 12 years?

Ms Irving: Yes.

Mr Tilson: You mean the family support plan, that's what you mean.

Ms Irving: That's right.

Mr Tilson: Okay, not the Attorney General's office.

Ms Irving: Pardon me?

Mr Tilson: I'm just trying to determine who you're talking about.

Ms Irving: I'm sorry, I do apologize.

Mrs Marland: It's that mindless bureaucracy of government that you've had to deal with for 12 years, I suggest.

Ms Irving: The first courthouse I worked with, off Bronson Avenue across from Carleton University, I went after $5,000 then on my own. Then he goes back to the court and he cries, you know?

Mrs Marland: The point I'm leading to is, could you tell us what the problems are that have been the same for 12 years that we can now address with this bill as it is or with this bill with some changes, because the process of public hearings is to make changes and improvements, if we can, as a result of listening to you.

Ms Irving: Your investigators are not doing their job. I have to call the Attorney General's office. I do the legwork for them when they're being paid to do the investigation.

Mrs Marland: They're not doing the job in what way?

Ms Irving: They're not doing the legwork properly, finding out where he's working, this, this, this and that. I don't even get a GST cheque and I should be, for years now. It must be over three years. Why? Why is it not on the computer?

Mrs Marland: Is there anything else in your 12 years' experience that you --

Ms Irving: Yes. Last year -- I don't understand -- with the family support, I should have received his income tax. No. I went down there, and I've told them: "This is where he's working. Can you not put a halt on the computer? Please do something." Nothing done.

Mrs Marland: So you've had a problem for --

Ms Irving: From the beginning. He's been manipulating the courts and getting away with it, and getting away with it with you people also. You people are letting him do it.

Mrs Marland: So every system that you've worked under for the last 12 years hasn't brought the solution, hasn't helped you in terms of accessing what you were given in a court order.

Ms Irving: That's right. It's pretty bad too --

Mrs Marland: It's very bad.

Ms Irving: -- when the Attorney General's office -- poor Nicole, who works for Richard Patten. You know, that's pretty strange.

Mr Guzzo: We have a lot of sympathy for you. Do you mind telling us what type of work the father of the boy does?

Ms Irving: He used to work at Sears paint and wallpaper. He was a district manager for Toronto East. Then he quit that because he was making too much money. He went to a manager's job. From there, he quit that and he went to Mac's milk. From there, he quit that and did nothing. He's at Sears right now. Oh, he was in sales, excuse me. But now I think he's cleaning rugs.

Mr Patten: I thank both of you for coming to join us. Ms Paquette, I read that you've had a tough time all the way through, regardless of the structure. I read that you were talking about all of a sudden having to call the 800 number and try to get through. Have you found a difference with the centralization of the 1-800 number?

Ms Paquette: Yes, definitely. There were difficulties sometimes getting through to the regional office in Ottawa, but it certainly didn't take me three or four days, and certainly when I did get in touch with someone, they seemed to be at least knowledgeable and have some expertise as to the information of my file and updating my file and were able to make sure the cheques were distributed within a reasonable amount of time.

2030

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I don't think you should be blaming Mr Baird, because the Attorney General keeps telling us in the House, "Bring us your individual cases." I know every member who sits around this table, on this side of the House, has brought special cases to the Attorney General. I find it very difficult to believe that the Attorney General wouldn't even listen to one of his own colleagues. Did you say that Mr Baird has simply given up?

Ms Paquette: I don't believe that he has given up. I think, as you have stated -- and perhaps that was a little harsh. I'm frustrated, he's frustrated, and I think he's limited, just like everyone else. But I am really appalled to think that as MPPs you're not getting a response whatsoever. It's very difficult for us, but as members of Parliament I would expect that you would have some sort of contact with the Attorney General and that he would take accountability and responsibility for what's going on. I feel very angry right now, as you can see, I'm feeling the adrenaline pumping right now, because I cannot believe the way things are running right now. It's just appalling to me.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, we feel the same way you do. We're trying to get this bill amended so that it would relieve your pain, but at the same time we feel frustrated for the simple reason that we're not getting the answers in the House and we're getting no action whenever we phone the family support plan people. It's very frustrating. I'm glad that you made the trip from Ottawa and told us exactly how you feel about this plan.

Ms Paquette: One of the other things I ended up doing was speaking with a regional councillor, because I felt, again, that I wasn't getting any response whatsoever. I went to David Pratt, who is Ottawa South's regional councillor, and he put forward a motion to the government telling them of the crisis that we're in. I just think, again, it's appalling that we have to go through these measures to get any kind of a response, and still I really don't feel that had any input or bearing. I think it's moral support.

The Chair: Our time has elapsed. Ms Irving and Ms Paquette, thank you very much for attending here today.

Kids Need Both Parents

The Chair: Our next and last presentation will be by Kids Need Both Parents, Bill Flores, president. Is Mr Flores present? Welcome, sir.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, just before Mr Flores starts, I think it's important to advise him -- I'll wait until he sits down.

The Chair: Please proceed, Mrs Marland, because we stop at 9 o'clock sharp, and we're eating into Mr Flores's time.

Mrs Marland: For the record, I'm looking at a press release which was issued under yesterday's date which was faxed to my office today, and on this press release it mentions that there will be a demonstration on the front steps of Queen's Park tomorrow by the group that Mr Flores represents. In this press release, it also says that this committee has not allowed them to participate in the public hearings process, and yet he is here, booked tonight. This fax, this press release, was sent to me at 2:19 this afternoon. I understand that he was booked this morning to appear before the committee. The other thing that's important, Mr Chair, is that --

The Chair: What's important, Mrs Marland, is that we are now using Mr Flores's time.

Mrs Marland: No.

The Chair: We're going to stop at 9 o'clock.

Mrs Marland: No, I'm sorry, I'm going to raise this on a point of order if you don't let me finish it.

The Chair: I've heard your point of order.

Mrs Marland: No, I didn't raise it on a point of order to start with, but I will if you won't let me continue. In this press release, Mr Flores is referring to Doug Arnott as a government representative who rejected their application. I think it's very important for any organization or any individual to understand that Doug Arnott does not work for the government, he's not representing the government. He is an employee of the Legislative Assembly and, in his capacity as clerk, he is only representing this committee and at its direction. It's my understanding that this committee did not direct that any group or groups would be excluded from these public hearings. Maybe you would like to confirm that, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, at all times the clerk of this committee acted under my instructions. Presentations were chosen on a first-come, first-served basis after using three submission lists from each of the parties equally. It just so happens we had a cancellation. Mr Flores was next on the list and therefore became a presenter, and that's how that occurred.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for confirming that.

The Chair: That information in the press release is incorrect. In any event, Mr Flores, welcome. I'd ask you to proceed, please.

Mr Bill Flores: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I resent that a government that supports preferred-gender policies does not take care to ensure that there would be an equal representation of genders on an issue that affects both genders.

The Chair: We don't work under the quota system on this committee, Mr Flores.

Mr Flores: Well, maybe in other areas. I would like to proceed with this. I think that matter is behind us.

2040

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Flores. If you'd remain, members may have some questions. Does the Conservative caucus have any questions of Mr Flores's presentation?

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Flores. We have no questions.

Mrs Boyd: Excuse me, Mr Chair. I believe Mr Flores said that somebody else was going to join him there.

The Chair: Do you wish someone else to join you?

Mr Flores: Yes.

Reinhold Knauss

The Chair: Welcome, sir. If you take part in the conversation, just identify yourself before you speak.

Mr Reinhold Knauss: My name is Reinhold Knauss. I come from the Ontario Men's Directorate. What I would like to tell you is that fathers show their love by working long hours to provide for their children. On separation, those sacrifices are turned against them by things like the usage of the words "primary caregiver," a term that excludes working fathers, realizing that mothers can withhold access at any time, without any penalties, in violation of the court orders, yet the courts do nothing about it. Fathers are often torn between excessive child support and excessive legal fees. Fathers are presumed to have money but no feelings.

Mr Flores: I'd like to mention that the government supports to do out spousal support since the support payments aren't geared to income. That is spousal support; in many cases second spousal support.

Gene Colosimo

Mr Gene Colosimo: My name is Gene Colosimo. I'm a deadbeat dad, so I would think you'd like to hear from me and know what it takes to get me to comply.

The Chair: Excuse me, sir. You have one minute. I'm sorry.

Mr Colosimo: Very quickly:

Interjection: Any questions?

The Chair: No. I'm sorry. The order of the House only permits us to sit until 9, which we have done. I thank you very much, Mr Flores, for your presentation here this evening.