L227b - Wed 10 Sep 1997 / Mer 10 Sep 1997
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS
Mr Flaherty, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 128, An Act to amend the Family Law Act to provide for child support guidelines and to promote uniformity between orders for the support of children under the Divorce Act (Canada) and orders for the support of children under the Family Law Act / Projet de loi 128, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le droit de la famille pour prévoir des lignes directrices sur les aliments pour les enfants et pour promouvoir l'harmonisation entre les ordonnances alimentaires au profit des enfants rendues en vertu de la Loi sur le divorce (Canada) et celles rendues en vertu de la Loi sur le droit de la famille.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Madam Speaker, I'll divide my time with the member for Ottawa-Rideau.
I am pleased to move second reading of the Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act. As the title clearly indicates, this bill is intended to provide a consistent approach to calculating child support under federal and provincial legislation.
As you are aware, jurisdiction over family matters is split between the federal and provincial governments. Federal law applies to child support ordered in cases of divorce while Ontario's Family Law Act applies to child support ordered in all other cases, for example, separations.
We are asking the Legislature to take action to bring the Ontario Family Law Act into line with the federal government's child support guidelines which took effect May 1, 1997. Prior to May 1, all child support orders were determined case by case. Under the guidelines, judges and parents will now calculate the amount of child support in divorce cases by referring to a support table or grid. This support table sets out the amount of child support based on the payor's income and the number of children entitled to support. At the same time, the guidelines will allow for some flexibility to pay more or less than the support table amount in certain circumstances.
Since May 1, 1997, there have been over 1,400 applications to vary Divorce Act child support orders under the new child support guidelines. Over 40% of all child support orders in Canada are made in Ontario. If we in Ontario did not amend our Family Law Act, we would have two sets of laws: one for parents who proceed under federal law and another for those who proceed under provincial law.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You want that for gun control. What is different here?
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.
Mr Flaherty: The result would be confusion and inequity for both the parents and their children.
The Ontario government is acting on the advice of legal experts and community organizations who stressed the importance of a consistent approach to calculating child support that treats all Ontario families the same. These amendments create the authority to incorporate the federal guidelines and a table of awards into Ontario's Family Law Act for the purpose of determining the amount of child support for provincial cases.
Guidelines are used in many parts of the world. They provide an opportunity for Ontario to move to an approach that will make it faster, easier and less expensive to determine the level of child support.
The Ministry of the Attorney General has already put into place the most comprehensive implementation plan of any province in Canada to inform Ontario's families about the guidelines. The ministry's services include, first of all, a toll-free public inquiry line, which has already received over 9,000 calls since May 1, 1997; second, trained staff in every family court to provide information; third, approximately 58,000 consumer information kits have been distributed to the public and are available through the court offices in Ontario; and last, public information sessions on the guidelines in conjunction with local lawyers. Pilot sessions began in June and a full series of sessions will be held in 43 communities across Ontario starting October 22, 1997.
In the interests of children in Ontario, I urge all members to join with me in expediting passage of this bill to provide for a consistent approach to calculating child support in Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise in support of the Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act. We're asking in this bill that the Legislature act now, and act quickly, to bring the Family Law Act of Ontario into line with the federal government's support guidelines which have been in effect since May 1 of this year. In doing so, the same approach to calculating child support will now apply to all Ontario families. The guidelines will apply regardless of whether a support order falls under the jurisdiction of the federal Divorce Act or under Ontario's Family Law Act, which covers child support orders in all other cases, for example, separations. It will apply whether that order is made by a justice of the General Division or a judge of the provincial court here in Ontario.
In harmonizing the guidelines, our government is acting on the advice of legal experts and community organizations. These experts have stressed the importance of providing Ontarians with a consistent approach to calculating child support, an approach that treats all families the same; not necessarily fairly, but equally. The guidelines will replace the current practice of determining child support case by case. The method of calculation now under the guidelines is based solely on the ability of the non-custodial parent to pay and has no reference to the economic condition of the custodial parent.
These current practices provide an opportunity for Ontario to move to an approach that will definitely make it easier, faster and less expensive for the parents to determine the level of child support required in each circumstance.
It's interesting to note that the same approach has proven effective in many parts of the world, in fact in every state in the United States and other countries such as Britain and Australia. At the same time, most Canadian provinces have either moved or are moving at this time to introduce legislation to bring in these guidelines. As the parliamentary assistant to the minister has indicated, the Ministry of the Attorney General is ready to implement the guidelines. We have already put in place the comprehensive implementation plan, as comprehensive as any other province's, to inform Ontario's families about the guidelines.
1840
Our services include, as was mentioned, a toll-free public inquiry line, but most important, knowledgeable staff in every court to provide the information required to the people who are the clients of that court, be it the provincial court or the General Division; information kits for parents to help them understand the guidelines and the process and public information sessions conducted by local lawyers in 43 communities. These public sessions will commence in the third week of October this year and the opportunity for the public and members of the bar to become acquainted with the process will be widespread.
For implementation here, the guidelines are not alleged to be perfect. But if we do not act to amend our Family Law Act at this time, we will have two sets of laws, one for parents who proceed under federal law and one for those who proceed under provincial law. It's bad enough that we're faced with a situation where we have two court systems, one for people with assets and one for people without assets. If we were to fail to amend the Family Law Act and adopt these guidelines at this time, it would result in further confusion and inequity for both children and parents.
It is in the interests of the children of Ontario that I feel compelled to support and ask members to expedite passage of this bill in order that we provide a consistent approach to calculating child support in our province. But I hasten back to the point I made with regard to the issue of two court standards and two courts with which we may find ourselves in the province if we're in a position to be dealing with a family support matter. That is a source of concern and one this government has taken some steps to rectify by expanding the Unified Family Court process.
I acknowledge that the circumstances in which we find ourselves in that regard have been alleviated to some extent but not in every corner of the province. Notwithstanding that admission, I urge you to take immediate remedial action with regard to this situation that has existed since the implementation of the guidelines by the federal government on May 1, 1997, and bring this particular situation into a uniform position regardless of the legislation under which persons finds themselves proceeding in family support action matters.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm pleased to hear the comments that have just been made. In principle this is not bad legislation. I think we'd all agree that whatever we can do to expedite the support provisions so that they're applied consistently and fairly and with some flexibility is good: recognizing that children are different from one place to another, that their economic circumstances may be different, and recognizing that therefore you have to make some adjustments with respect to support provisions. This is a piece of legislation that in its stated objective is good, I'm happy to say. Certainly on this side of the House we will do what we can to see that this bill is passed.
Let me voice one concern, though, amidst all the accolades I've heard on the side. There's one area which I'll elaborate on later but which I'd like to highlight here, that legislation is only as good as the people who are prepared to act on it. While this legislation has some noble goals and while it sets out very clearly what is expected of the government and of people who are dealing with child support issues, given some of the experiences in other areas, it's not at all clear that this legislation would be enforced. The success of this legislation depends on its enforcement.
To the extent that we don't enforce support orders, we are doing a grave injustice to children all over Ontario. That, I think, is one of the lessons for us all to take away from this discussion this evening. Enforcement is going to be the key to ensuring that we have equity for all children wherever they reside in Ontario.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I was listening to the member for Ottawa-Rideau's comments on this bill in another place over the television. I want him to know that I think it is very important that we be very clear in Ontario about what this bill can and cannot do and what it actually means. I think the member did a very good job of outlining why this bill is important and what the elements would be.
The member for Downsview pointed out that however good it is to make a synchronicity between what happens at the provincial level and at the federal level, it really depends on the enforcement and the way in which all this works through the courts.
This is an issue that goes back to the whole issue of child poverty. That was the reason why there was a good deal of agreement, even though it took a long time to work out the details, that something needed to be done about ensuring that there was some rhyme or reason to the way support payments were actually done, that we were focusing on the needs of children and on the responsibility of their parents to offer the necessary kind of support to those children in their lives.
It is extremely important, as we talk about this bill, to talk about the issues of child poverty and how this bill will or will not affect what is becoming a very serious problem in our community. I would join the member for Downsview in saying that while we are supportive of this bill, there are many connected issues that will impact on whether or not it makes a difference to child poverty.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): We are, on this side, going to support this bill, but at the same time I'd like to state that it may be a good idea if we were looking at specifically the enforcement mechanisms. Without enforcement mechanisms being in place and being acted upon, this bill will be fairly weak.
The second point I want to make is that I hope this is only a precursor to the government's ability to really do something about child poverty. When I say "precursor," I would only hope that this is one step in the right direction. Most of us would agree, because I think all of us in our constituency offices hear horror stories about support payments. We know the effects that dislocation and no support payments will be having a direct impact on child poverty.
But at the same time, while we discuss this issue, I would expect that there is a second step to be taken seriously, and that is to look at all aspects of child poverty. I think we haven't done that yet. I know it is in the power of this government to act. While all of us would agree that Bill 128 is a step in the right direction, there is much more that needs to be done.
1850
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This Bill 128 makes, simply put, the provincial guidelines parallel to that of the federal guidelines. It has an enforcement aspect to it, but in the real world, if for instance the family support system cannot deliver, the train has already left the station; you've really missed a part of the implementation.
Not so long ago, the United Nations announced with great fanfare that we were the recipients of yet another laurel, whereby Canada was the best country in the world to live in. But there were some caveats. One of them was youth unemployment. The other was child poverty. Child poverty is certainly not something we wear well, in the year of our Lord 1997, in such a vast, magnificent and resourced, beyond the privileged, blessed land, and it impacts on all of us. We have an opportunity, in supporting the bill, to issue some recommendations, but more important, to highlight the plight, the high percentage, the catastrophic percentage of children who are not given the tools to integrate, to defend themselves, simply put, "to be like the others." Those will not be afforded an opportunity to look to the future with confidence unless collectively and individually we bring forth a better focus.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham Centre, would you like to wrap up?
Mr Flaherty: The Family Responsibility Office, in response to the concerns of law enforcement, is now in the process of heading more front-line client service officers and introducing advanced technology such as document scanning and imaging to enable that office to work more efficiently.
I'm sure there are concerns by parents with respect to where information can be obtained concerning the guidelines, which are of course very important in dealing with child support issues in the province. The province is already offering a number of services aimed at providing parents with the information they need to understand the guidelines, and ideally to reach agreements before they have to go to court.
Information officers are based in the busiest courts, and all courts have trained staff to provide information to help people filing variation applications. It is the goal of this legislation, guidelines for child support, to make the system easier, faster and cheaper. The guidelines replace the current practice. The current practice in calculating child support is a case-by-case system. For the vast majority of parents, the guidelines will mean they can determine the amount of child support that a judge would likely order without going to court. In most cases, this should reduce conflict and the need for delay and lengthy negotiations and court proceedings.
I thank the member for Downsview for indicating her party's support for this legislation and her desire that it be dealt with expeditiously, and also the member for London Centre for indicating the third party's support of these guidelines. The provinces of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have either passed legislation or have introduced legislation to adopt the federal guidelines or some form of them. Most of the remaining provinces and territories are also doing so.
The Acting Chair: Further debate?
Ms Castrilli: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the second reading of Bill 128, which was, as we know, introduced in this Legislature by the Attorney General and the Minister of Community and Social Services jointly on May 1, 1997.
The goals of this legislation are quite commendable. The bill should provide for consistency in child support and in child support guidelines and provide uniformity between the Divorce Act of Canada and the Family Law Act of Ontario. It should also allow for flexibility to the courts so they can determine the appropriate amounts of support that children will receive. As I stated earlier, it is important that we treat children fairly in accordance with their economic circumstances, their geographic circumstances and other circumstances that may be brought to play before the court. If the courts are to adjudicate properly they need flexibility, always remembering that what is important above all is the best interests of the child.
I say the goals are commendable because all children in this province and in Canada, I think we would agree, require our full attention as legislators. I hope we can also agree that there should be no children who are forced to go hungry, that there should be no children who are forced to suffer cold, a lack of education, a lack of clothing, and that all children in this province and in this country should be nurtured and treasured and well cared for, as they represent our future. There should be no higher priority for us as legislators than the wellbeing and the future of our children.
It's for these reasons that this is important legislation. At first blush it looks simply like an administrative piece of legislation, but the bill attempts to rectify a very serious flaw in our justice system by providing the uniformity and flexibility I talked about before. I hope we bear in mind that it is the child and the child's interests and best needs that we must be responsible for collectively.
I wish that were the end of it, but we must look at this bill in terms of the context in which it is presented, in terms of the context in which so many children live in this province and in terms of the context of the record of this government on children's issues.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Oh, come on.
Ms Castrilli: To the member opposite, I say examine your record and you will find a lack of understanding of the fact that many children are at risk. I remind you that this is not just a political opinion on this side of the House; it is a term, "children at risk," which has been used over and over again and in report after report of late by very credible agencies to indicate that we have a problem of growing proportion in this province that we must address. To ignore that reality is foolish, because in ignoring that reality we not only ignore the future of these children but we diminish the future we have as a province.
It's trite to say that children are the future, that it is they who will take us into the next generation and to the next century, but it is true. Sometimes the most trite things spell the truth. It is the children we must care for because it is the children who will inherit what we have, and what they will do with what we have is critical.
If I'm passionate about this issue, it is because there is no more important issue for us than looking after our children. It is an issue that is not being dealt with -- I say that with all sincerity -- either sufficiently or well.
I will not bore the assembly with every single piece of legislation that I believe should be mentioned here. Look at this government's record; look at the type of legislation that affects children in this province and the types of policies you have put into place since you came into power. I say you may even have done that inadvertently. I don't really want to ascribe bad faith to anyone, but look at the record. Education: You've cut billions of dollars; you've cut junior kindergarten. That will affect the quality of education of our children and the kind of competitiveness we can have in the future. Social services: Again you've cut billions of dollars.
Our leader put a question to the Premier in the House today. You may remember that our leader went to visit a woman who was on social assistance. On arriving at her apartment, they opened the cupboards, they opened the fridge, and there was no food. This is not a fairy tale or a rhyme about Mother Hubbard and her bare cupboard; this is Toronto, Ontario, 1997, ladies and gentlemen. It's a shocking disgrace that we would have people in our society, in our midst, single mothers with small children who cannot afford to feed them -- not next week, but today for dinner. It's appalling.
1900
On family support, where do we start? This is a bill about support. It's timely to talk about the kind of record this government has with respect to support. Family support: a plan in shambles. In all these cases and so many more, it is the children who suffer, children who cannot fend nor speak for themselves -- we all know that -- children who don't have powerful lobbyists arguing their case, children who don't come down here to protest. We, all of us, bear a collective responsibility for them, but it is this government and its decisions that must be reviewed. There is simply too much at stake.
I want to look for a moment at the family support plan. We've had numerous examples in this Legislature of the difficulties it has caused, the chaos it's in. You may remember that Bill 82, which made changes to the family support plan, was introduced on October 2, 1996, with great fanfare. It was going to resolve all these problems; it was going to make sure that women and children got their due. It was to make sure that money that was paid into the plan would be paid out to its proper recipients.
The object, of course, is quite simple: A parent pays into the plan; the plan pays out to the family. The results, we all know in this House, have been an unmitigated disaster. Rather than closing the regional offices and creating this chaos, the tools to pursue court orders should have been given to staff in the regional offices in the first place. This is legislation about court orders. You've taken from the communities where women and children are at risk those very tools they could have used to enforce the support that is owed to them in the first place.
Instead, this government has a disastrously poor record with the concerns of vulnerable people. In your revolutionary zeal, you have focused only on the end of reducing government, without caring or considering how to achieve those goals and who will be hurt. The track record on the family support plan by all accounts is miserable.
I just want to refer you to some of your own documents for proof of the statement I've just made, to assure you that it is not simply political rhetoric but is indeed fact. According to your ministry's estimates, the percentage of cases in arrears was 77% in 1994-95, 76% in 1995-96 and 77% in 1996-97. This wonderful system you introduced has not performed as you hoped it would.
Incredibly, this government has the audacity to claim it is making progress with the new centralized office. This government claims that it wants to run its operations like a business. Quite frankly, if this were a business, the Attorney General would be fired for gross incompetence in the FSP. Every day, the constituency offices of MPPs all across this province have been flooded with complaints from constituents, from anxious parents --
Mr Gerretsen: Including the Tory offices.
Ms Castrilli: My colleague from Kingston and The Islands says, "Including Tory offices." In fact, some of us have had to take cases that Tory backbenchers did not wish to take. Anxious parents have been calling, have been asking, have been pleading that they are in dire financial circumstances, that they need the consideration and the attention, and often that isn't given.
In fact, in many cases money that is paid in is not paid out. This isn't a question only of deadbeat dads; this is a question of money that's been legitimately paid to the plan and not paid out to women and children. Always we hear the call that no adequate consideration was given to the closing of those regional offices that dealt directly with the women.
The situation is so serious that the Ombudsman, Roberta Jamieson, issued an unprecedented section in her annual report which criticized the government's handling of the family support plan. I'm sure you will agree that Ms Jamieson is a neutral advocate of citizens in dealing with the difficulties of government. She has a great deal of credibility. She is not a political partisan. I think it is worthwhile to consider her observations about the FSP. Overall, Ms Jamieson noted that while the Ombudsman "regularly handles complains about the family support plan's operation, these calls and inquiries were increasingly characterized by high levels of desperation and personal crisis." And you say the family support plan is working.
It should first be understood that the Ombudsman began her investigation about the FSP on November 15, 1996. On her own initiative, after about three months of receiving complaints from clients of the plan, she documents that by the end of October 1996, the situation had deteriorated to the point that "the number of calls to my office regarding the transition had doubled over the previous month" -- doubled over the previous month, and she documents that the month before it was extraordinarily high, and the month before that.
You will recall that on August 15, the regional offices of the family support plan were closed. That's why the increase in calls to the Ombudsman. There was nowhere else for these women to go. One person told the Ombudsman's investigators that it was not until the afternoon of August 14 that the assistant deputy minister informed the program managers of the layoff of 85% of the personnel in the centralization plan. Imagine, the day before you close the regional offices, you told people they wouldn't have a job the next day.
The Ombudsman also found that 60% of the staff, by her own account, who received layoff notices chose to leave rather than work the six-month notice period. Those running the transition simply assumed there would be more staff willing to staff during the transition. They also simply assumed that many of the regional staff would be willing to work at the new location. Again this assumption proved wrong, and if I may say so, it proved wrong because the homework wasn't done. Had there been consultation, had there been understanding of people's needs, you might have eliminated that crash in personnel which occurred shortly after August 15.
You locked the regional offices and the only way to access the plan was through the phone line to Toronto -- a hardship for someone living in Thunder Bay, a single mother with no means of support. At one point there were only four people in that office in Toronto, responding to phone calls that came from all over the province: four people to cover all the requests from all over the province, where once there had been eight regional offices, completely staffed.
While the Attorney General apologized for the transition problems, it is important to see this as a failure of the whole government. The Ombudsman's report indicated that the decisions regarding the transition planning were made by cabinet, whose decisions, she says quite clearly, she cannot review. But it's unmistakable: The decision was a decision by cabinet and therefore the responsibility of the government. The mess in the family support plan can be traced right to Mike Harris's doorstep.
1910
In what can only be described as a pitiful attempt at a rebuttal, the Attorney General has claimed that there have always been problems with the family support plan. Even if that were the case -- and that isn't the case; I have argued in this Legislature before and documented the history of the support plan legislation -- it doesn't change the fact that you do not solve the difficulties by exacerbating them, which is exactly what this government's crash attempt at the transition did.
The Ombudsman dismissed the Attorney General's perspective and chose to focus on the transition period itself. Imagine the extent to which the Ombudsman must have been driven, to initiate her own investigation of the family support plan. Imagine the frustration she must have heard from woman after woman after woman that caused her to take this unprecedented action.
It's sometimes the case with us here at Queen's Park that by looking at the overall picture we tend to lose sight of the specific realities in individual cases. We tend to get lost in abstraction and we forget the very real difficulties that individuals face across this province. I'd like to focus on some of those.
I heard one of the members opposite say the system is now working fine. Well, the problems continue to abound. We still have complaints of computer deficiencies, bureaucratic delays, telephone calls that are not returned, 1-800 numbers that are constantly occupied, files that get lost, cheques that are not passed on and a massive caseload.
Let me share with you some of the cases, and they come from all over the province. From Kingston, for instance, my colleague from Kingston and The Islands will know, we have a number of cases. Some of them are really quite staggering. They deal with not only the issue of poverty but also the issue of enforcement, which I have touched upon before.
One of the cases is Sandra Foley, who has said we can use her name because she's so outraged at what is happening. Her husband is $4,000 in arrears and the Family Responsibility Office has lost the two court orders she got regarding this case. Here's a mother who went to court to try and get her support enforced. She goes to the Family Responsibility Office thinking they are going to enforce this and, gosh, they lose it, not once but twice. It took six months finally, after the first order was received, to implement it, and the second order, which was lost yet again, took even longer. That's unacceptable. We're talking about a woman who wasted more than a year with the Family Responsibility Office trying to get her money.
We have Eerie Jackson. In her case, the support payments are supposed to be in the amount of $650 a month. Her husband chooses to pay only $200 a month and the Family Responsibility Office has absolutely no power, no interest and has done nothing to collect the moneys owed to Mrs Jackson.
We have another individual whose husband owes over $7,000 in support. The request for the federal licence suspension which was promised by the Attorney General -- this driving licence suspension -- was met with resistance by the Family Responsibility Office because, as people told this particular individual, they don't know how to implement the new legislation.
We've made these grandiose promises of how we are going to enforce payment and we're simply not delivering. It's the women and the children who are suffering.
From Windsor, we have a woman whose husband is a successful business owner and who now owes almost $5,000 in child support. The FRO contacted the spouse in this case and managed to get one month's support and just stopped there, did not enforce the order this particular individual has.
The list goes on. From Sudbury, we have numerous cases, as we do from Kingston, Windsor, from any city and any community that you wish to indicate. We have one particular woman in Sudbury whose husband paid into the plan once, paid into the plan twice, paid into the plan numerous times, and none of that money has found its way to this particular woman's family.
This is very serious. I could go on and list name after name, individual after individual, but the reality is the same: The plan is not working. The support that women and children deserve, the support upon which courts have adjudicated, is simply not reaching those who need it. So we have situations where women come to us and say: "I can't feed my children. It's getting cold and I can't buy them a coat. We're getting close to Christmas," as in fact was the case many times in my office last year, "and we have no money for gifts for the children. We don't even have money for necessities."
And the government does nothing. In fact, it certainly has not taken steps to enforce the judgements that are outstanding once these judgements are obtained. It doesn't even enforce its own designated wishes to suspend licences. None of that has happened. The government is adding to the burden of child poverty in the province with utter disregard for the consequences.
Let's just look at the facts for a moment: 97% of parents ordered to pay child support are fathers. Of these, about 76% are in arrears. Ontario fathers owe approximately $1 billion. You would think that alone would be an incentive to the government to seek to enforce the support orders. The evidence of women all across this province is that the government is in fact doing very little with respect to enforcement. Instead, I think it's plain that the government, in an effort to find more money for its tax cut, has closed regional offices, has made services less accessible, has lost files, has lost cheques and has contributed to the delay by not sending money to children that had been paid into the plan by their parent.
While it is important that we understand that the family support plan isn't working, the key issue and the point I really want to focus on is that when child support is not paid, it is the weakest in our society, women and children, who suffer. They suffer because they can't heat their homes, they can't feed their stomachs and they can't clothe themselves. Basics that we take for granted in this Legislature are denied to so many people.
Imagine the spectre of a mother having to worry night after night what she will do with her children the next day. Imagine the woman who came to see me in my office last Friday and who said: "My husband is well-to-do. The judgement orders are not being enforced, and I will have to leave my place of residence because I can't afford the rent at the end of the month. Can you help?"
1920
The issue has become one of female and child poverty, and this government has actively contributed to that child and female poverty since it took office. I don't believe they realize that their actions and inaction are hurtful and have a rebound effect, not just economically but also psychologically. This issue demonstrates once again this government's agenda pointed against the most vulnerable. Is it any wonder that the Ombudsman decided to take such unprecedented action?
One may well ask what has been done to alleviate this crisis. The offices of MPPs right across the province continue to be overwhelmed. We continue to hear from individuals desperately seeking information on the status of their cheques and files, many of which are months in arrears due to computer problems, backlogs and reduced staffing. They are crying out for help to make ends meet on a day-to-day basis.
All the talk we've had in this Legislature about how the plan is up and running, how the plan is working, how the backlog is being diminished, how more money is going out to children and women, is negated by the overwhelming evidence we have in our offices of women and children who tell a different story. All I can say to the government is, shame on you for allowing this to happen.
In tandem with the family support plan and the chaos it has created, we need to look at the overall performance of this government with respect to children's issues, because after all, Bill 128 addresses the concerns of children. Let me be clear: This government has continuously failed children and that stands in marked contrast to the fact that my party and my leader have made children a personal priority.
At the end of 1996, for instance, the Minister of Community and Social Services called for a cut in salaries of day care workers of $4,500, people who earn only about $19,000 annually to begin with. What a misguided action that was. What lack of understanding of the fact that the people who care for children at such sensitive, early ages should be individuals who are the most qualified and get paid accordingly. They deserve better respect and better pay.
The Conservatives claim to be putting their fiscal house in order, but to do so they have cut junior kindergarten, which all studies say improves the prospects of children. There isn't a single jurisdiction, aside from Ontario, that hasn't said that putting money in early childhood education is good for the country, is good for progress and is good for prosperity. Clearly this government has lost sight, in its zeal to reduce the deficit has forgotten, that it is the means to create a better society, not the end.
A very influential group of individuals came together in November 1996 and issued a report which they styled Campaign 2000. The stated goal of this group is to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. They've documented in their report that one in three children in Metro lives on welfare. Remember the mother my leader visited who had no food in the house? That's twice the rate in 1989, in case you happen to look at the stats. We've doubled the rate of children on welfare in just seven years. We now have 70,380 children who use food banks in this city -- 70,000 children whose parents have to go to food banks. The government's slashing of welfare rates by 21.6% has just added to this difficulty and has plunged more and more children into poverty.
I want to cite some of the cuts to children's services. Again, I'm using your documents, the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, with respect to this. Community support services have been reduced 8.2% from the 1996-97 estimates. The figures are these: from $19 million to $17 million. Child and family intervention services have been reduced 2%. Regular child care has been reduced 3.2%. Child treatment services have been reduced. The list goes on and on. There is scarcely a program that hasn't been reduced.
You'll forgive us if we're a little sceptical about the intentions of this government with respect to children. Let me rephrase that: We're not sceptical, we're worried about the directions of this government with respect to children. We're terrified that you are doing irreparable damage to a whole sector of our society.
So important is the role of our young people that the Metro Task Force on Services to Young Children and Families -- that's a task force that was set up by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto because they were concerned that there were so many children going to food banks, going hungry, appealing for help. This Metro task force was set up to look into this issue. They published a very interesting report, called The First Duty, indicating that our first duty is to our children, that they are the most important thing we should have on our minds in any society. I see members opposite nodding their heads; I'm glad we have agreement.
If you read that report, it's quite shocking. It makes recommendations that are staggering, because the numbers of children that are neglected, that are ignored by the actions of this government are quite high. According to the task force, in 1996 over 89,000 children -- 36% of the population -- under age 10 in Metropolitan Toronto lived in poverty. What a horrible statistic -- 89,000 children, 36% of the population of the city.
I commend this report to you. I think it's extremely factual. They took great pains to consult widely. They spent great time in consulting experts and listening to all of the stakeholders and doing a phenomenal amount of research, all of the kinds of things that one would expect from the government before it presents its legislation and policies. It's really quite a masterful work and indicates just how serious the problem is and that we really have no time to deal with this. We have to hurry to resolve the problem.
It's for that reason that our party has created a task force on children, a task force that is now going out across the province to listen to child care experts, to listen to parents, to listen to educators, to listen to children themselves about their situation, about their circumstances, about their wishes, about their desires. The premise, of course, is that investing in children is just that: an investment, that whatever we spend on children will come back to us many-fold. We've already started to see some interesting examples.
1930
I'd like to share some of these with you because you may not have had the opportunity to follow the activities of this task force, or perhaps you have in your various communities. It's very interesting; one of the early presenters was the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. These are the front-line professionals. These are the ones who get called in the most extreme circumstances and they are the ones who provide that first initial care in the most acute situations.
I just want to read a little bit from their presentation to our task force. There's a section that talks about funding and resource pressures, because that is one of the issues that is clearly a problem. I'll just cite: "Over the past several years, CASs have been subject to significant reductions to base budgets." In 1995 there were two decreases, one of 1% and one of 1.25%. In 1996 there was a decrease of 5%.
"There has been a net loss of 545 full-time equivalent positions....
There has been a loss of 350 positions since January 1995" alone. They conclude, "There is no rational funding formula for child welfare in Ontario."
Clearly, with increasing caseloads, with more and more children on welfare, with more and more children at risk, our first duty is not being discharged. When you eliminate that many positions from the children's aid you create incredible caseloads, you create incredible pressures and you make it impossible to serve the people who are most at risk, the children who are most in need of counselling, of assistance, of foster care.
There are so many people who have come forward so far. Other child care workers have indicated that a lot of kids won't be ready to even come to school prepared because they come from broken families or are living in poverty. Already they're falling behind. And we don't have the resources in this wealthy province, we don't have the people in this well-to-do society to look after children? That's really what the story is.
There have been reports -- this is from Barrie -- before our task force that child welfare case workers are simply overwhelmed by the workload. In Simcoe county, where there used to be an absolute maximum of 21 cases per worker, they're now dealing with 28. The presenter says: "That's simply too much. It means we can't do our job. The government is taking our most vulnerable population and putting all the blame on them, but it's not their fault."
There's no question that children have to be a priority, and this is what is emerging in the task force. Every single presenter has said too much has been cut too fast and the ones who are suffering are children. It really is within this context that you have to look at Bill 128. It's really within the context of a total neglect of children's issues, of ignorance of the consequences that children are being made to suffer because of the actions or inaction of this government.
Bill 128 will amend the Family Law Act to require a court that makes or varies an order for the support of a child to do so in accordance with child support guidelines established in the Family Law Act. The provisions of the act are very straightforward. The court may order an amount different from the amount determined under the guidelines where special provisions have been made for the care of the child to the point where the guidelines would be inequitable. This is one of those things that I alluded to before. It's very good to have that kind of flexibility in a piece of legislation allowing the courts to be able to take into consideration the various circumstances.
There are a number of circumstances that are set out that require special attention in the legislation. For instance, the court may also order an amount different from that set out in the guidelines on the consent of both parents, giving credit to the fact that if parents can agree on a different amount, that should be allowed. You should not be precluded from making an agreement which is in the best interests of the child, as long as the court is satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the care and the support of the child.
The ultimate result of this legislation, as I said at the beginning, is that it should add a degree of flexibility to child support by giving discretion to the courts to act in the best interests of the child involved. Those are welcome provisions. There's no question that children all over the province will benefit from the discretion of judges applied judiciously, applied with all consideration of the circumstances for the benefit of the children.
Let me say that we in the Liberal Party are in favour of whatever efforts can be undertaken to provide for the support of children, the adequate support of children. Compatibility with the federal guidelines should assist a great deal in reducing confusion and ensuring that children get the support they deserve efficiently and effectively. Frankly, this is an area where it sets an example for cooperation among the levels of government which can only benefit the ultimate consumer or user or client in this particular case. We should have more examples of situations where provincial legislation and federal legislation help one another, streamline one another, piggyback on one another, rather than making it more confusing and more difficult, as often is the case, for individuals.
It is, however, ironic that this government is introducing this bill after adopting such a rigid approach in the transition to the family responsibility office, resulting in the needless suffering of thousands of children and needy women.
One final point needs to be made. The directions of this legislation are good. They are good for a number of reasons. They are good because we actually have a piece of legislation that is considering children and what they need. It's good because it harmonizes with existing legislation and makes it easier for women and children to receive the support they need. Finally, it's good legislation because, with any luck, it addresses the issue of child poverty in a small way.
But here's where the problem lies: The problem really is one of enforcement. The family support plan reminds us -- the reason I went through all the examples I did at the beginning -- that if there is no enforcement, not in legislation, but actual physical enforcement of the provisions of a particular piece of legislation, it will be a worthless piece of legislation, just another piece of paper.
1940
The message to the government is this: They must be prepared to ensure that support orders are paid. Streamlining is good, but it doesn't put money in the pockets of women and children. You must enforce those orders. You must ensure that the judgements obtained by women and children are respected and acted upon and that you commit enough resources to ensure there is enforcement. Women and children in this province are looking to you to ensure that. They deserve nothing less than your promise that you will enact the legislation which will be passed here.
Finally, we endorse the principles behind this legislation and we urge that its provisions be enforced by this government, but we also call upon members of this government, including the ones who nodded when I talked about the importance of children, to examine very carefully their record on children's issues. Do not minimize children because they are young and because they are silent. All of the studies I have cited here today show over and over again that we can't afford child poverty. We know for a fact that every dollar that is spent on children in the early ages will save us $7 in social services down the line. So there may even be a very good economic reason for doing this. Our success as a country depends on a healthy, active and well-cared-for youth component. We can't afford to let our young people down.
We will support your legislation, but we'll be looking very carefully to ensure that you enforce those orders and that you ensure that women and children have the means to feed and clothe themselves, and we'll be watching your record, as will women and children all across this province, on what you will do to combat the crisis in child poverty in this province.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mrs Boyd: It's a great pleasure to have an opportunity to comment on the speech from the member for Downsview, because she of course is very experienced in this area and was very clear about the importance of bringing Ontario's support guideline into concert with the new federal guidelines.
The member made very good points about the issue here being the issue of child poverty and how we can begin to deal with it when parents, for one reason or another, are not together in supporting their children. It is very important that we recognize that we are discussing this bill in connection with the very serious problem that is faced by children who not only are looking at the problem of having their parents no longer together, but may be seeing a huge change in their entire way of life when that marriage breaks down.
What the federal government was doing, in concert, I may say, with the provincial governments over a number of years, was trying to figure out a formula that would make a better consistency around how we support the costs of raising children in our various provinces. It was always anticipated that when the federal law came into place the provincial governments would bring their laws into line with that, because of course the federal Divorce Act only covers federal jurisdiction, and most separations, for at least part of the period of time, tend to occur under provincial jurisdiction. So the member is quite right that taking this step in Ontario is a good way for us in this Legislature to take some steps towards supporting children as they should be supported.
Mr Flaherty: I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Downsview, particularly about the family responsibility program, the importance of supporting children in the province financially. I couldn't agree with the honourable member more, and in 1995 our government inherited a plan that was completely broken, that was in a disastrous condition because of the conduct, the failure of the members opposite.
There it is. In 1995 the regional offices served 0.4% -- that's not 4% but 0.4% -- of FSP clients daily. Did we sweep the problem under the rug? No, we addressed it.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You destroyed it. You threw it into chaos.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma, come to order.
Mr Flaherty: At that time in 1995, before we consolidated the regional offices, there was a backlog of 90,000 pieces of correspondence that we inherited from the previous government -- unbelievable neglect in FSP offices across Ontario. I agree with the member that that sort of conduct is totally unsatisfactory when the purpose of the program is to achieve proper enforcement of support for children.
Some of the backlog went back to 1993. That is correspondence from 1993 that the previous government had not answered by the time they were thrown out of office in 1995. This is correspondence about the support of children in Ontario. I couldn't agree with the member for Downsview more that that sort of conduct is simply not acceptable when we're dealing with an issue as important as the support of children. That's why our government was obliged to undertake this major reform we have done, so this sort of 90,000 backlog will not occur again and is not occurring now.
Mr Gerretsen: I found the comments from the member for Durham Centre absolutely amazing. If the situation really was the way you said it was, why did you fire 350 people who worked for the plan? The fact is that the Attorney General here in the House made probably one of the most unusual and amazing statements I've ever heard. We all remember that day when he said that he thought they were doing quite well under the plan because they were actually returning 50% of phone calls that were made into the plan.
Now, for a party and a government that likes to pride itself on running the organization in a businesslike fashion, I will tell you, if you ran any business in this country or in this province on the basis that you would return only 50% of the phone calls that you get to that business, you wouldn't last very long. Let's stop the nonsense. If it was in such bad shape, as it were, why did you fire the 350 employees of the plan? Why did you close the regional offices? Why did you centralize the whole operation while in the meantime husbands were paying into the plan for months on end and the mothers and children who were relying on the support payments that were being paid into the plan were not receiving the money? Why did you do that?
Even if, hopefully, it is better than the way it was six to nine months ago, you by that action are hurting the people who are the most vulnerable in our society and you should have done something positive about it rather than fire the people you did, which perhaps even made a bad situation an awful lot worse. Shame on you.
1950
Mr Wildman: I came into the House to hear the comments of the member for Downsview, which I found to be a very serious analysis of the problems facing children and child poverty in this province, a discussion of the bill that was important and useful for this House. But I am most disappointed that that kind of presentation by my friend from Downsview would be denigrated and mocked by the member for Durham Centre, where he doesn't take the situation of child poverty seriously at all. Rather, he would like to make cheap political points in the House when we are dealing with a very important piece of legislation.
The fact is that we have had problems and have had considerable problems with the family support plan for some time. We all know this, but when this government came in, instead of trying to improve the situation, what did they do? The Attorney General decided to close all of the regional offices and lay off the staff. They weren't getting their calls returned, so what do you about it? You make it more difficult to get their calls returned. They weren't getting their support payments, so what do you do about it? You make it even more difficult for them to get their support payments.
You don't care about child poverty. You just think it's going to be nice to be able to say to your wealthy friends: "We laid off a lot of people. We cut the expenditures. We don't have to spend that money." If kids are suffering as a result, if fathers who want to give their support to their kids are unable to get that support to their kids, that doesn't matter. If mothers are suffering because they aren't able to support their kids, that doesn't matter, because you can say to your wealthy friends, "We laid off a lot of civil servants."
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member for Downsview, you can sum up now.
Ms Castrilli: I can't imagine there are no more comments. I'll be happy to respond.
The parliamentary assistant tried to obfuscate the issues. Just to put in context the number that my friend from Kingston and The Islands mentioned, those 300-plus employees you fired represent 85% of the personnel of the family support plan. You tell me how you thought you could have any kind of efficient service with only 15% of the employees. You tell me why the Ombudsman took the unprecedented step of having her own inquiry because she received an increase of more than 51% of calls with respect to the family support plan, plus numerous requests from MPPs because they could not get through; they couldn't do any good for the people who were coming to them.
When you talk about the family support plan, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's a colossal failure. It's only the jewel in the crown of your failure when it comes to children and children's poverty. You have no business standing in this House and defending a record that is indefensible. I wonder how you can sleep at night, quite frankly, knowing that there are people who are starving in this province, and they happen to be children and they happen to be single mothers and they happen to be people who don't have your connections. That is absolutely indefensible. Shame on you.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak tonight to Bill 128 because it is an important act. As both opposition parties have explained, we have very strong reasons for wanting to support the act in many ways, but wanting to support that within the context of the other issues that affect its enforcement.
I was quite struck that while the member for Durham Centre was raving on a few minutes ago, I came across an editorial that was written on March 8 which described what this bill was all about in terms of the Attorney General. It was entitled "Diversionary Tactic," and it reads as follows:
"Attorney General Charles Harnick should be trying to fix Ontario's family support plan instead of bashing the federal government for its new child support guidelines.
"Harnick and Interprovincial Affairs Minister Dianne Cunningham have called on the federal government to delay the May 1 launch of a new law that beefs up enforcement of child support orders and changes the way courts will calculate such awards.
"They warn that families in courts don't have enough time to figure out the new guidelines before they go into effect and that the new law will cause chaos in provincial courts.
"Funny that Ontario seems to be the only province worried about the problem. Attorneys general from all other provinces say they can meet the tight deadline.
"Could it be that [Charles] Harnick is desperately searching for something to distract from the mess he has made of Ontario's family support plan?"
It is now September 10, and just like the family support plan legislation that created the Family Responsibility Office, we find this government calling this bill now, this many months later. We waited and waited and waited in the fall for the government House leader to call the bill that put the Family Responsibility Office into place and put in tighter enforcement guidelines for Ontario to collect child support. When they finally called it, the government tried to pretend that somehow the opposition parties were delaying that bill, when in fact that wasn't at all the case. We had been willing to discuss the bill, to move it through as quickly as possible, and this bill is the same kind of story.
The reality that is faced by women and children in this province is that although the federal act changed on May 1, 1997, all of those orders that are there under provincial law will not apply until this act goes through this Legislature, the legislative process, and finally is called into action by being proclaimed.
We've already seen this huge delay. We sat all of May, we sat all of June, we sat most of August and we're now into September before this bill even gets called for second reading. Let's be very clear that the Attorney General's initial calls for delay in the implementation of this bill, as far as it pertains to orders under provincial law, he has succeeded in obtaining simply by not having this bill called, by delaying the passage of this bill, which both parties have clearly indicated we are prepared to support.
A lot of people don't understand that split jurisdiction issue, and it's important when we're talking about this bill that we really be very clear about what happens. If you have a divorce, if you are divorced under the Divorce Act of Canada, it applies where married couples are divorcing and they seek child support as part of that final divorce application.
The family law, which is the Ontario jurisdiction, applies in all other cases, and the vast majority of families that are separating go through at least a phase of that separation under the Family Law Act of Ontario. So this bill and how the guidelines apply affect the largest number of children and separated parents in the province. It is very important that the Family Law Act of Ontario be brought into some kind of alignment with the new federal law. A lot of people don't understand that at this point in time it isn't. A lot of people think, having had the publicity around the federal law changing, that it applies to everyone, and of course it doesn't.
I must say some lawyers and some judges are being very careful as they go through procedures now, knowing that this will be brought into effect and wanting not to have their clients and those appearing in front of them go through the court process for a variation afterwards, trying to follow these rules, and that is true. When we hear people say, "Well, we're doing this settlement under the new law," although it's still under the Family Law Act, it's because they have wise advisers and there are wise judges in our family courts who are looking at this law and knowing that it will, in time, be the law that will pertain.
Let's look at why the Attorney General wanted to delay this. I think it's very important in the context of what my colleague from Downsview was talking about. She was talking about the ineptitude of this government in creating the kind of change in the enforcement system for child support and spousal support in the province of Ontario.
2000
It always amuses me and interests me when the members across the way point out the problems in the system, which were real. There was a huge influx every month of new orders, somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 new orders every month to be enforced by the family support plan. There is no doubt, and we have never tried to deny, that from the inception under the first plan that was put into place by the Liberals and then under our plan, it was very difficult to keep up with the kind of requests that were happening. It was particularly difficult when there were variations in those orders that frequently required a different kind of deduction order to be put into place. There were constant changes. So it wasn't just all the new orders coming in every month; it was also the changes that happened.
I must confess that although I was disappointed that the two ministers were going to the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' conference asking for a delay in the application of the support guidelines in Ontario, there was a little part of me that thought this minister had learned from the fiasco of the family support plan. Any minister who thinks you solve the problem of an overburdened system by pulling the plugs on the telephones, closing the offices, putting all the records into boxes and leaving them lying unattended and insecure in an empty office, where all the wonderful hardware is there but it isn't plugged in and it isn't programmed and no one is staffing it, that somehow that is a way of making this more efficient -- I thought, when I read that this Attorney General had asked for a delay in the application of support guidelines, that he had learned from his mistakes.
Let me read from the article in the Globe and Mail of February 27, 1997, because it could give us all hope that, unlike the member for Durham Centre, who still wants to defend that fiasco, something had been learned. What the minister responsible for women's issues said in this article was, "We think it" -- and she, of course, meant the May 1 implementation date -- "is political expediency at this point." She went on to say, "Women and children aren't going to benefit by a system that hasn't been carefully put in place to serve them." All of us who had seen the mess made of the family support plan could agree with the minister responsible for women's issues, the member for London North.
It's interesting that the Attorney General tried to say that Ontario hadn't had adequate time to prepare for the influx of requests for variations in support orders that would arise. It's really important to know that the federal law applied only to orders that came into place May 1, 1997, or after. It didn't apply to old orders; it was just going to apply from May 1 onward. But there was provision in that act for people to apply to the courts for variations, because of course there wasn't only the amount of the support that was involved here; it was the tax treatment of support payments that also made a difference, and in some families a substantial amount of difference.
The Attorney General, who pooh-poohed our concern, when he was putting the Family Responsibility Office into place, about the possibility of a huge flood of variation orders that would probably come through when these guidelines went through -- and I argued this, as members who were on committee will know; I foresaw that this would be a problem when we were discussing that bill earlier on -- all of a sudden figured out on February 27 that, goodness' sake, we could have 700,000 applications for changes in support orders.
One of the things that makes this particular article interesting is that first of all we hear the Attorney General predicting 700,000 variation requests. Further on he talks about there being 300,000 people on the system, and further on, 140,000 on the system. He couldn't even get these numbers right.
Anyway, the minister responsible for women's issues went on to say that the implementation of the system would catch families off guard: "People will respond inappropriately if they don't have time to be carefully counselled as to what the guidelines mean." It is really interesting to talk about this law today in light of what these two ministers had to say, because the other thing the minister responsible for women's issues said was that this was a tax grab, the federal action on support guidelines. She said, "Ontario estimates that the change, which will generally transfer the tax burden to the parent with the highest marginal tax rate, will produce another $300 million in taxes a year to Ottawa." She neglected to mention that of course it will return about $150 million in additional taxes to the province of Ontario.
What is important in all this is that there was a recognition by these ministers that when another level of government puts into place an act, you need to make preparation; you need to have good systems in place in order to make the difference to the population that's supposed to be affected. Isn't it a shame that those ministers didn't understand that at the time they tossed the bomb into the family support plan offices and created the chaos they created for families.
Ontario had 14 months to prepare for the putting into place of these family support guidelines. This had been discussed for a number of years. It came about after much federal-provincial discussion, after a very celebrated court case, after much study of what had happened in other jurisdictions. The need for it was recognized through those studies. I'll quote one only, which was in California.
California is what we call a total community property jurisdiction, where all property that belongs to a couple in a marriage is community property. In California, when marriage broke down, the studies showed clearly that while women and children had their income drop by 60% from what it was when they were in the marriage situation, the male partner had his income rise by 40% on average. The disparity there is quite remarkable.
It was studies like that that prompted attorneys general across the country and the federal Attorney General to say: "We have to look at some of the solutions to this problem. What we are doing by not tackling this problem, given the horribly high level of family breakdown, is setting up a situation where we are creating a larger and larger group of children in particular, but custodial parents and children, who are falling further and further behind, falling into poverty."
It's a bit of a truism that for many women they stand sort of one man away from poverty, that when death or desertion or divorce occur, the reality of poverty strikes home very quickly. We know that child support payments for the most part are made to recipients who are women and children.
2010
There was no surprise at all about the work that had gone on for some five years between provincial and federal governments to try and work out a way to have more consistency in the child support guidelines, to try and work out a system that would allow sufficient flexibility in those guidelines to take care of particular events or particular circumstances but to have some certainty for those who are contemplating a marriage breakdown, for those who are advising, either as lawyers or as counsellors in the case of a marriage breakdown, and ultimately for a judge in making an order. It wasn't a surprise. The federal government put its discussion paper out 14 months before the projected date of May 1, 1997. It is extremely sad that we see this Attorney General and this minister responsible for women's issues saying at the end of February 1997: "Oh, we don't have enough time. We want the federal government to delay implementation."
On May 1, we have first reading of Bill 128, the last possible date to signal clearly that Ontario is going to come into line. Most of the other provinces had either passed or introduced their legislation far before Ontario. Finally, it was introduced on May 1, 1997. Unfortunately, our first opportunity to discuss it is today.
From the perspective of the Attorney General, when he is facing the kind of budget cutbacks he is facing, when he is facing the kind of backlogs there are in the courts, when he is facing the problem around trying to ensure that there is legal representation in the family law area, given some of the decisions the law society has made about eligibility for legal aid, I can understand why he was apprehensive.
I think it will be very clear that applications under this new act for variations under the Family Law Act will further crowd the courts. I would have thought that as we talked about this bill the parliamentary assistant would have been announcing what actions the minister is going to take to deal with those additional backlogs that are going to occur. I would have thought there would have been a streamlined process developed, in conjunction with the courts, to ensure that the whole issue of variations, given that people, if they apply for a variation, are going to be aware that they're going to be under these guidelines -- that that streamlined process would have been in place by today. As far as I know, it's not.
I worry about that, because we have also this week passed additional rules that require that those on welfare who are in a position to claim support from someone else go through that court process. It's important for us to ensure that where someone else has an obligation to pay support for children that would mitigate some of the costs of social assistance for those families, that process be very quick and very speedy.
One of the issues we really have to look at here is the fact that all the changes around social assistance, around the family support plan, around this bill, are interlocking. It is so important to ensure that when we pass a law that gives people rights to a certain expectation under that law, we have the administrative capacity to meet those expectations. They're not just the expectations of individuals, as I said, but expectations of all of us as a society, because it does have an impact on all of us as taxpayers when those who are responsible for paying support don't.
I hope to see, as we talk about this bill over the next few days and go to committee on it, a real plan, a plan of action set out by the Attorney General, possibly in conjunction with the Minister of Community and Social Services, around how the variations that are likely to occur in court orders under this new act are going to be handled. It is going to do very little good in the short run for people if they run into problems getting their orders required under this act. Certainly, if they then run into the kind of administrative chaos that all of us know continues to happen at the Family Responsibility Office, that money is not going to go to resolve the problems of the children to whom it's dedicated.
One of the issues that underlines the concern about this whole matter, of course, is the issue of how we use every means at our disposal to encourage parents to accept the responsibility they have, once they have children, to continue to support those children. We've heard a lot about that responsibility of parents to children in terms of the kind of review of child welfare that we see the Ministry of Community and Social Services undertaking.
It is a great sadness to me personally that the federal government withdrew, in its part of the bill, the obligation of parents to support children over the period of post-secondary education. That was part of the original bill, that children who are over 18 continue to be eligible for support as long as they were pursuing post-secondary education. In the furore that occurred over having child support guidelines, that part of the bill was dropped by the federal government and, with the provincial government simply bringing provincial rules into accord with the federal rules, obviously does not exist in this bill either.
Of course most of us who are parents and who are parents of adult children know that you're always a parent. It seems to me that in this day and age of high tuition fees and difficulty students have in getting sufficient loans to go to post-secondary education, children who have been receiving child support ought to have been able to have the same expectation of that support continuing while they went to post-secondary education as many children enjoy from their parents.
When we talk about these issues, particularly as many of the government members like to talk about family values, we are talking about very fundamental obligations that we have to our children. It seems to me that when we are talking about the dollars and cents, we need to be talking about what those obligations are and defining them a little bit more clearly. Most young children don't appreciate how much it costs their parents to feed them, to clothe them, to keep them properly housed. Until you actually start to look at what it costs to raise a child, even at the, I must say, rather minimal levels we see in the guidelines -- it is terribly important to understand what happens when that support is not there. It is terribly important for us to recognize that we who are not paying our responsible share of raising our children are directly contributing to a level of hardship that will affect those children for the rest of their lives.
2020
There are many, and all of us have had letters from folks, who have concerns about these guidelines. There's the whole contingent of people who continue to confuse the issues of custody and access with issues of support. As I said to the Attorney General when he brought forward the family responsibility legislation, when he brought forward this legislation, I am very pleased that this government has resisted the urge to somehow clamp together these two issues. It was one of the biggest mistakes we saw of the initial family support legislation, because they are two different issues.
Yes, of course it is important for children to have a relationship with both their parents where that is at all possible. We know, when we work with children over a long period of time, that if somehow that contact is broken, there's a loss suffered by children. In many cases, we find children seeking the parent they haven't seen in later years in any case, because they want to know that parent. That's a natural want they have.
I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that it's not important for children to have the support and to have access to both their parents. Where that is possible, it is absolutely the best thing. Where it is safe for children, where it is supported by the parent who doesn't have custody and that parent is faithful in their response to children, I think that is a much healthier situation than when children are separated from the non-custodial parent, as unfortunately happens in many cases.
When we hear parents say in very blunt terms, "I shouldn't have to pay support because I don't get to see my child," it becomes a bit of a problem. If a child is being refused contact with a parent and the parent is unhappy about that, unhappy because they want to support their child and want to show they love their child and want to be there for their child, for the parent, on top of not having that kind of physical support and contact, to also withdraw financial support is a true abandonment, in my view.
These two things magnify one another. It is a tragedy for children when they can't see their non-custodial parent, but it's a bigger tragedy if they have that loneliness in their life and also do not have the financial support that keeps them going.
I'm glad this government has clearly separated off the support issues and said, "Those support issues have to be looked at here," and, as the federal government has said, "but we also need to do something on the other side, around custody and access issues." No one is trying to deny those are serious and painful issues for families. I think we do have to find some way to resolve some of the ongoing conflicts that cause the kind of pain that, frankly, haunts children for many years when that kind of conflict goes on. But it doesn't go hand in hand with support. I want to congratulate very much the minister that he has resisted all the many requests I'm sure he's had to put these two items together.
One of the aspects of this act is that child support will take precedence over spousal support in this act, as it does in the federal act. That is important in the sense that it puts right up front our commitment and our clarity about the importance of putting children first, that the support of children is the most important call, always, on support payments.
That is not to say that spousal support isn't also important. We see millions of cases over North America where the person who is the custodial parent is also a person who has very little or even, in some cases, no earning power because of having made decisions, usually with the partner, to remain at home with children, to raise children, to do the work within the family as opposed to the work outside the family, unpaid domestic work that needs some kind of credit.
When we look at the statistics around divorce and separation, we see that many divorces and separations take place when people are in the middle- or older-age bracket. The growing tendency is for it to happen when people are over the age of 50. In many cases, those partners, if they have not been in the workforce, have very little prospect of getting meaningful and competitive employment because of their lack of skills and because of the circumstances in which they have lived.
It is important for us to be clear that the drop in the standard of living that occurs upon separation for women -- and it mostly is women in that situation, although if it weren't a women it would be equally as serious -- the drop in the standard of living when the family breaks down is quite substantial. When I say I'm glad that child support takes precedence over spousal support in this act, I'm not at all suggesting that we don't have to be very mindful of the real poverty concerns for older women.
There have been growing studies that show that some of the changes in both federal and provincial law over the last couple of years are leading to a newly instituted poverty among low-income seniors, people over the age of 55, in our society. The group that is the most vulnerable in that age group are women over 55 whose marriages have broken down and who have not been part of the workforce, have not built up pension over a period of time, have not built the skills and the experience that allow them at that stage in their lives to take on competitive work.
At this particular point in time, although we have an obligation to support our children, except in certain circumstances -- there was one court case I recall -- we do not have an obligation for children to look after parents who become destitute. So we see this issue of support payments to those people, where spousal support may be a major portion of the income of that single senior, being equally important.
2030
When we look at the whole issue of child support guidelines, we need to be looking at whether we can guarantee that these guidelines are going to remain flexible enough to meet ongoing needs. Right now, we are not in a situation where the cost of living is increasing at a great rate. We've had a relatively steady situation in terms of cost of living, little fluctuations but nothing like the cost-of-living increases that we saw in past years.
The orders that are made under the child support guidelines for the federal government and with this act, the provincial government, do not include indexing. If we go through, as our economy becomes more robust, a period of time where inflation becomes a factor for us and our living costs are growing at an inflated rate, these support guidelines will not be indexed. We will see a loss of purchasing power very directly for people.
The guidelines do provide that if there's a real increase in the payor's income, there can be a variation in the amount according to the child support guidelines, but it doesn't take account of what happens if the payor's income drops. That doesn't change the child support guideline at that point, nor do we have any assistance if inflation becomes an issue in terms of eroding the purchasing power.
The only possibility would be to attempt to go back to court and get another variation. Of course every time you do that, you have to pay out legal fees; you have to pay out filing fees. You have to go through the process, and it's a fairly expensive process as it's set out. And unless the judge decides that there are extraordinary circumstances, which is possible under this bill, or that there's undue hardship in the case of the payor, it is unlikely that there will be a variation in the amounts.
One of the concerns that many family lawyers have talked about is the possibility of a real erosion under these guidelines of the expectations of the recipients, whether they're children or whether they're spouses. I think only time will tell how serious that is. If we manage to avoid periods of high inflation, it's less likely to be serious, but if we don't manage to avoid that, I think we will see in a few years' time a real desire to make some changes in that whole aspect around indexing.
It won't make a whole lot of difference in Ontario because the new legislation that the government brought in in terms of the Family Responsibility Office of course put very strict limits on what enforcement would happen. That new bill made it very clear that for a lot of existing orders where there was an indexing portion that was a proportion, a percentage of the payor's income, the plan would no longer make those calculations.
We have, with this combination of Ontario's bill on the Family Responsibility Office and this provision, a real cap on the possibility of having indexing as was envisioned in the early family support legislation. The early family support legislation -- first the support, custody and access plan put in under the Liberals and then under the family support plan -- tried to take account of the changes in earnings, the flexibility of earnings, the flexibility in terms of inflation and so on, tried to set a pattern so that every time the circumstances of the family changed, you didn't have to go for a court order for a variation.
It proved to be too complex, and one of the realities is that the backlogs that were occurring in the family support office often occurred because of the difficulty the staff had in verifying the amounts on which to calculate percentages, verifying and changing the amounts of deductions. You'd have to issue a deduction order every time there was a variation, and that was part of the problem.
So we understand, and had a thorough discussion, I think, in the discussion of the Family Responsibility Office legislation, why this government felt it was necessary to put some very strict limits on the kind of changes and variations in orders that could be done administratively as opposed to through the courts. But it does still beg the question about whether or not in the long run we will find that this scheme is flexible enough for our needs, given the way in which we are enforcing child and spousal support.
When I was briefed -- and I must say I would like to thank the folks who came from the Attorney General's ministry to brief us on this, because they were very clear and did a very good job. Allan Shipley, Debbie Paulseth and several other folk came and showed us what they were doing in terms of trying to explain these changes, what they were doing in conjunction with the law society to make sure that lawyers were very clear about what the changes were, and then in conjunction with the lawyers trying to offer some seminars in the community so that recipients and payors would understand this new law. I was very pleased that there was a real consciousness of the necessity for not just public education but education of those working within the justice system itself, those who are representing clients, those who are hearing cases, those who are doing the courts administration, around what these new rules may involve.
I still believe very strongly that we are going to see an influx of variations, because I think people who are in a situation where they are receiving support on behalf of their children feel an obligation to ensure they are doing the best they can for their children.
I'm also hopeful, and I think this is very important for us to stress, that having these kinds of guidelines may stop some of the very, very contentious, very disturbing disputes that occur over support. That certainly was the hope of the federal government. It was felt that if those who are engaged in a conflict, people who are already angry or disappointed or sad that their relationship is breaking down, could know in a much clearer way what the likelihood is of a settlement, a support decision, being within a certain range, it might cut down on some of that contentiousness, it might cut down on some of the hostility.
I believe myself that it is really essential that we do even more public education about what this means. I think if people understand a whole lot more about how the court system works, what kinds of judgements they're likely to see given their particular circumstances, their particular income level, when they have a ballpark idea of what the expectations are of our society in terms of their support obligations, then some of the rather unrealistic ideas that both parties may go into a marriage breakdown with may disappear.
Those unrealistic expectations, and frankly the encouragement of unrealistic expectations, sometimes fuel repeated court actions or refusals to reach settlements before court that are not healthy for anyone. Because our primary concern here is child support, we know we are talking primarily about families where there are children, and marriage breakdown is very serious and very difficult for children to adjust to without the kind of hostility that arises around support dollars.
2040
There's been a lot of discussion about the harm that divorce may cause for children. Certainly for a long time the emphasis was on the breaking up of the marriage and that being the most serious part, until we started to listen to the children themselves. The children themselves were saying, "We could adjust to the fact that our parents don't want to live together any more as long as we're not expected to take sides, as long as we don't feel as though we're a commodity that's to be divided in this marriage, as long as we are not made to feel that our expectation that our parent would meet our financial needs was somehow an undue hardship on that parent."
Anything we can do, it seems to me, to lower the heat, to lower the contentiousness of situations where marriages are breaking down and children are bearing the brunt of that breakdown, will be helpful. It is my belief that if we do our public education well enough, if we create a situation in which legal representation is based on the realities of these guidelines and that clients are clearly informed about what the parameters are within which a judge is going to make a decision, we may very well be able to avoid some of the conflict that has happened. Of course if we do that, we not only avoid the pain to the families, particularly the children who are involved in that conflict, but we also avoid the very lengthy, very costly court battles that often ensue.
We're going to have to get over a hump, however, and one of the things that we would like to know very clearly from the Attorney General in talking about this bill is what his real expectation is around the volume of variation requests, the volume of court actions that are likely to arise from this. I trust he wasn't serious in saying he expected 700,000 applications for variations. It seemed like an extraordinary number to me. But I do think that if we suddenly see even 40,000 applications descend on our already busy family courts, it could be a very serious matter in terms of backlogs. I also believe that if we see the kind of fallout from applying for a variation and then applying to custody and access issues which may indeed occur, we will see a further escalation of the need for court time and obviously an increased cost in terms of enforcing this particular act.
I want to say a few things about some of the concerns that payors have about this bill, because for payors there is a lot of apprehension about this bill. We have received a few letters from payors who, since this bill went into effect, have found substantial changes in settlements that they had reached a number of years ago, where most often because of misfortune that struck their spouses that had nothing to do with the payor -- a faithful payor, a payor who paid support quite faithfully over a number of years -- they found themselves in the position of variation orders that required them to pay as much as three times what they had been paying in the past.
One example was a family where the divorce had occurred 15 years before. There had been a subsequent marriage on the part of both partners, but one of the partners, the new husband, was killed in a very serious accident without leaving any support for the children who were living with him and with the original wife in this group. In this situation, of course, the person had to rely on social assistance because she had no support for herself and very minimal support for the children because the agreement had been reached 15 years ago, and of course was required by the social assistance office to go back after the original partner for more support for those children. The support was granted and was increased very substantially and then created hardship for the second family of this payor.
We will all hear stories like this, and they're very serious because what they do is help us to understand the complexity of the reconstituted families, blended families, and what that means when there is a change in support under circumstances that were not expected at the time. It can indeed put a heavy burden on people.
I know, and I know the parliamentary assistant knows, that in the act the judge can look at this kind of situation and determine whether indeed there is undue hardship. But as this particular individual telling us this story said: "It may not be undue hardship in the legal sense when I have to increase my support to the children of my first marriage to such an extent that I can't afford to send the children from my second marriage to college. They are not starving. They've got a roof over their head. But they are not having the same opportunities that they would have had under different circumstances."
Those situations will occur, and I think it will be important for us to be clearly watching for the building of the case law around these situations, to be looking at how judges are addressing the issue of undue hardship to see whether the impact of this bill is substantially different from what was expected when it was put into place. I think we have to be open to looking at that.
The reality is that as we look at the family as it exists in our society, many of those families are families that have been reconstituted after having had previous families, and there are layers and layers of parental obligation. When we were talking about the family support plan, for example, the staff of the ministry who came to give the explanation of the new bill and the family support office talked to us about the number of times they had payors who were paying two or three different sets of children. That's a reality in our community, however much we may want to deny it.
When we have an act like this, we have to be sure that those undue-hardship provisions are allowing for a quality of life for second families, that those undue-hardship issues are interpreted in such a way that they don't see children of a second or a third marriage not being able to enjoy the basic privileges that their half-siblings in the previous families enjoy.
I think we have to be very wary. Whenever we change substantially an act, we need to be measuring what the effect of that is. I believe very, very firmly that the overall effect of this act when it is put into place, as long as the enforcement measures are done appropriately, as long as variations can be achieved in court to put people under this act, will be very beneficial. I believe very strongly that it will.
But where it doesn't -- and you will get the letters in your constituency office as I get them in mine, as my colleagues get them -- when we have examples of places where this bill and the whole enforcement mechanism is not working for particular families, we need to be sure that we don't just ignore that, that we look at the cumulative effect of that to make sure that this legislation has the overall positive effect it is designed to have.
We must be very sure that in the long run the objective of this bill, which is to put more resources in the hands of children who are suffering from poverty in this society, is in actual fact happening. This bill is the one gesture that the federal Liberal government has made towards child poverty that's complete, that's in place, that's active. It is certainly one of the few ways in which we can see any positive action on issues of child poverty from the Ontario government. So it's particularly incumbent upon us to be sure that when we are looking at this redistribution of assets from parent to child under this act, it is having the effect it is supposed to have in alleviating some of the disadvantage that many young children now face with the difficulties they have in receiving appropriate support.
When we look at these tables, we know that many of the support orders that are currently in force are extraordinarily low on the scale. There are a few that are high, and there are certainly lawyers in the province who are worried that their clients may be disadvantaged if a variation is put into place based on these guidelines.
I do not think that will be the overall effect of this bill, that we will see lower payments going to children. I think this bill will see more reasonable payments to children, will see a regime that will encourage parents to accept their responsibilities for support, to avoid some of the contentious legal contests that have gone on and to try and take some of the pain out of the separation that happens. It is my hope that if we do ensure that these dollars are coming to children, we will alleviate some of the extraordinary pain we see suffered by single parents and their children in this province today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments or questions?
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I listened with interest to the comments by my friend from London Centre. There were a couple of points that arose on which I'd like to lend some assistance by way of clarification, if I might.
One of these issues was with respect to the purported delay in moving this legislation forward. I think it bears reminding the House that it's appropriate that the province waited until the federal government had completed its amendments to its legislation and brought forward its program before the province introduced its plan to amend Ontario's legislation to comply with the federal format. In this, we are joined by the other provinces of this country who have followed a similar approach.
This bill, Bill 128, was introduced on May 1, 1997, just a few weeks after the federal government finalized its amendments. That was the same date that Quebec brought in its corresponding bill, the same date that Saskatchewan brought in its corresponding bill. Some other provinces weren't as quick: Manitoba brought in its bill in June; BC brought in its bill in July; Prince Edward Island brought in its bill in August.
We're getting accustomed to hearing those who don't support our goals in a particular legislative area accusing this government of moving too quickly. It's not surprising that when someone supports the particular goal or the general goal, we hear the criticism that we're not moving quickly enough. But in this one, we're in line with the other provinces, and we were held back, quite understandably, by waiting for the federal government.
The other issue I want to touch on briefly was the question of what sort of support and assistance there will be to help people who want to bring their agreements and their court orders into line with the new guidelines. This province is offering a number of services to accomplish that. In the courtrooms there are officers to give assistance and so on, but since the federal government changed the rules, it would be nice if the federal government would offer some financial assistance in achieving that help and providing that help.
Ms Castrilli: I want to commend the member for London Centre and say how much we always enjoy her very careful dissertations. I think she has a gift for pointing out very thoughtfully what the issues are, and she's done it again in this case.
At the risk of repeating myself, but I know the Speaker won't mind, I want to focus on what's really important in this legislation. The previous speaker spent a great deal of time talking about the importance of streamlining with the federal government. There's no quarrel with that, absolutely no quarrel. I think we're all in favour of a system that favours children, however we can achieve it.
I wish, however, that this particular legislation would be a model for other legislation that this government might put into place. The reality is that their record on children's issues has been totally abysmal. It has been abysmal in any number of ways which we've documented here tonight: the cuts in community services and education, in justice, in family support, where they've virtually eliminated the staff at one sitting, with 85% of the employees being targeted.
The statistics are clear. We have a growing number of children at risk, and this government, with its misguided policies, is making it very difficult for underprivileged children to survive in this province. That's the real issue here. The test for your government on this bill will be whether you will be prepared to enforce the orders we are so carefully streamlining today. That's the issue. Will you enforce it? Will you finally stand up for children in this province?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to thank the member for London Centre for her comments. The member for London Centre is very thorough in every analysis she does of every bill, and this was no exception.
I want to make a few comments about the Attorney General in relation to what he did to the family support plan. What he did was very contemptible. It was anti-children and it was anti-women. It hurt children and it hurt women in closing eight offices and in getting rid of 290 people. When you do that, you inevitably hurt the people who were serviced by it. The Attorney General denies it. Everybody in that government denies it. They say they're making the system better. We don't know how they make the system better by cutting it. We only know, through the evidence that has been given by women to our constituency offices, that they have been hurt by those cuts.
But in this case, with Bill 128, the government has done a good thing. The member for London Centre spoke to this and I think spoke to it well. We hope, to repeat the words of the member, that this bill will bring about reasonable payments to women so children will no longer suffer the poverty that many of them have suffered. We hope this bill will achieve that, and we hope the bill will achieve something more; that is, again quoting the member for London Centre, that it begins to ensure that parents accept their responsibility towards their children. Where there are errors in this bill, we'll be there, as you will, hopefully, to correct them.
2100
Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for London Centre for her comments with respect to the bill.
The present situation, as many parents will know, is that these child support decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The remedy this bill proposes, following the federal remedy, is guidelines. One of the advantages of guidelines is to give parents in the province more predictability in terms of what is likely to happen in the court process in terms of support orders for children.
One of the advantages of predictability is the discouragement of prolonged and sometimes perhaps unnecessary litigation and court proceedings, which delays the goal that I think all parties agree is the desired goal, and that is getting the appropriate amount of child support promptly, quickly, efficiently and, hopefully, cheaply into the hands of the children rather than having funds used up in the court process and in litigation. So that predictability is important in this legislation.
Consistency is also important, that there is a consistent approach proposed under the guidelines for the award of child support across the province, depending on where people fall within the guidelines. Again, that has not always been the case under the present situation.
I'm sure many parents will want to know more about this program and the proposals. There is a toll-free public inquiry line. There is a booklet available with respect to the child support guidelines. More than 58,000 of these booklets have been sent out upon request. I encourage people who want information to call 1-800-980-4962.
The Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mrs Boyd: I want to thank the members for York East, Downsview, Fort York, and Durham Centre for their comments.
I would like to say to the member for York East that of course we all know that the federal government is giving the province of Ontario $18.5 million to help defray the costs of administration and that Ontario can expect to get about $150 million of additional tax per year because of this bill. Even with your estimate -- which is a huge range; the estimate the minister gave was anywhere from $50 million to $90 million to administer this plan -- the government comes out well ahead. The federal government is indeed contributing to making it possible for the government to administer this program properly.
I would also like say to him that I was talking about the delay in bringing this bill to the Legislature. I understand entirely that you wouldn't want to bring your bill until the federal government passed its law, which it passed, incidentally, well before the federal election. You didn't bring it till May 1 and you are only calling it for second reading now. That was the point I was making.
Member for Downsview, you are right. Let us not lose our focus that the whole issue here is transferring dollars into the hands of custodial parents so that children will not suffer the kind of poverty that is becoming only too prevalent in our communities, that we can be very sure we're doing our part to try to ameliorate that horrible situation for them.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr O'Toole: It's a pleasure to participate tonight in the debate on Bill 128. Looking at the bill, it's a seven-page document, bilingual, so that means there are about three pages of actual content of the bill, so it's not a tremendous feat of legislation. None the less, I think it's important for the people of Ontario to recognize that we've listened. In fact, we're following very much the principle of much of what we're doing, which is harmonizing to make it more efficient and more service-oriented to the people of Ontario.
I'm going to read a few things that I think are important to sort of flesh out the intents of the legislation. It's important to start with the name, An Act to amend the Family Law Act to provide to provide for child support guidelines and to promote uniformity between orders for the support of children under the Divorce Act -- which is federal -- and orders for the support of children under the Family Law Act, which is provincial.
The preamble under the explanatory note says, "the act to do so in accordance with child support guidelines." Of course, the guidelines, as has been discussed quite broadly here tonight, are the federal guidelines. It's important to note, though, that "The court may order an amount different from the amount determined under the guidelines," contrary to what the member for London Centre said, "where special provisions have been made for the benefit of a child such that application of the guidelines would lead to an inequitable result." Very clearly, in this opening statement it says the guideline is indeed a guideline.
It goes on with "Application of child support guidelines," a very important, fundamental section here, section 4 of the bill. "A court making an order for the support of a child shall do so in accordance with the child support guidelines." Then it goes on in the next section to talk about the exceptions and the conditions upon which exceptions will be entertained by the court.
But most important and central to this piece of legislation, as outlined in subsection 6(2.1):
"Powers of court: child support
"In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,
"(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively."
There's a fair amount about changing circumstances, to bring it to the attention of the court to interpret for the right of the child. The flexibility intended in that language is to ensure that the child receives nothing less from the support parent, or parents, for that matter.
It goes on to explain more fully exceptions and the consent orders.
It's a very readable, understandable bill, and I'd like to think it makes the process a lot more -- the intent of the bill is to harmonize with the federal guidelines, take more of the activity out of the court.
The member for Durham Centre was very prudent to point out in his last two-minute comment that divorce is very unsettling for both partners and, most important, for the children. Mrs Boyd talked about the unhealthy nature of it all, not to mention that the legal implications cause it to be more of a very serious anxiety for the family unit and all the individuals involved.
That hostility hasn't been helped by the system that was in place, made up of the lawyers jockeying for the best position. It's their job to do that, I guess. But Mr Flaherty pointed out the importance of predictability. The guidelines for a family experiencing problems -- and it does happen; no one wishes it on themselves -- will give them a reasonable and fair guide as to what to expect. It won't have to be such a long-drawn-out process before court orders are actually passed by the judge.
Everyone is very clear on the cost. And everyone should be very clear, going into marriage, that the responsibility and the children don't go away just because the marriage doesn't work. Somebody has to pay, and it's indeed the responsibility of the parents.
But there again, circumstances change. The whole family unit is very much stressed and distressed. I've been asked, along with other members, I'm sure, to listen to all sides of this. I attended most recently in Oshawa the non-custodial parents' group. I met with people, Ted Greenfield and others. The non-custodial parents' associations, as most members here would know -- when the federal legislation was being dealt with, the guidelines were being dealt with, Senator Anne Cools, who, by the way, was a Liberal senator, really kind of broke with the ranks. The people of Ontario have to respect somebody who will stand up to the anger perhaps of the Liberal whip in Ottawa, who probably was quite on her case. The then justice minister, Allan Rock, never listened to anyone on any issue. Now he's not the justice minister any more and I think that's a good idea. He's the health minister and I hope he doesn't ruin it too.
2110
Getting back to it, I believe Senator Anne Cools was responsible for a very important amendment that passed in the Senate process of the bill hearing. That delayed it somewhat. In fact, it may have been responsible for us waiting until the guidelines were fully developed, addressing some of the inequities. Either supportive parent may be caught in a very tight situation, and once those orders are in place, that's a lifelong payment until those children aren't under your responsibility any more. Our changes to the bill reflect the changes that were supported in the Senate amendment to the original federal piece of legislation.
I've mentioned the predictability. I want to talk about the importance now -- Mr Flaherty has mentioned it several times. For those listening at home, there are a number of ways of learning about the important changes. We've streamlined that process to the point where you can call a 1-800 number, a toll-free number, 1-800-980-4962. I would ask the members to treat this discreetly and respectfully. Some families have anxiety. They need to have the right information and that's where they call. It's the way you should try to get the service to the people as close to the people as possible.
Most importantly, we have these child support information booklets in our constituency offices. If you wish one, you can certainly call my office in Durham East, the member for Durham Centre, any member; the member for York East, whoever.
Mr Parker: Have them call you.
Mr O'Toole: Well, just call. There are other approaches too that are available in the courts. Also in 43 communities, starting on October 22, there will be public information sessions.
There are legislation changes. The changes are harmonized with the federal guidelines. The orders and the processes in courts should pretty much follow those guidelines, be less complicated, less litigious, less costly to both participants. We've told you where to call to find out how to get information.
Mr Parker: They're on the Internet too.
Mr O'Toole: They're also on the Internet. The important thing today is that we will use every medium of communication
Mr Gerretsen: What's the Internet address?
Mr O'Toole: I will read the Internet address last because I want you to listen to this.
The next comment I have is that I've heard repeatedly that somehow this doesn't address the individual needs of the child. I've read to you sections in the bill that allow the orders. These guidelines, the pay scales have been developed by the federal Liberal government. Everybody knows. If it's not fair, they are as much responsible for that as we are. Also, there are provisions within our legislation so that the judge can re-examine, in a litigious way, the fairness of the order and the fee schedule.
Mr Parker: To provide flexibility.
Mr O'Toole: Flexibility. For those who would like to contact the Internet site and get this information at first hand, it's www.gov.on.ca/atg/english and that's on HTML, HTML being the server, for any of those who use an Internet site. I have one. That's a very good way to look at all of the legislation. This government has a complete Web site -- it's on ontla -- and that Web site has every piece of legislation, or at least the languaging for the public to read of what's coming and what it is and what are the implications for them. All of the ministries have a location on the site and you can just sign in and get a look at what's actually happening. There is a lot happening today.
This important piece of legislation is more housekeeping than anything: simplifying, streamlining and allowing the people of Ontario to have predictable outcomes on unhealthy marriage situations. I have no further comments to make at this time.
I would ask that anyone who has any questions on this legislation or the changes to the child support guideline framework call 1-800-980-4962.
Applause.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Ms Castrilli: I'm sure it's because the hour is late that the member for Durham East has indulged himself in this way. Let me first of all say that I agree with some things he has said, and perhaps he'd like to listen to me so he can see where the agreement is. We agree that you were right in following the federal leadership, and it's so nice to hear you say that once in a while. But seriously, I also agree with you that parents should pay. That really is what we've been trying to say here. We don't disagree that parents should pay and that the parent who has the funds ought to make sure they are contributed to his children.
Do you have the guts to enforce the legislation you're going to put into place? That's really the question. Will you enforce this legislation like you've enforced some of the others? Women and children are still suffering at the hands of legislation that you've passed that you've not had the ability to enforce, or perhaps the will.
I just want to say a couple more things. The first comment the member for Durham East made was that this was such a tiny bill. I think that's irrelevant, quite frankly. The size of a bill has no bearing on the importance of the matter that is there. I would point out to you that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country is a very tiny document indeed.
The other point I'd make is that it's all well and good for you to give out Internet numbers. Remember that single mothers and children on welfare can't afford cable, do not have the Internet, and the information that you have just so arrogantly given out is of total irrelevance to people who are in need.
Mrs Boyd: The member for Durham East obviously was really reaching in order to fill out a little bit of time here and get himself on the record. I'm glad he's supportive of the bill, but I must say that the overzealous applause of his colleagues must indicate a very special regard for him, given the quality of his speech.
I would say that he is right about the efforts the government did make when they announced this bill to try and make sure there were places that people could receive information. The member for Downsview, however, makes a very good point when she says that those who are having the kind of stress and difficulty making ends meet that many custodial parents have in looking after their children very often don't have the same ability to access the kind of standard sources of information we might have.
It would be probably very wise for a government that's able to indulge in the kind of million-dollar PR exercise the Minister of Education has embarked upon to really look at some way of making this information more readily available in communities. It's one thing to have it available in courthouses, but that assumes that people have already gone to courthouses to see if there is some remedy. It's something else to make sure it's available within communities -- libraries, that sort of thing -- that counsellors dealing with this provide that information and that the law society is providing that information through lawyers.
Mr Parker: My colleague from Durham East was at great pains to point out to the House all of the various means that are available to people to find out about this legislation and to learn what their rights are and to learn what steps they might take. There are so many ways available that even he wasn't able to touch on all of them in the course of his remarks, and I expect that some people who wanted to copy down some of the information may not have been able to in the time available. So I'd like to just relay some of the means that are available and to repeat some of the information that was given.
2120
The phone number for information on this legislation is 1-800-980-4962, and the Web site address is http:// www.gov.on.ca/atg/english/maghome.html. You can also visit your local family court office. Many of them have officers in place to give advice on this legislation and to guide people through its application and through its implications. The goal there most of all, of course, is to assist people in resolving matters without the need of applying to court. I know the level of anxiety that it sometimes raises with people to think of going to court to bring in a variation application. The hope is that most people will be able to pursue this course and bring about whatever variation is indicated without the need of going to court. The officers are there to assist in that process.
There's also the lawyer referral service in this province. For those outside Toronto, the number is 1-800-268-8326. In Toronto, it's 947-3330. I invite anyone to visit their MPP.
Applause.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am intrigued by the amount of applause that I am receiving from the government benches at this time. I want to point out that the government members seem to be extremely satisfied with what's happening even though if you check with your constituency assistants, what you will find is the largest number of problems brought to our attention now are problems related to the family support office.
The first mistake that was made was closing the regional offices. That was done not to be more efficient, as members of the government would contend; that was done simply to save money. Sometimes there are measures that are taken to save money that are to be applauded and are reasonable; this is not one. This is one that has caused more hardship for people genuinely in need, and that is why it was not something reasonable.
I find it interesting that they give an Internet number or a computer number or a Web site as well as a 1-800 number. The reason I say that is that the assumption is that everyone owns a computer. A lot of people who are of modest income do not have computers. For instance, a lot of people watching tonight may not know they can no longer get the Hansard of this House, the transcript of this House in bound paper such as this. They can only get it by means of their computer. That is of course to deny people of modest means the opportunity to have access to what is happening in this House, and that speaks volumes of this government and its policies.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I wanted to give you a little lecture because I've heard a couple of choruses. I want to compliment the member for St Catherines that you proceeded in spite of it, but I won't tolerate it any more. I would like to have your attention on the member speaking. If you can't give him your attention, then I wish you'd leave.
The Speaker recognizes the member for Durham East for two minutes.
Mr O'Toole: I want to acknowledge the many supportive words from the member for Downsview, the member for London Centre, the member for York East, who received an outstanding ovation, and the member for St Catharines, who is still barking on the same old thing. He can find hardly anything positive to say about this.
I want to address one issue and that's the issue of accessibility. I believe Ms Castrilli brought that up, I think Mrs Boyd picked it up and I think as well that Mr Bradley picked it up. I did not like the gender bias I heard that said it was only single mothers. That shows an innate insensitivity. It's "single parent" that is politically correct. That's the first thing I take great exception to.
The second thing I'd have you know is that in my riding of Durham East there are two sites where you can use the Internet at the local library free of charge. You have to be creative today. We aren't some rich individuals. In fact, I would like to thank the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Ms Mushinski, for coming to my riding. She was there two weeks ago, and she's coming this Saturday to open a new library where they'll probably be a new Internet. Public libraries are free. That pretty well sums up my time -- I've got 20 seconds left -- but I think the accessibility issue is important.
The member for Durham Centre is the one who really wired this one. He said "predictability." What was happening is that there were inconsistent orders or decisions being made in the courts. This very unfair outcome for some families I believe has been rectified for all of us to be happy with that.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. It seems you could get spring fever in September.
Further debate.
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, there's so much to say about this topic and so little time to say it in, because I notice there's only five minutes left on the clock. I certainly want to take my full 20 minutes and I hope that you will, at the appropriate time, adjourn the debate and the next time that this bill gets called you'll give me the opportunity to start the debate at that point in time.
It's very interesting that we've heard an awful lot about the Internet numbers and toll-free numbers, etc. What the members of the government simply do not understand is that there are an awful lot of people suffering as a result of the problems that the family support plan has had in this province. I state once again, as I stated earlier today, that the most telling thing that I have heard about that in the House here is when the Attorney General, about three or four months ago, thought he was doing a good thing within his department because about 50% of the telephone calls of those people who really needed help, who needed the money that should have been available for them under the family support plan, were actually being returned.
It is a shameful indictment on this government, on this department that obviously this is not a high priority with this government. For anybody to suggest that if you return 50% of your phone calls, that's somehow a good indication of running an efficient operation, they are totally wrong. As a matter of fact, for a government that prides itself on carrying out the business of government in a businesslike fashion, if they were really in business and they returned only 50% of their calls or were able to deal with only 50% of their problems, they would be out of business overnight. That probably says it more than anything else.
Of course the other thing I think is very interesting is that all one has to do is look at the public estimates. These are your figures, the amount of money that has been spent on children's services. You see that year after year since you've been in government the amount of money that's being expended is less and less. I refer you specifically -- and the minister is here, and I'm very glad that she is here, because maybe she can address some of these issues at the appropriate time -- for example, to page 85. When we look at the actual amount of money that has been spent on regular child care, it is down some $4 million between 1995 and 1997. That's $4 million, and there are more children to look after in this province.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We're spending more than you did.
Mr Gerretsen: Of course you're spending more than we did. That was 10 years ago, Madam Minister. By the way, she's out of her seat and maybe she should be told that if she's going to heckle, she should at least have the decency to sit in her own seat.
Let's take a look at some of these other figures. In children's services there was a decrease. Just give me a half a moment, Mr Speaker; I know you're anxious to leave tonight, but this is very important. In community support services what's happening? A $2-million decrease. We've gone from spending $19.6 million to $17.6 million. That is an almost 20% decrease in one departmental figure with respect to the adult and children's services program.
For this government to suggest that children are a priority when the actual funding that has been expended in that area has lessened during the two years they've been in power is totally and completely incorrect and inaccurate. As has been acknowledged by a number of government members here tonight, the family support plan service was in a total mess when they took over -- at least that's what they're saying. Quite frankly, before I got elected, I'm not sure whether it was or not, but I'll take their word for it. Why, then, would they close the regional offices and lay off or fire 350 employees within that part of the ministry that dealt specifically with the family support plan? Why would they lay these people off? It clearly indicates this was not a priority with this government.
I can go on, Mr Speaker -- I don't know whether you'd like me to -- because I've got about five or six other things I want to say.
Mr Flaherty: You haven't said anything yet.
Mr Gerretsen: You can't have it both ways, my friend. You cannot give a tax cut to your rich friends and say that children are your priority as well. You know it and I know it and the people of Ontario know it as well.
With that, Mr Speaker, I yield the floor to you.
The Acting Speaker: It being 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2132.