Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to go back to page 16, but I request unanimous consent to go back to page 16. I just had a question for clarification on that page.
Unanimous consent granted.
Okay, Mr. Ramsay. Page 16.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, it's okay. I've found it. I'm fine. Thanks.
Okay. Can we turn back to the Schedule, to page 3? We're on the Schedule, Part 1, Vote 1, Operations Expenditures, Total Supplementary Appropriation for Operations Expenditures: $50.317 million.
Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2008–2009, Total Supplementary Appropriation, Part 1, Vote 1, Operations Expenditures: $50.317 million, approved.
Part 2, Vote 2, Capital Investment Expenditure, Total Supplementary Appropriation for Capital Investment Expenditures: $106.345 million.
Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2008–2009, Total Supplementary Appropriation, Part 2, Vote 2, Capital Investment Expenditures: $106.345 million, approved.
Total Supplementary Appropriation: $156.662 million.
Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2008–2009, Total Supplementary Appropriation: $156.662 million, approved.
We can move to the preamble so that we can go clause by clause.
Clauses 1 through 7 inclusive approved.
To the preamble.
Preamble approved.
To the bill as a whole.
Bill 18 as a whole approved.
Does the committee agree that Bill 18 is ready for third reading?
Bill 18 Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2008–2009, approved for third reading.
Bill 18 is now ready for third reading.
The next item we agreed to deal with is Bill 12.
Before we go on, I’d like to thank the Minister and thank the witnesses. With that, Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses out?
Okay. As we agreed, the next item we’ll deal with is Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act. With that, I’ll ask Mr. Ramsay if he has any opening remarks in regard to Bill 12.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to provide opening comments on Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 12 empowers the Human Rights Commission to establish its own rules of procedure and simplifies its annual reporting requirements. The bill transfers the responsibility for hiring and supervising staff from the commission and vests it with the director of Human Rights. The staff become employees in the public service. The amendments empower both the director and the commission to appoint assistants and engage advisors. Finally, the Board of Management of the Legislative Assembly is given a role in the making of certain regulations under the act, and such regulations are to be made in consultation with the commission and the director.
Mr. Chairman, the Human Rights Act is administered jointly by the Speaker, the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of Justice. The Speaker’s role in administering the act is limited to the administration of the Human Rights Commission and the Adjudication Panel. These amendments all relate to that function and do not adversely affect the rights of individuals.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. At this time I’d like to ask if you’re going to be bringing in witnesses.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Does the committee agree that he brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses in?
For the record, Mr. Ramsay, could you introduce your witnesses, please?
Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mr. Ian Rennie from the Department of Justice and the Clerk of the Assembly, Mr. Tim Mercer, to my left.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Welcome, witnesses.
General comments in regard to Bill 12?
Detail.
Detail. We’ll move to page 1, Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act.
Clauses 1 through 20 inclusive approved.
To the bill as a whole.
Bill 12 as a whole approved.
Does the committee agree that Bill 12 is now ready for third reading?
Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, approved for third reading.
Bill 12 is now ready for third reading. With that, I’d like to thank Mr. Ramsay and his witnesses. Could the Sergeant-at-Arms escort the witnesses out?
With that, the next bill we need to deal with is Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the bill if he has any opening remarks. Mr. Jackson Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to appear before the committee today to review Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act. The purpose of Bill 5 is to give the Maintenance Enforcement Program more enforcement tools for collection of maintenance payments. The amendment will also bring the act in line with most Canadian jurisdictions which already have these tools available for collecting maintenance payments.
Considerable consultation was undertaken by the Department of Justice on these amendments with the Law Society; the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association, NWT branch; and the Department of Transportation. Proposed amendments were also posted and explained on the department’s web site along with an invitation to submit comments.
Mr. Chair, I’d like to thank the Members of the Standing Committee on Social Programs for their review and comments on the bill. I’d be pleased to answer any questions. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister. At this time I’d like to ask the standing committee that reviewed the bill if they would like to make any comments in regard to the bill. Mr. Robert McLeod, Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes.
Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Social Programs met during the week of April 25 to May 2, 2008, and again on May 20 to review Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act. Public hearings took place in Fort Resolution, Hay River, Inuvik, Norman Wells and Yellowknife. The committee would also like to thank the Ministry, its officials and all the witnesses who spoke on the bill. The clause-by-clause review of the bill was held on June 5.
Bill 5 contains many new ways to enforce child support and other maintenance orders when a person who owes money is not making their payments. One of the new enforcement measures is suspension of a debtor’s driver’s licence. The suspension can have conditions that will allow the debtor who needs his or her licence for work or medical reasons to drive for these purposes.
Originally the bill gave the maintenance enforcement administrator the discretion to grant these conditions. The committee moved an amendment to take away the administrators’ discretion so that they will be required to grant the conditions if they are satisfied the debtor needs the licence for work or medical reasons. The Minister concurred with this amendment. One witness asked what would happen if a debtor whose licence had been suspended needed to drive in order to be able to visit his or her child. The Minister and his officials claimed that the only available conditions to allow the debtor to drive would be medical or employment reasons. The provision was intended to encourage debtors to make their maintenance payments, and making it easy would undermine that purpose.
Another witness asked whether seizing money from a registered retirement savings plan or income fund amounts to a double penalty for the debtor. The Minister and his officials advised that they do not consider any tax consequences of seizing these funds to be a penalty to the debtor and that all maintenance enforcement actions have associated costs either with the office or the debtor or both. The seizure of money from an RRSP or an RRIF would only take place near the end of the debt collection strategy when other measures have failed.
During the public hearings the committee heard questions about whether and how the Maintenance Enforcement Office can collect a debtor’s cash, wages and/or honoraria received from serving on councils and boards. The Minister and his officials confirmed that the Maintenance Enforcement Office does not have the authority to collect this money. Bill 6 will indirectly improve the ability to collect in these cases, because it includes new powers for the Maintenance Enforcement Office to get information about debtors — for example, by advertising in the newspaper. These powers make it more likely that the administrator would find out about cash payments the debtor is receiving.
One witness questioned the accountability of the Maintenance Enforcement Office, and in particular the qualifications to interpret business records. The Minister and his officials indicated that case workers are expected to return calls promptly and will receive intensive training on confidentiality. On cases involving complex business information, they work closely with the Audit Bureau and legal counsel to ensure that records are correctly interpreted. The Minister and his officials stressed that they want to keep service levels high and would like to hear about any concerns.
The committee also heard concerns from some witness about the fairness of child support orders — for example, the lack of consequences for a parent who makes false allegations of child abuse against the other parent. While these matters are outside the scope of this bill, the committee would welcome further discussions on this issue with the Minister.
During the clause-by-clause review the committee and Minister also agreed to one minor, non-substantive amendment to the bill. Following the clause-by-clause review a motion was carried to report Bill 5 as amended and reprinted to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 5. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the bill if he will be bringing in any witnesses.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Does the committee agree that the Minister bring in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses in?
Minister Lafferty, could you introduce your witnesses for the record, please?
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have to my left Karan Shaner, ADM, and Mark Aitken, director of the legislation division.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. General comments on the bill? Detail. Turn to page 1 of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Clauses 1 through 16 inclusive approved.
Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question under clause 16. Can Maintenance Enforcement garnishee an individual who is on income assistance or receiving EI payments?
Does the committee agree that we’ll go back to clause 16?
Agreed.
Ms. Shaner.
Thank you, sir. EI payments can be garnisheed under a piece of federal legislation called the Family Orders Enforcement and Assistance Act. However, income assistance in the Northwest Territories cannot be garnisheed.
I think that, for individuals who find themselves in a position where they can’t pay maintenance and they’re receiving EI payments, there should be something in this legislation here in the Northwest Territories that protects those individuals. They’re on unemployment insurance; they’re not working. I’m not sure how they could sustain their household or what they have. What we’re going to do by garnisheeing unemployment insurance is drive people into the homeless shelter. I think what we need to do is come up with a clause in here that suggests that we’re not going to do that to people. I do know individuals who that happened to, and it caused a tremendous hardship to those people.
Now, if they’re not paying maintenance enforcement, that’s one issue. The other issue is if they’re on hard times to start with and unemployment insurance is their only means of income. It’s very difficult when Maintenance Enforcement comes knocking for $600 out of the $800 they got. It leaves them next to nothing to live on, aside from the food bank and the homeless shelter, Mr. Chairman. So I’d like to ask the Minister: how do we address that concern?
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Ms. Shaner can elaborate after I make some remarks on that particular area. We have considered that as part of the EI, but what we’re proposing here is, of course, in the best interests of the child. There are individuals out there who may or may not be working, but there are individuals who are paying and some individuals who aren’t paying. This gives the tools to maintenance enforcement officers to go after those individuals who do not pay on a regular basis.
I think the main focus is the needs of those children. That’s one of the reasons we need to go after certain individuals who may be on EI: those who aren’t making payments. We’re definitely going after them. If I can get Ms. Shaner to elaborate a bit on that. Mahsi.
Mr. Chairman, there are really two aspects to that. I have it on page 16 of the bill, and it’s clause 19. In the proposed clause 17, sub 5, there’s a proposed statutory minimum of wages that would be exempt. When we garnishee under the federal legislation, we apply our statutory exemption to those. So someone who is having their EI garnisheed would be left with a certain amount, as required by law, to live on. It may or may not be a particularly great amount of money.
The fact is that they owe the maintenance. If debtors find themselves in a position where they’re not able to pay, it is up to them to go to court and argue that they have had a change in circumstances and ask the court to reduce the amount of maintenance that’s payable. That’s the remedy.
Maintenance Enforcement only enforces orders that are made by a court, based on evidence that’s before the court on the amount of money that the payer makes and the amount of money that the payee makes. Maintenance Enforcement doesn’t have the authority to go behind the order and change the amount. That is the remedy for the debtor in that case. If we make it too easy to just be on EI and escape maintenance payments, then really it’s children who are going to suffer, and our system will fall apart.
I know we should always have the best interests of the children at heart. What strikes me most in the current legislation that’s in place — the federal legislation and the federal Divorce Act and the Family Orders Act — is the fact that in many cases it’s an adversarial type of arrangement, and oftentimes one parent’s money is good enough but they aren’t. I think that’s a discussion or debate we might have here as soon as tomorrow, and it’s a discussion that’s happening around the world: equal, shared parenting and a move towards that in the best interest of the child by having both parents in their life.
Like I said, money causes a great deal of concern to both parties, obviously. But if you’re on unemployment insurance, everybody knows what rent costs and food costs and gas costs here in Yellowknife. If you take away somebody’s unemployment insurance…. It’s hard enough to be unemployed in the Northwest Territories to start with. If you start garnisheeing somebody’s wages, they can’t pay their rent, they can’t buy food, and then how are they going to look after the children if they get the children in their care and custody for whatever period of time the other party is going to let them have the children for?
I think it’s a big issue. I do appreciate where Ms. Shaner is coming from with the prescribed exemption under subsection 5, but it just bothers me that we can do that to individuals and just go in there and…. They’re on unemployment insurance, they’re down and out, and we kick them squarely where the sun don’t shine when they get that maintenance order imposed upon them by the courts. I know they have recourse through the courts, but if they don’t see it coming it’s one heck of a ride.
This does come down from the courts. We are enforcing it through the legislation. Like Ms. Shaner has indicated, there is a process of appealing their payments. If it’s too high, they can go back to the court. That’s one avenue they can certainly access. At the same time, there are people out there who could be unemployed, and they still owe money to their spouse and their children. That’s the area we’re focusing on as Maintenance Enforcement: again, the best interest of the child and the well-being of the child. There are avenues where they can go back to court. That’s why we’re enforcing this act.
Clause 16.
Clauses 16 through 35 inclusive approved.
