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.
Clause 36. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to comment, if I could, on the suspending of driver’s licences for individuals who are in default of maintenance payments. The bill will pass, and it’ll go ahead, but I wanted to get my comments on record anyway. I do believe that even though individuals owe maintenance payments we shouldn’t be so heavy-handed as to suspend a driver’s licence, especially when in some cases that parent has access to their children and needs to pick them up, drive them to soccer, drive them to hockey, and it’s 40 below zero outside.
If somebody’s fallen on hard times, I think we’re limiting a person’s ability and access to their children, and to me that’s wrong. I would never as a legislator get in the way of a parent spending time with their children, whether the parent is in default on maintenance or not. The time they spend with their children: you cannot put a price on that. It’s time that’s lost. Once it’s gone, it’s lost. If we’re taking away a person’s driver’s licence, we’re taking away their ability to get their kids, to pick up their kids, to spend time with their kids. We’re impacting the person’s quality of life. To me that’s not fair and it’s not just.
Again, I’m not sure how other Members feel about this, but I do feel strongly about taking away somebody’s driver’s licence. I’m glad to see the provisions are spoken to and that for work and for medical reasons a person can drive a vehicle. But we also should include provisions to pick up their children, to take them to sports or a play or school, and to spend time with them. That needs to be in there as well, and if it’s not we’re doing society a disservice.
Minister of Justice.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. That was part of the discussion we had with the committee members on the Social Programs Committee. There was some discussion on that particular item. Again, it comes down to an individual’s responsibility. They have kids, and they have kids in sports. If they paid their maintenance enforcement, it wouldn’t be an issue. At the same time, that’s what it comes down to: an individual has the responsibility to resolve this issue. There was some lengthy discussion in this particular area by the committee, and we did recognize it. At the same time, we are moving forward with this.
We have to compare it to other jurisdictions as well. It’s not just us. We are different from other jurisdictions, but we are trying to be in line with other jurisdictions as well.
There are individuals out there, as I said earlier, who are not paying for various reasons. Some do get away with it. This is one way of giving some tools to our enforcement officers to put a stop to it and start obtaining payments where they’re needed for the children. That’s one area we focus on.
Maybe I can have Ms. Shaner elaborate a bit on that as well. Mahsi.
Ms. Shaner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Minister pointed out, it is reported by other jurisdictions that this is the single most effective enforcement tool that is available to them.
I should also point out that this is not something that would be imposed early on in the enforcement process. We do use a progression model. In this case the debtor would have to reach a certain threshold in terms of either the amount of arrears or the time that has passed without payment. That is going to be set by regulation. As I recall, what we are looking at is an amount of three months of arrears or $3,000, whichever occurs first.
I thank the Minister and Ms. Shaner for their comments as well. I agree with the Minister: people should be paying their maintenance enforcement. That to me is fundamental. And you’ll see that the statistics, again, don’t lie. People who pay their maintenance enforcement can pay their maintenance enforcement. The people who aren’t paying the maintenance enforcement are the people who aren’t making enough money. If they pay the maintenance enforcement, they don’t have enough money to live. They don’t have enough money to pay their rent, to put oil in their fuel tank, to put gas in their tank.
In all of this we have to be fair to the one parent receiving the maintenance support. We also have to be fair to the individual paying it. And in most cases they don’t pay it because they can’t. It’s almost impossible for them to pay it. I’d like to see something to the effect that you take into consideration, as well, the right of the person paying it and ensure that they have enough money to at least put a roof over their head and food on their table. If the maintenance payments are impacting them to the degree that they can’t live — that they can’t sustain themselves — then that’s something else entirely, and we need to look at that.
I think there are a number of people out there, Mr. Chairman, who find themselves getting behind in maintenance enforcement payments. One thing leads to another, and it just drives them right into the ground. I don’t know if we should be doing that to people. Again, the bottom line is that you should be paying your maintenance enforcement. That’s the bottom line; I agree with you on that. But I also agree that we need to be protecting everybody in this and respecting the rights of everybody involved. Whether this is doing that or not, I don’t know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
More of a comment. Mr. Minister, if you want to respond, go ahead.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. As Ms. Shaner already elaborated, where individuals are on EI, there are set standards of payments. Another avenue is, of course, to go back to court and revise payments if they’re not working. Those are avenues that they can certainly turn to. Mahsi.
Clause 36.
Clauses 36 through 38 inclusive approved.
To the bill as a whole.
Bill 5 as a whole approved.
Does committee agree that Bill 5 is ready for third reading?
Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, approved for third reading.
With that, I would like to thank the Minister and thank the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you escort the witnesses out?
What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to report progress.
