Debates of May 31, 2004 (day 16)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of the Department of Justice, the Honourable Charles Dent. It’s to do with my Member’s statement and the process used for maintenance enforcement. I’m not going to get into any specific case, but just for the policy surrounding maintenance enforcement, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister to explain to me what the role of the sheriff is. Is the sheriff actually an employee of this government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the sheriff is an employee of the government, yes.

Supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as well, I’d like the Minister to inform the House of why there is a fee charged for when there are goods seized on behalf of a parent that is receiving maintenance enforcement, and in order to try and get some of that money the government or sheriff would move to seize some property. Why is there a fee charged for the seizure of that property? Is it a flat fee or is it based on how big the article is, what it’s worth? How does that work? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if I can answer all the detail of the question the Member has posed. However, it’s not uncommon for this government and most governments to charge fees for services that they provide to the public. For instance, if you go in and want to register a document in court registries, there is a fee. If you want to get a driver’s licence, there is a fee for that. When the public asks that a service be performed that isn’t being provided to everybody, it isn’t unusual that there would be a fee charged. My understanding is that that’s the situation also with maintenance enforcement, that if a sheriff has to take some action there is a fee charged for it. It’s not just in maintenance enforcement, it would be the same with serving papers and so on. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the other part of that question was is this fee charged as a flat fee, or is it based on a wide range of the articles being seized? The other question I had, Mr. Speaker, is if it is also common practice to have items that are seized stored somewhere and have storage fees accumulating on this item before it goes for sale. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t answer Mr. Delorey’s question about whether or not it’s a flat fee for every service that’s performed. I would expect on most occasions it is a flat fee per service, but I can’t say that with certainty. I would be happy to investigate and get back to him on that.

On the other case, if an article is seized and stored somewhere, then, yes, it is common for charges to be levied for that storage, particularly if a third party is responsible for the storage. For instance, if a car is seized for non-payment of some bill and there’s a judgment received, if that car has to be stored at the property of the company, that towed the car then, as well as the fees owing, whoever owned the car, if they wanted it back, would have to pay the storage fees.

Final supplementary, Mr. Delorey.

Supplementary To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the part that gives me great concern when we’re adding fees to articles is I don’t know whether there’s any study done as to what articles are worthwhile seizing if there’s going to be a fee charged to it and then a daily rental or storage fee if it’s going to be there for two months. I would expect that with the amount of government property there is everywhere across the Territories, there must be a place that we can store this without accumulating daily fees. Why are we even bothering charging it if it’s not going to bring in any money for who it’s intended to benefit? Is that consideration given to use government properties in the communities rather than having it somewhere where there’s a daily fee attached to it? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 176-15(3): Maintenance Enforcement Policies

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with Mr. Delorey that we should try and minimize any expenses in these sorts of situations and maximize the payments that would be going to affected individuals. I will certainly look into whether or not we can, in the future at least, find a way to use government properties for storage and I’ll report back to the Member what my findings are. Thank you.