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?

Ms. Shaner.

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.

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.

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.