1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3201 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mrs. Boone –– 3201

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 3203

Ms. Marzari –– 3211

Mr. Cashore –– 3212

Mr. Barnes –– 3215

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 3217

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Mr. Cashore –– 3218

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 3218

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Mr. Cashore –– 3222

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988

The House met at 2:13 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon there were to

be approximately 30 Japanese students, accompanied by Riva Nelson, who

is the teacher from a Japanese language school in Burnaby; however,

there is only one Japanese student — I understand that Miniature World

won out over the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the House if you

would bid this person welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: My executive assistant has a brother and a

sister, and the sister is here today with her family. Would the House

please welcome Jill and Ken Byron from Saltspring Island and their

children Nicola, Josh, Justin, Chelsea, Regan, and also Joe, who, I'm

afraid, is a little small and is in my office listening to this on the

squawk-box. Also here is her brother, who is the editor of the Gulf Islands Driftwood, Mr. Tony

Richards, and a Rotary exchange student from Belgium, Veronique Bazaar. Would the House please make them all welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like the House to join me in making welcome His Worship Mayor Bose from Surrey and his special assistant, Ms. Sue Hammell.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce today a

great British Columbian. Mr. Jack Bell has been a very successful

businessman. He's now putting some money back into the community for

the less fortunate. He's truly a philanthropist, a friend of the

hospitals and of low-cost housing. He has spent many dollars in that

area. I would like to introduce Mr. Jack Bell.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the members of

the Legislature join me in greeting four of our legislative interns,

seated back behind here, who are working with the New Democrat caucus

for a while: Kelly Hoey, Ben Koning, Russ Brown and Deirdre Wilson, who

have now gone through the initiation process. They are now full

legislative interns instead of rookies. Would you welcome them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a birthday in the House today,

March 1. If March 1 is your birthday, the current cycle highlights

popularity, movement, travel, sensitivity and items concerning

wardrobe, appearance, weight, body image, and so on and so forth. A

major domestic adjustment takes place this month, which in this

member's case may not be all that welcome, but could include actual

change of residence or marital status. And with that said, would the

House join with me in wishing a very happy birthday to the first member

for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser).

MR. GUNO: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a

visitor from Atlin — New Aiyansh, to be precise — Mr. Brian Domney, who

is the principal of the fine Nishga Elementary Secondary School. Will

the House bid him welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to add my welcome to Mayor Bob Bose

from Surrey, and also to ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to Alderman

Carole Kerr who is also in the gallery. Carole is an alderman in Surrey as well.

HON. MR. REID: Not to be outdone by my other two colleagues

representing Surrey, I also make a special welcome, because of the very

high tourist nature of the municipality of Surrey, to His Worship the

Mayor, and to the hardest-working heritage alderman in the province,

Carole Kerr.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier: yesterday the Premier

confirmed that abortions are readily available in our province for

those prepared to pay. I quote: "The policy of the government is with

respect to the payment of abortions." Will the Premier confirm that the

present government abortion policy is based on a user-pay system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The policy is, I repeat, that we only pay for abortions in life-threatening situations.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. Will the Premier not agree that

under this policy those willing and able to pay will be able to avail

themselves of the services of public hospitals, but those without

sufficient funds will be denied them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know whether I can confirm

anything other than what I think must be obvious: yes, it might be

easier for some than for others to obtain them if in fact money is the

question.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary then. Clearly, one kind of health

service is available to the affluent and another to the indigent, and

yet yesterday the Premier denied that there was a two-tiered health

care system in B.C. How can the Premier reconcile his statement of

yesterday with the facts as he stated them today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of health services or health-related services that are not covered through MSP.

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier.

Yesterday the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) told

this House that the superintendent of child welfare will continue to

authorize abortions for children in care. Does the Premier agree with

the Minister of Social Services?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have never disagreed with the Minister of Social Services. He's a wonderful minister.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that the

Premier accepts that policy, can the Premier inform the House how these

abortions for children in care are to be paid for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will be a decision for the parent, in this particular instance the superintendent of welfare.

[ Page 3202 ]

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary to the Premier. When a child in

care has an abortion in a hospital in this province, who will pay for

that abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will be a decision for the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary. There is a grave situation of

confusion in this province; where children are involved, the tragic

consequences deepen. Does the Premier not agree that the superintendent

of child welfare is in an impossible position?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I do not agree, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, just on that matter, the Premier

says, in reference to the second-to-last question asked by my friend,

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, that the decision is the

decision of the superintendent of child welfare. Will the

superintendent of child welfare be using taxpayers' funds to pay for

those abortions? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I really can't tell what source might

be obtained by the superintendent of child welfare. If the

superintendent of child welfare deems a particular service necessary

for a child in care.... I can't answer that. The superintendent of

child welfare works independently of government.

MR. SIHOTA: Supplementary to the Premier. Is it the Premier's

position that the superintendent of child welfare will be using his own

personal funds for the provision of these abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It doesn't matter what the Premier's position is. That will be for the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the Premier, is it not clear then that

the only source of funds available to the superintendent of child

welfare with respect to abortions procured — which you have already

agreed he has an obligation to do and will be allowed to do — is

taxpayers' funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I didn't say that there

was an obligation for the superintendent of child welfare to procure or

seek an abortion for a child in care. That's a decision for the

superintendent of child welfare, and that's not the only source of

funds. The hon. member himself said that the superintendent might wish

to dig into his own pocket. I don't see that happening, but I suppose

there are any number of options. That will be up to the superintendent

of child welfare.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me put it to the Premier that it's going to

come from either his own pocket, which it ought not to, or from the

pocket of the taxpayer. It's that simple.

Maybe we'll try it from a different angle to the Premier — on the

same issue. Inmates of correctional facilities who are pregnant or who

become pregnant are, by virtue of the provisions of the Correction Act

and the Health Act, provided with abortions. Will the authorities in

the corrections branch be allowed to fulfil their independent and

lawful roles to provide and pay for those abortions? Or will they be

required to be puppets of government policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer the question to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's happened in one case already, and the

abortion was performed. The Corrections authorities took the inmate to

a hospital and the abortion was performed in that hospital, and the

hospital took care of the abortion with its own discretionary funds.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General then. Were not taxpayers' funds used for the provision of those abortions?

HON. B.R. SMITH: They may well have been foundation or

fund-raising funds for all I know. I don't know which they were. The

fact is that in the correctional case of someone in care, in custody of

the state, when a doctor said that that medical service should take

place, the authorities took that inmate to a hospital and it was

performed in a public hospital. So your fears are groundless in that

case.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the

Attomey-General and his cohorts on that side know full well that

taxpayer funds are being used for the provision of abortions. They're

being used for abortions for children in care, for those who are

pregnant while they are inmates, and for rape and incest victims.

Taxpayer funds subsidize abortions for the rich. Does the Premier not

agree that his chaotic and confusing abortion policy is riddled with

those inconsistencies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't agree.

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday the Premier told this House: "We

certainly don't dictate to people what it is they do with the moneys we

provide them for welfare or such other assistance." Mr. Speaker, last

week through order-in-council his government restricted British

Columbians on social assistance from paying for an abortion. Is the

policy of the government the one that was adopted by order-in-council

last week, or is it that which the Premier articulated yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Either he hasn't read the order, or he's taken this from some misquote in one of the newspapers, perhaps. I can't tell where

he got the information, but that's certainly not what it was.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't misquote Hansard and I don't

misquote orders-in-council. The order-in-council has been read, and I'm

asking the Premier the question again: is the policy of the government

that adopted by the order-in-council last week, or what you said

yesterday in the House, which is: "We certainly don't dictate to people

what it is they do with the moneys we provide them for welfare or such

other assistance"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, I

should give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to read the

order-in-council again so perhaps he can understand it.

[ Page 3203 ]

MR. HARCOURT: It has been read, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier

will not answer the question. I'll ask a supplementary, then, if he

won't answer that question.

Yesterday the pregnancy of a mildly disabled 13-year-old girl whose

mother is on social assistance was brought to the attention of the

Premier. Will the Premier tell this House where the mother of this girl

gets the money for an abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I will not. I can't do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARCOURT: This is frustrating, because basically what the

Premier will not say is that he's saying to this mother and the

daughter that she has to carry that pregnancy to term and put the baby

up for adoption. Now what is that mother to do?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I certainly hope that we don't

have to institute a means by which we start telling people what they

must or should do or how they should do it. These are decisions people

make for themselves.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, we're getting two different answers, one for rich women and one for poor, and that's unfortunate.

Another question to the Premier. The B.C. hospitals association has

publicly stated that B.C. hospitals must obey the law, and in

particular they have stated yesterday that

section 4 of the Hospital

Act, which ensures that no British Columbian, regardless of ability to

pay, will be refused hospital care.... I'd like to quote — because I

have read the orders-in-council, I have listened to the Premier

yesterday, and I have confirmed that in Hansard ,

the question he won't answer. I'd like to read

section 4 of the

Hospital Act. It says: "No hospital shall refuse to admit a person on

account of his indigent circumstances." I can pass this over to the

Premier if he'd like to read it.

[2:30]

Last week the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) told this House

that he will punish any hospital which obeys the Hospital Act. The

question I have to the Premier is: will he inform this House if he

supports punishment for those hospitals which obey the law?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's no question of punishment here.

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Premier as well. I've

been listening to the debate for the last couple of days in question

period. It seems that the indigent, according to the Health Act, are

guaranteed therapeutic abortion services. Prison inmates in B.C.

correctional institutes are guaranteed publicly funded abortion

services. Wards on child welfare, according to the Premier, are also

guaranteed those services if the superintendent agrees and recommends

this. We know that in public hospitals affluent women are entitled to

these services if they desire them and have the ability to pay. So I

wonder if the Premier will confirm that only those who are the working

poor or on welfare are to be denied therapeutic abortion services by

this government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, that sounds like a political NDP conclusion.

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier along the lines

of my colleague's. The Premier has said — and is quite proud of the

fact — that his decision not to fund abortions under medicare is a

moral one. Could he tell the House how it is moral for the government

to pay for abortion services for wards of the state and for inmates,

yet it is not moral for the government to provide abortion funding

under medicare?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it should be clear to the hon.

member that the superintendent of child welfare is the parent of these

children and is apart, at arm's length, from government. Therefore we

don't interfere with that process. We would have to amend legislation,

and there is no intention of this at all.

MR. CLARK: The Premier, however, can make this point

endlessly and not give us a straight answer. Perhaps the Premier can

give us some rationale, some moral judgment that he has placed here,

for why there is this inconsistency in public funds being used for

abortions in certain circumstances but not being used in other very

narrow circumstances. Given the fact that he feels so strongly about

this issue, given the fact of the speech he made yesterday in this

House — a very emotional one — on this question, how can he justify

public funds in certain circumstances but not in others?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is the decision of this government

that it will not fund abortion on demand, but it's also the decision of

the government that we're not to interfere with the superintendent of

child welfare, who is apart from government.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 71.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member the designated speaker?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes. If I wasn't before this, I am now, I guess.

Before we adjourned for lunch and before that very interesting

question period, where we heard all sorts of answers from the Premier,

which still don't clarify the issue.... In any event, I'd better get on

to dealing with the matter of the legislation before us. Before we

broke for lunch, I was talking about the matter of women who are

recipients of maintenance orders and the need to make sure that it's

absolutely vital that a proper, consistent, efficient and effective

mechanism is established in this province to allow for women to receive

maintenance orders and funds that are directed to be paid pursuant to

orders of court.

I was trying to point out, through my own experiences as a lawyer,

the number of cases that I had to deal with as a storefront community

lawyer in Esquimalt, all sorts of women who were out of pocket because

a husband had defaulted on a $100 or $200 maintenance order, and the

type of financial stress that that created in the household and, more

importantly, the type of emotional stress that it brought upon the

woman and the child.

[ Page 3204 ]

In addition to that, I was pointing out that there are all sorts of

problems with the system we have in this province right now with

respect to the enforcement of maintenance orders and the provision of

funds to women and that the judicial system we have is not adequately

designed to deal in an efficient way with the realities faced by women.

These are women who need the money now, not two weeks from now, when

the court docket will allow the matter to be heard; whose children need

the funds today, not when the adjournment application is going to be

heard because of an overcrowded court. We have to set up a system that

reforms and remedies all the problems we have now in relation to

enforcement of maintenance orders.

If I can simply go over some of the territory I covered prior to the

break, to pick up from where I left off, I was saying that there are

certain things we must demonstrate, fashion or carve out of legislation

to remedy the problems of inadequate funds being secured through

maintenance orders, that first of all there must be a system that is

universal in its application so that the moment when the woman — we're

generally dealing with women — secures the maintenance order, it is

filed immediately with government authorities so that in the event of a

conflict or a default of payment, it's the authorities who move to

secure the payment. The onus then is upon the authorities and the

delinquent spouse, not upon the recipient spouse.

Our system is contorted today, because it's the recipient spouse —

the woman in most instances — who has to initiate the court action in

order to secure payment from a delinquent husband. When you think about

the barriers faced by women — the financial barrier of trying to pay

for a lawyer when you know that it's a $100 or $200 maintenance order

and you can't recover your fees, the barrier of knowing that your costs

aren't going to be paid for, because you're dealing with a Provincial

Court application or with a chambers application in County Court or

Supreme Court....

In addition to that, there's the stress of going to court, and more

importantly, the financial and emotional stress of not knowing whether

the money is going to come in and having to rely on a judicial process

in a province where legal-aid funding is not available to secure

enforcement of maintenance orders. If you want to begin to change that

system, which I say we must and which we are beginning to do in the

legislation being debated in the House today, then you've got to ensure

that the system is going to be universal in its application, so you

don't have to come to the courts when you get that maintenance order,

when the divorce order is filed or when a determination is made under

the Family Relations Act — so that you can just have it filed

immediately with the authorities, triggered, monitored and, in the

event of default, acted upon.

Prior to the break, I was also pointing out that apart from the

system being universal it must also be free. But being cognizant of

costs.... It's very easy to say we've got to have a universal system,

we've got to have a free system, and that's the way it should be set

up. We also have to look at the cost end of it. As I was pointing out,

the experience in other jurisdictions is that through a properly

comprehensive, broad-based, provincewide, public-sector-driven system

of collecting maintenance orders.... The experience in jurisdictions

such as Manitoba has been that it is cost-effective; the money saved on

the payment of welfare and social assistance benefits is greater than

the money expended on maintaining the bureaucratic apparatus to run the

system. I have the figures from Manitoba, if they are of interest to

members of the Legislature. The cost of running the program was just

under $600,000, and over $1,000,000 was saved in unnecessary welfare

payments, for a net saving to the treasury of about $400,000. Certainly

a similar program can be implemented in British Columbia.

As I was saying prior to the break, it must first of all be

universal, it must second be free, and third, it must also limit

association with spouses. One of the problems that we all see as

practitioners in this field — as a lawyer and prior to that as a social

worker — often the dropping off of the cheque at the house is an excuse

for all sorts of other things and invites all sorts of unwarranted and

unwanted conflicts. I don't think I have to get into the details, but

usually they centre on matters of custody and access, what's going to

happen when Christmas vacation is over and all that kind of stuff.

Often this invites intervention of the courts or police. As counsel I

have experienced the terror of women who have expressed to me their

concerns about having a husband drop off some money. If you want to

reform the system, there must be an intermediary, a depository which

collects the money on behalf of the spouse and then transmits it to the

recipient spouse so as to limit or evaporate the potential for conflict.

I was saying that the fourth attribute after the universality, the

fact that it must be provided for free, and that it must limit

association with spouses, is that it must also be a system which

invites nominal legal involvement. I think that was the point that I

left off on. You must have a system that does not lend itself to all

sorts of opportunities for the delinquent spouse to abuse the rules. In

other words....

HON. MR. VEITCH: What bill is this?

MR. SIHOTA: I fear that the Provincial Secretary is a little confused over which bill we are on. I guess he thinks we're still on Bill 28.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's the same speech.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to think it was the same speech, but

it's not. I wish the Provincial Secretary would listen; then he'd

realize very quickly that it isn't the same speech. I'm sure the

Provincial Secretary would take note of the fact that my delivery of

this speech is a far cry from my delivery yesterday, with respect to

that contemptuous piece of legislation known as Bill 28.

Be that as it may, I guess I have indirectly said that I have more

confidence that the Attorney-General will take into account my

meritorious comments with respect to this legislation than that the

Provincial Secretary will agree to listen to what I had to say about

Bill 28, making comments based upon my meritorious points.

[2:45]

In any event, the system must invite nominal legal involvement. In

other words, you don't want a system that's going to lend itself to

abuse by the delinquent spouse. You don't want a system where you can

come in front of the courts and argue for another delay because you

haven't got your financial statements ready, you don't have your T-4s

with you; another adjournment because you have to see your doctor that

day; and the poor woman is sitting there in the back of the courtroom

wondering when she's going to get her money and be able to feed the

kids. You've got to have a system which says that the buck stops here.

[ Page 3205 ]

Those are the points that I left with this morning. I want to move

on to a whole series of additional points which I think are the

attributes of a properly run and sensitive maintenance enforcement

legislation. Then, of course, what I want to do is compare what we have

before us in this House with those qualities that I'll be talking about

this afternoon.

If you want to deal with the problems that arise, the system must be

efficient. I think that's the other attribute that you're looking at.

You've got to have a system that does not interrupt the cash flow. I

want members of the House to picture themselves in the situation of a

woman, because often that's the case — I don't want a stereotype but

it's often the case — receiving, as I often saw, an income of about

$1,100 a month, of which perhaps $200 or $300 comes in the form of

maintenance payments. It's very tough for a woman with one child, for

example, to raise a family on $1,100. It's a lot tougher on $800 or

$900. And you never seem to know whether or not you're going to get

that $200 or $300 maintenance cheque at the end of each month,

particularly in cases where husbands have a record of falling into

arrears.

So you get towards the end of the month or in that time period

between pay cheques and you don't have the money, and you're waiting

for that $200 or $300 cheque to come in. We've got to have a system in

this province that limits the delay, that is efficient, that doesn't

put the recipient spouse in the position of having to sit and wait,

checking the mail every day to see whether or not the payment has come

in; a system in which money can be attached or secured quickly,

expeditiously, efficiently so as not to interrupt cash flow.

I have some strong opinions on this, in light of my own experiences.

I see nothing wrong with the establishment of a provision to deduct the

money at source; in other words, when the employer is making deductions

from the husband's paycheque for income tax, pension, benefits and the

same, a deduction for maintenance can also be made right then and there

and transmitted by the employer to an authority. The authority then

transmits the money to the wife. Better still, have the employer

transmit it directly to the wife, although that does create some

problems. It probably should just go straight to the authorities.

If you can set up a system that allows for the deduction of those

moneys at source, I think you would solve a lot of the problems. In

fact, we've seen in other jurisdictions that with the implementation of

a properly funded universally accessible free system, as they have in

Manitoba, the rate of delinquency changes. In the early eighties

Manitoba had a system that was analogous to what is in place in this

province today, and at that time about 15 to 25 percent of maintenance

orders were being adhered to, much like this province today. Because of

the implementation of a system which meets the attributes I'm talking

about, their capture rate — those are my words — has gone up to about

85 percent.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that it's possible to implement a

system that is efficient, cost-effective, universal, doesn't involve

any type of legal involvement and allows for the capturing of about 85

percent of the maintenance orders that are issued. That's what we ought

to be heading for in this province. It requires a sensitive,

computerized program, and there are models. There's obviously a model

in Manitoba; there's an outstanding model down in California, I believe

in Sacramento, which through technology is able to monitor the movement

of donor spouses to make sure that they pay their share of maintenance

orders.

Another attribute which I think is important, I think because of my

own personal, strong view — some will obviously take issue with my view

that there ought to be deductions at source — is that there must be

some provision for security, allowing for the spouse to put up some

security to guarantee payment. If memory serves me correctly — and I

want to flag this issue for the Attorney-General — I don't think the

legislation that's before the House deals with the matter of security,

or of putting into court an amount greater than that which is

authorized under the court order. Other jurisdictions have ordered that

there be security posted in instances of ongoing delinquency.

I think that's really important. Take again the instance of the

woman who is waiting for that $200 or $300 maintenance cheque to drift

in and the husband is delinquent and is not making the payment. If she

knows there is held a security — $1,000, $1,500 or $500 or $2,000, or

whatever is consistent with the ability-to-pay principle, which is

determined at trial when the judge looks at the circumstances of each

spouse.... I think there should be a provision for security, or an

opportunity to be able to go to the courts and ask for the posting of

security.

This would solve in part the problem of interruption of funds. It

would solve in part the cash flow problem. If someone is delinquent,

then you can rely on that reservoir of security to secure the payment.

If they're not, then that security stays there, and perhaps it can be

removed after a time defined. It's not a novel concept; it's not

unique. Heck, we see it in situations involving even B.C. Hydro and

B.C. Tel. B.C. Tel, if I understand their legislation correctly, will

often say to people who have a record of delinquency on payments:

"Look, you're going to have to give us an advance payment of $500 or

$1,000 and we'll hold it. We'll put interest on it and we'll keep it

there, and if you're good for a year we'll return it to you."

I see nothing wrong with the injection of that type of principle

into maintenance legislation, which gives the court, the adjudicating

authority, the opportunity, upon application, to require the posting of

some type of security, leaving it up to the trier of fact, the court,

to determine the quantum of that security. But it would deal with the

question of interruption of cash flow. It would then allow for one to

go after the delinquent spouse, at no expense to the recipient spouse

in terms of interruption of cash flow. It would allow the authorities

to haul the person in front of the court under this legislation and

say,"Well, what's happening here? Why aren't you making the payments?",

without causing financial stress, discomfort or irritation to the

recipient spouse. I think that would be a positive move with respect to

the laws relating to the enforcement of maintenance orders — a positive

development.

There are going to be people who will object to it. There are going

to be people who complain. But the purpose of this Legislature is to

get tough on certain types of behaviour, and one type of behaviour that

it ought not to be condoning is the delinquency usually of husbands but

let's say delinquency of spouses who are not prepared to live up to

their obligations under a court order of maintenance. That should be

done. That provision should be provided, and that type of teeth,

toughness, or whatever you want to call it, should be made available to

those who are administering the legislation. Security ought to be a

cornerstone of the legislation.

The next point I want to move on to in terms of the attributes is

that the program must be well administered. It can't be run on a

cavalier basis. It must be run with people

[ Page 3206 ]

who understand the system, who have a desire to make sure that it works.

I'm going to make these points in perhaps a little more depth later

on, but to flag the issue at this stage, in my submission the program

must be public-sector driven. I think that is the only way of ensuring

that it's adequately administered. I don't think it makes any sense at

all to have a system for the enforcement of maintenance orders which is

administered by the private sector on a profit basis. Not this type of

system; it just doesn't quite make sense, and we'll get to that in a

minute.

It must also be — and I guess this is the next attribute that's

important in my mind — accessible. It should be as easy for a woman

living in Smithers or Atlin as it is for a woman in Victoria or

Vancouver to have access to the system. It must be administered on a

provincewide basis; it must be accessible to the user on a provincewide

basis.

I don't think it's possible to set up an effective maintenance

system based in Vancouver only. The person in need of assistance and in

possession of a maintenance order must be able to get down to that

system awfully quickly. My concern is that if you have a system that's

based in Vancouver only, that's obviously not going to happen. It must

be accessible.

Again, as I say, it means that it will involve a major expenditure

of funds, but if we look at the Manitoba experience, which is

administered on a provincewide basis and which runs, I believe, on a

provincial court basis right across the province, and on a supreme and

county court basis in Winnipeg, it can be done. It can be done with

ease, but it must be accessible, so that when a woman in Smithers, for

example, finds out that her husband has defaulted on a maintenance

payment when there is no provision for security, it's a simple matter

of getting down to the nearest government official who is responsible

for this to get the thing handled.

I'm not saying that you've got to have a government official in

every hamlet or village in British Columbia, but I'm saying that if

that's one end of the spectrum, which is superior to the other end of

the spectrum — one office in Vancouver — it has to be accessible on a

reasonable level across the province.

[3:00]

In addition to the foregoing, in my submission, there must be a

better system than we've got right now of tracking the incomes of

husbands. To a large measure I think this legislation, through its

administrative scheme, endeavours to achieve that, but too often I've

seen the frustration of a wife seeking to enforce a maintenance order

when a husband has received money under the table, knowing that he has

all of these chattels and possessions that are not consistent with an

income of $200 a month. He's got a car, a stereo and all sorts of other

things. It's not consistent.

There must be a better system of tracking the income of husbands,

which really involves, in part, cooperation at the federal level with

the federal data banks on income tax, T-4s and just tracking down the

system. One of the difficulties under the current system is that the

onus is on the recipient spouse — in other words, the one who's not

getting the money — to come in and demonstrate that the delinquent

spouse has a better income than that which he is alleging.

That's fine in the case of a spouse who has a husband who is

affluent and who is a bank manager or the head of a major corporation

or a hockey player or whatever. It's a lot easier for her, because the

quantum of her payment is sufficiently large to allow for a lawyer to

look after that type of situation. But it's not easy for a woman who's

dealing with a husband who's perhaps a labourer who goes from one

construction job to another. In those types of situations, there has to

be assistance available, and the onus ought not to be so heavily on her

to demonstrate that his income is greater than that which he is

suggesting. The balance, if there is one in this legislation, ought to

be tilted in favour of the woman who is seeking to enforce the

maintenance order. That's how it should operate.

The next attribute — as we try to draft legislation to deal with

this issue — which I think is of paramount consideration is one that

deals with the ability to vary maintenance orders. I will put this on

the record: although I am sure it leaves me vulnerable for attack, it's

my submission that the legislation ought to be open to variation, with

a bias in favour of the spouse alleging a greater need for income.

I was saying earlier on this morning that my experience has been

that maintenance payments are unrealistically low. In fact, I was

reading a significant study on that whole point put out by the Manitoba

Advisory Council on the Status of Women; it is a study that I would

highly recommend. It's a study that just only recently came to my

attention, and I don't know if it's ever been replicated in British

Columbia. It looks at some of the court decisions.... In fact, it

traced all of the court decisions on maintenance cases heard in the

Manitoba courts between 1983 and 1984, and it allocated a percentage to

each spouse after adjustment through maintenance awards — in other

words, how much of the income was going to which spouse. It highlights

the cases and it provides about eight or nine cases that it says are

indicative of what's happening. In one case, 82 percent of the income

was for the husband and 18 percent for the wife and two children after

19 years of marriage; in other case, 54 percent was for the husband and

46 percent for the wife and two children; in another case, 75 percent

was for the husband and 25 percent for the wife after 27 years of

marriage; in another case, 69 percent was for the husband and 31

percent for the wife and one child. These are cases that they've

highlighted. I don't know if they represent the extreme or not.

What I'm getting at is that that in many ways does reflect my

experience. I've certainly worked on both sides of the coin on this

issue and I know the game. I think that there seems to be, as I said

earlier today, a kind of inbred acceptance that households headed by

females ought to have a standard of living that is lower than those

units led by the husband, by a male. That's never reflected in any

policy; it's never reflected in any statements of law. It's certainly

not reflected in the provisions of the Family Relations Act, and it's

not, from my own experience, a reflection of the biases of the courts

or the judges. I certainly have done enough chambers work on this type

of stuff in Victoria and Vancouver to know that the judges are very

sensitive to these issues, and I think in many cases they should be

commended for their approach. Yet the numbers I've just quoted

reinforce the attitude which I've just articulated, and certainly this

reflects my experience as well.

There must be a system of variation which is skewed in favour of the

children and the recipient spouse. I don't think there necessarily has

to be a material change in circumstances to warrant a variation in the

maintenance order. In other words, I would be a little bit more

liberal. It's my submission that there are simply too many husbands who

are getting away with paying an inadequate amount of maintenance

payments, which just causes all sorts of problems within their former

family unit.

[ Page 3207 ]

Those are some of the attributes that I would consider as being

important if one were to develop and draft legislation in this regard.

Quickly just to review them: the system must be universal, it must be

free, there must be nominal legal involvement, there must be limited

association with spouses, the system must be efficient, it must be open

to variation, there must be a provision for security, there must be a

better system of tracking the income of husbands, it must be well

administered, and it must be accessible.

I guess the other point is that I don't think that the system of

maintenance ought to be linked to custody and access. I made that point

earlier this morning. I think that maintenance, custody and access

ought to be separate and distinct issues, reviewed in a separate and

distinct fashion with separate and distinct considerations. Payment of

maintenance ought not to be used as a lever to secure greater custodial

or access rights on the part of the delinquent spouse.

The issue then, as I said, is how this legislation that's before the

House matches up with those attributes that I've referred to. First of

all, the system that's before the House today is not universal; it's by

choice. We've had more than our share of debate in this chamber in the

last week, particularly during question period and certainly yesterday

in the statement the Leader of the Opposition made about choice.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

But this legislation is not universal. It does not automatically

apply to all maintenance payments. It does undoubtedly give people the

option of opting in, but it's not universal in its application, and I

think it should be. I don't think that the recipient spouse should have

to come to the system; I think the system should come to her — or him,

as the case may be. I think the moment one of those orders is made, it

ought to be filed. I think that to wait for there to be a default and a

stressful situation is to invite at least one stressful situation that

is not needed. I think it's presupposing that the people are going to

be well informed about the system, will know how it works and will be

able to get access to it right away. I don't think that's the case. I

think they should be registered right off the bat. It's no problem if

the spouse is making payments on a regular basis in any event; it's not

really an administrative headache.

Secondly, I think that once a person is registered, that person

should be given information on the system. If they're automatically

registered, then it's very easy to send them information on the system,

as opposed to the opposite, where they're not automatically registered,

where they may not necessarily know about the system, where they only

learn about the system once there's been a default. They get into this

sort of exacerbated kind of stressful environment. They don't know

what's going to happen, what they can do, who they go to, and then they

learn about the system.

I think it ought to be a universal system. I think the information

ought to be provided right then and there for the person. I don't think

it's fair to assume that they'll know about the system. I don't think

it's fair to assume that people often have legal sophistication. And I

think, most importantly, a lot of people have a problem with

bureaucracy. They may not have faith in the bureaucratic system, or

more importantly, they just don't think it will work for them. So they

don't utilize it. They're also worried about the implications of going

there — the implication of going to a government authority to enforce a

maintenance order, and what type of reaction that's going to invite

from the spouse who pays, who's delinquent, when that spouse comes to

pick up the kids; which is in many ways different from the situation

when a delinquent spouse is acted upon automatically by way of an

administrative scheme.

Often — and I'm telling you, this is the experience on the street —

people are leery about going to a government authority, worried about

the implications of doing that. Often they use that as a lever in their

negotiations with the other spouse over custody and access, as a

threat, saying: "Well, look, if you don't pay up. I'll go to the

system." I don't think that's the way it should work. I think the

system should be there to work immediately, forthwith, right from point

one for the person. It's trying to set up a system which recognizes the

human dimension of the problems.

You know, those problems are just as real, I found, for a woman who

is in receipt of a large maintenance award as they are for a woman who

is in receipt of a nominal maintenance award. But it makes more sense

to have a system that just automatically clicks in. It's not a great

expense to the state. Like I say, if the system works and the husband

pays all of his maintenance orders, it's just a matter of a flick of a

computer at the end of each month. If the system doesn't work, then

there ought to be the apparatus that goes into play to protect that

woman, as is often the case.

So why not make it universal? Why not just make the system work

right off the bat? I think that there are all sorts of — and I can hear

them already — esoteric, theoretical arguments as to why you want to

give people the choice to opt into one of these programs. We could

argue about those in academic terms in the confines of this

Legislature. The reality of the experience that people meet when

dealing with these types of matters is different. I think the reality

of that experience invites a universal system. The legislation before

us doesn't work that way. It encourages people to come to it. As much

as that may not seem like a big deal for all of us in here, it is for a

lot of people, and I just think we should automatically click it in. We

already have staff in the courts who will go through the maintenance

orders and sign them. It's a simple matter for them to be referred to

the next person or for they themselves to punch the particulars into

the computer. It doesn't take very long. Before you put the court stamp

on it, just punch it into the computer, saying Mr. X will pay Y amount

of dollars each month to Mrs. X, and the children get a different sum.

It doesn't take a lot to put that in. Then it's tracked, and the

bureaucracy works.

[3:15]

One of the arguments against that, I guess, would be to say that

that invites, particularly in a private-sector-driven system, more work

than we care to give them. But I just don't think that's good enough.

That's the first problem with the system: it's not universal. I think

it ought to be.

The second difficulty I have with the system is that it's not public

sector driven. I gather that from statements accompanying the

legislation, both from the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) and the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), and, I think,

some of the comments made after that — I won't bother looking for them

— that it's not going to be a public-sector-driven program. I think

there are a lot of problems with not having a public-sector-driven

program, and I want to go through each one of them that I can identify.

First of all, there's a matter of information. By the way, I should say, before I go any further, that I understand the

[ Page 3208 ]

director of the program is a public servant, if I

correctly understood the Attorney-General's comments this morning. It's

not public sector driven, and that raises all sorts of problems. The

first problem obviously is one of access to information. Under the

system as envisioned here in the legislation before this House, the

individuals who will be given the task of administering the program

will have access to all sorts of information about the delinquent

spouse.

Now think about that for a moment. A private group or private

company, not responsible in typical civil servant fashion to the

dictates of a minister, will have access to federal data banks, income

tax information, social insurance information, unemployment insurance

information, provincial data banks, pension information at the

provincial level and wage rates at the provincial level, particularly

for provincial government employees and others who work within the

public sector. That's an enormous volume of information. There's a

recognition on the part of all of us in this Legislature that there

must be a way to sort of hold on to that information and not allow it

to fall into the hands of third parties. It's a lot easier to control

that in the public sector mechanism than it is in the private sector

mechanism.

We know it's tough enough in the public sector. We just witnessed

this week the discovery of all sorts of files in Ontario — Queen's Park

— that related to the backgrounds of alleged sexual abusers. That

information was left outside an elevator, as I understand it, in the

Legislature in Ontario, and sat there until picked up by some fortunate

researcher for the opposition party, who was able to make all sorts of

headlines with it. I just regret it wasn't a New Democrat. In any

event, all that information that was picked up could have been used in

a very detrimental way against the individual.

What safeguards do we have if that information is going to be made

available to private sector companies? It seems to me that that

information is best left in the hands of public sector civil servants.

It just makes far more sense to try to put limits on that information.

But once it's in the hands of the private sector, I think the potential

for abuse or loss of that information is greater.

If you think about it, I'm sure there are all sorts of private

sector companies that would love to be able to have information as to

the earnings of every husband whose wife is seeking maintenance orders

— for marketing reasons.... There are all sorts of things that would be

useful for, and we've seen that used in that fashion. That's one reason.

The second reason that we should have a public-sector-driven system

view. I don't know what mechanism the ministry intends to set up to

administer the system, so I'm speaking a little bit here only on the

basis of information that has been provided me by my researchers; and

if it's incorrect, I'm sure the Attorney-General will correct it.

I understand that it's not going to be a provincewide system, that

it's going to be administered essentially through a central office,

probably in the lower mainland or on southern Vancouver Island. I have

no problems with just the computer facility being located there and

everyone else having access into the data base. But I have a lot of

trigger activity in the Vancouver or Victoria area in order to have the

apparatus of enforcement come into play. You're going to have a lot of

problems with that. Or if it has to be filed down here, and then it's

somebody else, an agent up in Smithers or someplace like that, who does

the work? It's got to be a provincewide system.

As I understand the tendering process, the tendering process does

not limit it to being set up in just one comer of the province. I think

that's a mistake. Under the circumstances, that could in fact be the

ultimate mistake in the program that the government is envisioning to

going to have a universal system. If you're going to have a system

which says to people that they have to opt in, and if the system is

going to be effectively administered from one corner of the province,

then you're just creating another barrier in terms of them being able

to have access to the system.

If the system is profit-driven, I can see exactly why one would want

to have it all based in one place: you limit your overhead; you put all

your apparatus in place there; you have agents who work up in the

interior, for example, if there has to be enforcement of an order or a

notice of attachment filed. But it doesn't make sense for the person

we're supposedly trying to help under this system — the woman in most

the best way to ensure that is through a public-sector-driven program,

not through a private-sector-driven program.

Because I don't get a chance to speak again on this matter later on,

I'm looking forward to hearing from the Attorney-General his reasons as

to why he believes it is advantageous and in the interests of the woman

seeking the maintenance order to have the system run on a private

sector basis. And what studies, what preliminary work, has the ministry

done to date to demonstrate that it would be cheaper to the taxpayer to

have the system through the private sector as opposed to the public

sector? Another question that I would put to the Attorney-General is:

what flexibility does it wish to ascribe to those wishing to enforce

the order? I notice there's a provision in there which, as I read it,

allows for social workers and lawyers to be hired to administer the

program, but not necessarily to be paid for or to live up to some of

their other professional responsibilities. What about that issue? Is it

that we're looking simply to save dollars, and how do we know that by

the saving of those dollars we'll run a system that's still cheaper

than public-sector-driven programs?

The other reason I think it ought to remain within the public sector

is that the whole system ought to be integrated. There must be some

form of integration between what is necessary to further the provisions

of the act: i.e., attachment and garnishment orders, filing against

land, registering in various registries to assert the priority of the

maintenance order. Apart from all of that, if somebody comes in who

requires assistance under this legislation, they ought to have access

to all sorts of other government services, like debt counselling,

family planning, family counselling, that kind of stuff. Surely the

private sector is not going to see it as part of its mandate to do

that, but the public sector will.

The public sector will very definitely see that it's part of its

mandate to try to refer a woman, for example, or a man with a couple of

kids, who is having trouble managing their finances adequately,

balancing the books, staying away from Kraft dinners. If someone is

having difficulty doing that, then the thing to do is to refer them to

someone who has got some skills in terms of budget planning. On the

other side of the coin, if a spouse has been delinquent in payments and

it's evident that the delinquency is a function, as often happens, of

poor management, of large VISA accounts and large expense accounts and

an onerous debt obligation for a car,

[ Page 3209 ]

and that kind of stuff, in order to skew the debt

load so as to justify the payment of a nominal amount of

maintenance.... In that instance, though, there would be debt

counselling available to the person. And that happens. I've seen more

than my share of cases of men who say that they are unable to make a

maintenance payment to a woman but are, on the other hand, paying off

their car over two years instead of four. That happens. It's partially

a misreading of priorities, it's partially a matter of selfishness and

it's partially a way to pay less in terms of maintenance.

[3:30]

I've already talked about the end of recipient and family

counselling or budget counselling, but on the other side of the coin,

when the public official notices that there is a debt-load problem

with....

I notice that the three characters in the back of the room there are

having a lot of fun listening to this. I just want to get in on the

joke later, especially with the newest member of the bar, the member

from Langley, who has all of these great legal skills that I had no

knowledge of until a couple of days ago when he did a runaround on me,

quoting a famous case — now famous in my mind, at least. And I must say

that I've got one to get even with him on.

In any event, the debt counselling. It happens, when a spouse comes

in and they've got a huge debt load and they use that as the reason why

they can't make a maintenance order. It's not going to be in the

interests of the private sector agent to waste time, when time is

money, and do some debt counselling with this person, but it would be

in the case of the public sector agent. It's a pretty compelling reason

why, in my view, it ought to be public-sector-driven, because the

nature of the obligation is not on the mean-spirited profit motive;

it's on the basis of help. And I think help is needed in these types of

instance. So from a debt counselling point of view, it would make a lot

more sense to have the availability of counselling than to have it

within the public sector domain.

There would be reference to other forms of counselling. Like I said,

family planning is often an issue. To what extent will a private sector

individual counselling under this program give advice to a husband who

wishes to remarry on the implications of the budget as it relates to

the new family and the old family? I don't think there's much of an

obligation on the part of the private sector individual. There would be

in terms of the public sector individual. If we were to believe all

those crazy things the Premier has been saying lately about family

planning and that kind of stuff — financial planning — it seems to me

that they would be prepared to do this as well.

So I think that those are some of the reasons why, in my submission,

there must be a public-sector-driven program in this instance.

The third problem that I see with this legislation is that it lacks

security provisions. I've already talked about that and I won't go on

in any further depth, but I really think there ought to be a provision

for security here.

The fourth issue that is of concern to me — and where I think this

legislation somewhat fails — is that in some instances it involves the

courts too much in the process. There are some sections that we should

take a look at. I'll make some further comments when we get to

clause-by-clause reading, because I know that what I'm saying here now

sort of impinges upon the clause-by-clause debate.

Section 14 is one that, when it deals with the failure to provide a

statement of finances, is too lengthy in terms of the times that it

provides. I think there's a 30-day provision in there which I think is

just too long for a spouse to wait. A debtor should be forced to

provide financial statements forthwith.

There's no reason why someone cannot provide financial statements

quickly. It's not that difficult to come up with an income and expenses

sheet. It's not that difficult to come up with a T-4. It's not that

difficult to come up with your income tax statements for the last three

years, or even for last year. It's not that difficult to tell people

what your rent, hydro and electricity rates are for the month. It's not

that difficult to try to come up with that information.

In my view, it's inexcusable that someone would be coming to court,

fully informed and knowledgeable about the fact that the application to

be heard by the court is an application for the payment of maintenance,

and not have in his or her possession a financial statement providing

particulars of income and expenses. If they don't, I don't think that

we should be giving them a lot of time to come back with one.

Section

14(3) talks about 30 days.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, it talks about a term of imprisonment not

exceeding 30 days, so we got it a little wrong on that. But it seems to

me that if someone has failed to provide a statement of finances. he

must be back in front of the trier of fact within hours — I don't think

you can put that in legislation; within a day or two — with that

statement of finances. If they can't put it in there, then there should

be some fairly heavy consequences.

Those consequences are provided for in the bill, but I think the

time-frame should be shortened, because I just think there is nothing

worse, from my experience.... Well, not nothing worse, but it certainly

is often used as a delaying technique: "I don't have my financial

statements." Well, darn it, you know what you're coming for; you should

have them prepared.

I've seen people skirt their financial responsibilities; I've seen

the stress that builds up in those who are seeking some type of

funding. And this is at the front end of the system, where we haven't

even got an order. There must be less court involvement in that

section

and a greater responsibility on the person, far more toughness in terms

of providing financial statements.

By the way, I was going to deal with

section 16, but before I do I

noticed that here in

section 15, with respect to the notice of

attachment.... I think that's a good portion of the legislation. I

think that should be applauded. Whoever drafted that.... I read through

that, and I felt that it was well written. I thought it was sensitive

to the realities of the situation.

We've got to get away from this crazy system that we have in this

province — or that we used to have in this province, I guess, depending

on what happens to this legislation — with respect to garnishment

orders. You have to get them signed in the right spot, and if you don't

have the initials in the right spot and you don't have the right

paragraph crossed out in the right fashion, it's going to be tossed out

on a technicality. Let me tell you, in my experience I never even liked

witnessing garnishment statements because in the back of my mind I

always thought I must be doing something wrong. The law on garnishment

orders was becoming so convoluted and technical by the people who

argued it that if all the i's weren't

[ Page 3210 ]

dotted and the t's weren't crossed twice, the garnishment order was null and void.

I think the concept of the notice of attachment is a good one. It's a very healthy one.

I just have some concerns about the next section, which talks about

the termination of the attachment if the debtor enters into a voluntary

payment arrangement that is satisfactory to the director. Maybe I'm

reflecting my own strong personal biases on this again. I can

understand why that provision was put into

section 16(7). I see nothing

wrong with hanging on to that notice as a lever that's operating in the

back of the mind.

I guess maybe my attitude towards absconding debtors is to treat

them a little bit like criminals in this instance. That's probably

surprising coming from someone of my political persuasion, but I just

think that we should be very tough with those people. If they enter

into a voluntary payment arrangement, I don't think the notice should

simply be terminated. It can be suspended, but in the event of a

delinquency, particularly shortly thereafter, I don't think you should

have to go back through the process. We've got the thing there and it's

drafted; let's get on with it and secure the money.

What I'm saying is controversial, because I realize the counter

argument to that as well. But I think that the overriding principle

here has got to be not to interrupt the cash flow or the money that the

woman is to receive.

Section 17(6) also causes me some difficulty, because I think it

ties up the situation a little bit too much in court. I'm wary about

being ruled out of order because I'm going through a couple of sections

here, but I think that

section we ought to take another look at. The

whole

section 17, and particularly 17(6), just involves too much. The

whole

section is, in my view, convoluted with opportunities for people

like myself, when they want to, to expand out the system and to make

the system a little bit more inefficient than is intended.

There are other provisions of the legislation which I'll have to

applaud. I think that

section 20, particularly

section 20(1)(d), is

again well written and deals with a situation that ought to be

prevented. But we'll leave that stuff for debate.

I want to summarize my comments at this stage. I appreciate the

indulgence.... I see some of the members opposite are delighted to know

I'll be wrapping up here in a minute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's that island air.

MR. SIHOTA: The government House Leader thinks it's that

island air that encourages us to be so lengthy in our comments.

Particularly for those members who come from the north, we're doing you

a favour by having you come down here to enjoy the climate and see

Victoria and smell the daffodils, and all that kind of stuff. I'm sure

you would love to be here more often in the course of the year than up

there in the cold climate of the frigid north in Prince George; but if

not, I guess I'm wrong.

Anyhow, I am summarizing here. The legislation on the whole is good.

I'm not going to take issue with a lot of the provisions within the

legislation. As I say, the security provision I think we should take a

look at. The legislation on the whole is good. It's reasonably well

thought out, and I think we should give it an opportunity. I think we

should allow it to be played out, to see how it works. If flaws come up

through it, I think we can amend it and improve it. But as a

legislative instrument, the act that's before us is good. I'm not going

to go out of way to criticize it. It reminds me a bit of the debate we

had on the Expropriation Act.

However, although the legislation is a Cadillac, it's got a

Volkswagen engine in that the administrative scheme, the

private-sector-driven engine of the apparatus, is wrong. I don't think

this type of administrative scheme can be best driven by the private

sector. There are other types that can, there's no doubt about it. But

there are no models that are private-sector-driven that prove to be any

better than the public-sector-driven model that we see in Manitoba.

It's not my desire to add unnecessarily to the public sector, but in

cases where it makes sense — and I think it does in this one — we ought

to.

It's good legislation, with the flaw being in its administration and

its application in that regard. That's where the government should be

focusing in on in terms of changes. I'm convinced, quite frankly, that

we can clean up some of the provisions that I talked about that are

inadequate — the various sections and the security provision. I'm

positive we can clean that up. But in terms of the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that, but I'm

wrapping up here and I'm sure you don't want to hear any more from me —

especially in Kelowna.

It's good legislation. The administration of it I think is going to

be weak if it's private-sector-driven. That's the source of the debate

and the source of the concern. I'm positive that we can clean up the

provisions that I pointed to that caused me some concern and make them

tougher. But I don't think the government is correct in moving it on a

private sector basis.

I want to end by saying this. There is a legal and judicial affairs

committee of the House, and that committee is empowered to look after

these types of matters. There is also another committee that deals with

social services. That committee is also empowered to look at this kind

of stuff.

This legislation ought not to be legislation where there is a major

political difference, a major political fight over. This is not the

type of legislation that is like Bill 19 or Bill 28, the Election Act;

it's administrative legislation. It's legislation that all of us have a

keen desire to make sure works, because all of us have a heartfelt

sensitivity to those caught in the cracks and forced to seek assistance

from government, or refuge, or assistance for families, because of

inadequate income.

[3:45]

We're all interested in improving the supply and flow of income,

particularly to the women who are affected. It seems to me it makes a

lot of sense that this legislation, in order to iron out some of the

wrinkles and, secondly and more importantly, to adequately investigate

and deal with the matter as to public-sector or private-sector-driven,

which is the better model.... There should be more thought put into

that.

Let's take a look and if a case can be made that it should be

private-sector-driven, fine. But let's take a look at the arguments on

both sides of the coin and then come up with the best engine, public or

private sector, to drive this legislation. Let's not just make a

decision on the basis of ideology, which appears to have happened here.

In order to research that data and in order to arrive at a

well-founded decision on the matter of the engine that's going to drive

this legislation, public or private sector, the best

[ Page 3211 ]

approach really would be to refer it to one of

those two committees on that issue. We're doing it on all sorts of

other matters, and I'm on two committees.

We're looking at builders' liens, of all things, at the judicial

affairs committee, and there is no NDP policy or Socred policy on

builders' liens. We know there is a problem there and we've got to

clean it up in terms of good administrative, tough, sensitive

legislation. The same attitude ought to apply in this instance as well.

It's my view that the matter ought to go to that committee, not for

months but.... You know, this has been an exposure bill. We've sat

through it during Christmas. There is a need, and I think it is a

pressing need, to proceed with the legislation, but not so pressing as

to deter the ability of a committee to assess whether or not it should

be publicly or privately driven, within reasonable time parameters.

In fact, given the consequences if you make the wrong decision,

which you are in this case in terms of private sector, the legislation

will fail. If it fails, then it really is a disservice to those who are

relying on this piece of legislation. I think that issue should be

referred to the committee for some study so we can see what the models

are elsewhere, so we can see what the advantages and disadvantages are

elsewhere and so we can come with some type of consensual report back

to this House in terms of whether it should be public-sector or

private-sector-driven.

That decision should be based on fact, on merit and not on ideology

on either side of the fence. So if there is another suggestion I would

like to make, it is simply that: to take advantage of the provisions of

those committees to look into the matter.

I want to thank the Provincial Secretary, most importantly, for his

indulgence in hearing me out and his keen interest in this topic, his

desire to be in the House when this matter is being debated, his

willingness to help out, as much as I am, the women in his riding and

the spouses in his riding who are in need of assistance — and, of

course, the Attorney-General, which goes without saying.

I know that it's been a particularly difficult task for the

Provincial Secretary to sit here and listen to all this. I want to

thank the members for their indulgence, and I look forward to debate in

this House later on. I should remind the Provincial Secretary that he

should not be premature in his response, however. Let's get on with the

job of improving what is essentially a good piece of legislation. Thank

you very much.

MS. MARZARI: I see Bill 71 as basically a women's bill. It's

a bill which has been written and developed to guarantee that women,

heads of households, women on their own who have been left or who have

gone through separation and divorce, are guaranteed that their monthly

support payments will come in.

That is what it's for and until the day that women are the so-called

primary breadwinners in a household and leave men with the children,

this bill is primarily going to be a maintenance enforcement bill for

women and their income.

My colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has pointed out very well

and painted a picture of what it looks like from a woman's point of

view to be left with children in a household when there is no guarantee

of what will be coming through the door in the form of a cheque every

month to pay the rent, to pay the utilities and to buy the food.

We know in this province that there are 35,000 women on welfare with

children. We know that in this province there are about 35,000

maintenance orders. We know that in about 80 percent of the cases of a

maintenance order being drafted, they are not followed. In other words,

there is default. That means literally every month thousands and

thousands of women are insecure about where the cheque is coming from

that is going to pay the rent or the mortgage or the food bill.

The fact that this piece of legislation has come to the House at all

is something to be commented on. I think that it's an important piece

of legislation because it speaks to financial security of women in our

province in a way that no other piece of legislation, to this point,

has attempted.

I want to commend this bill for producing procedures for garnishment

that will simplify the system and make it easier for women to receive

their moneys at month-end. The Crown is going to take some

responsibility to ensure that monthly payments are made. I commend this

bill's ability to enforce an order and force the filing of financial

statements with the courts within 15 days of a statement of arrears

being filed, meaning that once again the month-end cheque is going to

arrive. It makes it easier, too, for a defaulting spouse to appear in

court, and for a woman to enforce and guarantee that.

From a woman’s point of view, a woman, like many.... And there are

many more than we even dare think of when we look at the numbers in

this province. There are many more than we would want to admit there

were. In fact, I would suggest that there is no normal family in our

modern culture, as we would like to think of it. The vision of mother,

father and two children living happily in a paid-off house simply

doesn't exist for us. Insofar as we try to constantly measure what we

do in the light of that picture, we really do fail to capture the fact

that many, many families — one in three — do not live that way in our

culture and society, particularly in urban areas.

Therefore, looking to a bill such as this to simplify the procedures

for those women who are not economically independent but who are still

in the position of having to raise children, we are looking at a major

piece of legislation here. However, also looking at it from a woman's

point of view, I should say that it's extremely important that we

recognize that when a man does leave a family, there's a 70 percent

chance that his income will go up, and that the woman's income will go

down by 25 percent. There's an 80 percent chance that the maintenance

order will be defaulted on, and there is a 60 percent chance that if

you're below the poverty line, you're a woman in this country. So we

are talking about women in poverty. We're not simply talking about

middle-class wives being able to go to the court and have their

maintenance enforced.

That's where I want to get into the problems around the bill. Poor

women, women who have been left and have gone through the trauma of

recent separation or divorce, with this bill are in a position of

having to apply to have their maintenance order registered with this

office. As my colleague has put forward, it is not a universal bill. It

does not apply to every maintenance order that comes down. In other

words, the woman has to go and ask. I'm not sure whether this will

involve legal fees on her part. I'm not sure whether this will involve

going through special legal aid procedures or having to go to a special

office, if that office is available in Vancouver or elsewhere in the

province. A special application has to be made here for the woman to

register the maintenance order. You can well imagine, from that woman's

point of view, as she fills out the form or goes through the process,

what fears

[ Page 3212 ]

that she might have of what her husband might do

when he sees that he is being registered by his ex-wife or by his

separated spouse. It's enough to discourage many women from making this

application. Threatening letters from a spouse, threatening visits,

disapproval, especially where children are involved, or there may be a

custody case going on.... A woman might not particularly want to

further disrupt, disorient and antagonize her ex-spouse by going for a

registration.

It would be my suggestion that we do everything we can to amend this

bill to make it easier, simply by making every maintenance order

universally enforceable and processing it through the machinery which

we've established here — to go more than halfway, in other words, and

not to put the onus on the woman to make that application.

From the point of view of the woman on welfare, this bill pretends

to do a great deal. From the point of view of the 35,000 mothers who

head households and are on GAIN, one would think they would be leaping

with joy at the prospect of this bill. But we find when we connect this

bill with the bill to come, Bill 72, that in fact mothers on welfare

will find that the money that does come through this agency is whipped

away at source. So just as their ex-spouse's income may be garnisheed,

so will the welfare mother's lump sum payment, which is usually how

these payments get made by recalcitrant husbands or ex-husbands.... She

will find that that money is removed from her by Bill 72. So the

welfare mother is not going to be much better off under this piece of

legislation.

I would like to talk about what flows from that for a moment. As

legislators, as a woman, I sit in this House and we find ourselves

legislating for individuals on bits and pieces of people. We find

ourselves taking a woman's financial security over here and measuring

it against her role as a welfare mother, or measuring it against her

role as a member of the labour force. Or we find ourselves measuring

people in terms of their financial security or their legal access or

their access to medical services. But very rarely do we as legislators

take a look at the whole person and try to make connections between

what we're doing with a piece of legislation such as 71 and how we're

taking it to the whole family or the whole person. We sort of chop up

our lives in piecemeal bits.

[4:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In a situation like this.... I am taking the words of the

Attorney-General as he introduced this bill and brought it forward for

second reading today. The Attorney-General suggested in his opening

comments that there is room here to be more interpretive; that this

bill, as it addresses just one component of a woman's life — that is,

her financial security at the end of the month — might be better

connected with other aspects of what might be going on in that family's

life as the woman is applying for maintenance.

When the Attorney-General was referring to fender-benders and

arbitration and mediation and trying to perhaps remove from the

courtroom antagonism some of the processes that go on in family

breakdown, as families fight for financial maintenance and child

custody.... There might be ways other than the courtroom dramas we've

invented for ourselves to deal with these very traumatic moments in

people's lives, that shape us all, that ultimately cost us all a great

deal of money, whether in legal fees or in disruptions in our

children's lives that have an impact on their school performance and

their sense of self-worth and later have an impact on how they behave

in the community. There are real costs here.

I think the Attorney-General was opening a door in his initial

comments. He was beginning to talk about — I thought — possibilities

for taking a piece of legislation such as this and making the

connections, the connections that go beyond the financial maintenance

in a woman's life, in talking about legal opportunities, cultural

opportunities, other social services that we could plug families into,

that could come to the aid of the family, so to speak, in a moment of

crisis. And as he spoke it occurred to me that it was perhaps time to

take another look at the unified family court, at the processes of

arbitration as opposed to litigation, at processes that would assist

families in times of grief and could make life easier, not just for the

woman but for the man involved as well.

So I am looking to this bill not just as a piece of progressive

legislation, which might help some women. I'm looking to this bill and

the opening comments of the Attorney-General as perhaps a vehicle to

start discussing all those other things that connect us as human beings

as we face problems in our lives: debt counselling, family counselling,

legal aid programs, special programs with alcohol, which is so often

related to family breakdown, special programs for children in the

community — and in the family, if necessary. I hope we can use this

bill not just as newly invented machinery for providing some women with

guaranteed maintenance at the end of the month, but also, in light of

what the Attorney-General has said, to connect financial, legal and

social services in a way that women would like them connected by this

House, perhaps using a committee, as my colleague for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew suggested — either the Justice Committee or the Social Services

Committee — to start looking first, at the hub, the unified family

court, and then at ways in which we can integrate the services we as a

community have to offer to help families, whether they be two parent or

one-parent, sustain themselves and their children in our community.

I will leave the House with that comment, and over the next few days

work with the Attorney-General and some colleagues to see whether or

not an appropriate motion might be phrased so that we could use this

bill as a stepping-off point to recreate a network of services that

would advance and enhance the qualities that this bill wants to put

forward. I would add to my colleague's list of things we would like to

see in a bill. He suggested universal access, efficiency and

effectiveness. I would like to add to the list he put forward for this

House's consideration that attribute called connectedness, so that we

can develop some network of services besides financial security for

women in need.

MR. CASHORE: My colleague the second member for Point Grey

began her remarks by stating that this bill is really a women's issue,

and I agree. To add to that concept, I believe that all members of the

House would agree that a women's issue is an issue that all of us must

recognize as an issue we all share in order to achieve the kind of

wholeness we seek within our society and the kind of opportunity we

seek for children who might be living in homes where there has been the

kind of difficulty that makes separation agreements necessary.

I certainly recognize the need for Bill 71, and also for the concomitant Bill 72. We certainly know that there has been a

[ Page 3213 ]

serious problem with delay. There's been a problem

with the costs to the taxpayer through the GAIN program to provide

income support. There's certainly been a problem for the working poor —

women by and large — who have found themselves in an untenable position

with regard to trying to deal with maintenance orders. There's been a

high cost to the public, not only in direct ways, but also in the ways

in which a system that does not function properly is a system that puts

pressure on all people and makes quality of life more difficult to

achieve. We know that social assistance costs, for instance, are pushed

up by the thousands of single parents who end up on welfare when their

spouses are in default. We know about the large amount of costly time

in the courts, and we know about the legal expenses.

Perhaps some of the situations we don't know so much about are those

that occur in the privacy of people's homes, where stress becomes a

factor that adds to their lives. Therefore, as I said in December at

the time that this legislation was introduced, I welcome the

legislation. I am pleased to see it before us. I really do believe that

it is being presented in a spirit of openness and of listening. As the

Minister of Social Services and Housing was quoted following the

introduction of the legislation, when a group of fathers had expressed

their disagreement with the bill.... The minister said at that time:

"We would welcome any input on the proposed law." We take that very

seriously and in good faith, and we believe that the comments that we

are making at this time as we become involved in this dialogue are

going to be seriously considered.

I think that as we see this legislation coming forward, we should

recognize that other jurisdictions have moved forward on this issue.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have programs in place, and I believe

that the Manitoba program, with a centralized maintenance enforcement

program that goes back to 1979, is a model program. It has had good

results, and in my opinion there are some aspects of that program that

are superior to the ones that I see before us in this proposed

legislation.

We recognize that we have recently had provisions from the federal

government allowing for the garnishing of federal moneys. This is due

to be proclaimed in federal law sometime this year.

Because the Manitoba program is universal, it is my belief that it

is also more accessible. For instance, in Manitoba all maintenance

orders made in the provincial courts are automatically registered with

the program. It's not a matter of opting in; this is automatic. We know

that in the proposed legislation this would be automatic for people who

are GAIN recipients, but I think that we have to recognize that the

poor among us are not only the GAIN recipients. There are other people

within our society, and in this case many women, whom we could consider

to be the working poor and who would benefit from having a more

inclusive and universal approach.

Also in Manitoba, orders under the federal divorce legislation are

automatically registered; that is, they are automatically registered

provided an enforcement clause is included at the time the agreement is

made. Also in Manitoba, the program costs about $600,000 a year to

operate, as this program seeks to do. It will result in financial

saving in moneys that will come back into the provincial coffers, but

that program involves 18 full-time staff and part-time regional court

officers, who will have other duties but will have costs billed to that

program. There are also other costs of infrastructure. I would say that

indicates a very reasonable financial cost, given the program that is

in place.

In the British Columbia program, as I mentioned, unless the person

happens to be a GAIN recipient, it requires a process of opting in.

Another resulting aspect of that would be that since it would require

people to opt in, it would therefore require a very extensive program

of education to be put on by the Attorney-General and by the Minister

of Social Services and Housing to inform people of the availability of

the program that is so being proposed. So much better if the support of

the program was automatic.

Mr. Speaker, I think that whoever happens to be government at any

given time, when educational programs are put on to introduce a

government initiative, it's always suspect, because there's an element

of government advertising at taxpayer expense that goes on through that

process. So let's consider for a moment that there's a less costly way

of doing this and a more inclusive way, a universal way, and a way that

is therefore more fair in terms of the people who we would like to give

access to this program.

I think we should realize that some defaulting spouses might view

the requirement of a maintenance order as a hostile act. Again, if this

was being handled in a universal way that would not be an unfortunate

and unpleasant interference in that relationship, that should be

unnecessary at that time. I would therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that

if fair treatment is one of the foundation principles of this

legislation, it should be a universal program.

[4:15]

It would appear that a clear priority of the legislation is that

there be savings on welfare payments. I'm not saying that that should

not be a priority, but if that is the main priority and if it is the

priority that outweighs all other priorities in the delivery of this

program, then I submit that it is suspect. Clearly a government is

being responsible in doing everything it can to recover taxpayers'

dollars, but as we look at the program, we have to look further than

that and ask if it is really delivering the kind of service that is

going to make life more bearable for those people who perhaps are not

on income assistance, or for those people who are fearing the

possibility that their circumstances are going to result in them

tumbling onto income assistance, and those people who would simply

benefit by having this admittedly streamlined process streamlined that

much more, so that it was more inclusive and more supportive of those

women.

I would point out — and the Attorney-General may wish to correct me

on this — that at the time of the introduction of Bill 71 in December,

he gave figures for only the number of GAIN recipients in arrears at

that time, and I think that had this been a program that was considered

the working poor, he would have gone beyond that into statistical

information that would indicate the need that exists out there for

Mr. Speaker, I want to make very clear in my remarks.... As I said,

I will be making more comments about the actual ramifications of the

amendment to the GAIN act, where I plan to make the point that while it

is a benefit, it is not as much of a benefit to those women on GAIN as

it appears to be at first look. I believe that the government is open

to reason and logic with regard to what is being proposed here, and

that those points will be taken very seriously

[ Page 3214 ]

when I and other of my colleagues draw them to your attention at that time.

I want to mention some of the things about the bill that I find

positive and feel very good about. I believe that it streamlines

existing enforcement procedures, and that it introduces new

administrative remedies that will reduce the need to go to court and

that that will be a real advantage. Another advantage is that

procedures for garnisheeing wages will be simplified and that the

ability to attach moneys without going to court will be better. It will

be easier to get information on the whereabouts and financial status of

defaulting spouses, and I believe that is worthwhile. It will be easier

to compel a defaulting spouse to appear in court; I want to affirm that

as well.

One aspect of Bill 71 that deeply concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the

intent that this will be a privatized collection service. It wasn't

long after the bill was introduced that there was an editorial in the

Vancouver Province dated

December 21 entitled: "This Isn't a Job for 'Repo Man."' The analogy

was made with a collection agency that would go around repossessing

used cars where people had defaulted. We're not dealing here with a

machine, an inanimate object; we're dealing here with human beings.

Therefore it requires that through the best that our public service

system has to offer we administer this program in such a manner that it

is not left to the vagaries of the bottom line, as people check how

their shares are doing in the pages of the stock market, but that this

is a matter where the bottom line is an effective service. We know that

there's a proven track record in Manitoba to indicate that it is

cost-effective. I do not believe that the government has indicated

anything that demonstrates, beyond their ideology about

privatization.... I don't believe we've seen any data that supports an

economy of scale, for instance, with regard to this process being

privatized. As we consider the privatization of this service, the mind

boggles to think of the government bureaucrats drafting up the process

of advertising for this service — wondering what group in our society

will be targeted.

This is a cause for a very sober second thought, and, unless the

government can come forward with clear data indicating beyond a doubt

that there will be an economic benefit, it should not be done in a

privatized way. But even if they can come up with some data — and I

don't believe they can — there would then also have to be some sort of

representation that goes beyond ideology about privatization and that

indicates the human value that would make it worthwhile, in view of the

risks that are involved in putting into private hands something that is

so delicate, so private, so intimate, so personal. I would submit that

we simply cannot take the chance, when we're well along the road to

bringing in some very good and effective legislation. To make that kind

of mistake at that stage would seriously compromise this program.

I think we have to say that if the government says it will save

money, our question is: how will it save money? Will it save money by

having staff working within that private agency who are less well

trained and lower paid? Will it save money by minimizing the services

that might otherwise be provided? We would assume that if it was a

private agency it would not have open access to government offices and

government computers. We would have to assume an arm's length

relationship in that process in matters of confidentiality. But if the

government was somehow able to argue and reason that that was

permissible — and I cannot fathom how they could argue that, but if

they could — then I think the government would very clearly have to

come forward with a watertight argument as to how the obvious problems

with regard to confidentiality would be protected and how they would

deal with the concern about a private organization being given sweeping

access to information about individuals and powers involving attaching

or seizing wages, bank accounts and personal property.

As my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew mentioned a few moments

ago, we've seen an example recently in Ontario, in Queen's Park, of

private documents going astray. We know it is the responsibility of

government to protect those documents and that information as a sacred

trust. That kind of accountability is a sacred accountability that is

expected by the citizens of this province, and they have every right to

expect it.

I want to comment just briefly on a matter I alluded to earlier, and

that was where a group of fathers has been reported in the press as

being opposed to this legislation. Apparently, since this act was being

put forward at this time, they wanted the legislation to deal with the

desire that the fathers in this group have to have more access, more

visitation rights and that sort of thing. My response to that group —

and I've had the opportunity to chat with them — is that I believe it

is an issue worthy of raising. I am not sure that I myself have any

clear thought as to what I would advise them to do.

I believe it's important that they see themselves as gathering

together around this concern, and I would hope there would be some way

that leadership might be provided to enable them to have their concern

expressed, but realize that probably this legislation is not the

context in which to do so. I want to go on record as saying that. If

they do have a concern, I believe that the offices of the

Attorney-General and the Minister of Social Services and Housing are

available to them, as has been stated. But I want to recognize that

that group has expressed its concern at this time, and I hope there

will be future opportunities for them to make their point, as citizens

and as members of our society.

I want to say that I think the points made by the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) with regard to the circumstances of

low-income women are very well taken. I believe that this legislation

is seeking to deal with an issue that is a blight and a cancer within

our society, and that is the issue of poverty. We simply cannot take

the approach that is sometimes taken that "the poor you will always

have with you." That may be true, but we don't say that about the fight

on cancer. When there is a cancer such as poverty in our society, we

must do everything we can to address that issue.

A great many women, a majority of our citizens experiencing poverty

being women.... We must realize that if we are able to come through

this process with the best possible piece of legislation, given the

kinds of dialogue that we are having the opportunity to participate in

at this time, we will not only be addressing such issues as maintenance

orders and income, but we'll be addressing such issues as the self

esteem of the people who live in those households so affected; the

process of independence and interdependence; the right to have and

experience emotional strength; and the freedom to exercise

self-determination. Fundamental in all of that is a recognition of the

impact on children of separation, and of the very important need to

make that process as reasonable and as whole a process as can possibly

be established.

[ Page 3215 ]

[4:30]

I have indicated that I believe that there are many good points

about this legislation. I have also indicated that there are some areas

of it that cause me some very deep concern. I do believe that the

Manitoba model is a better model because of the concerns about

centralization and its being a universal, and therefore more

accessible, program.

I do have some concern that I will be speaking about later regarding

the targeting of GAIN recipients, it seeming that that is the main

issue. While I do not think the government really wants it to be seen

that way, I think it is becoming seen that way.

I believe it's important, in

summary, to recognize that the working

poor will still be in a bind once this present legislation is in place,

that it will require a large, costly, public education program in order

to work, and that there is not a sufficient buffer between the

individual and the defaulting spouse in the process of registering

maintenance orders. My main concern is that it is a privatized system

and therefore not as adequate as it could be, leaving itself open to

some real problems.

I want to conclude on this note, that while amendments are needed,

it is a step in the right direction. It could be so much better. I

thank the government for giving us the opportunity to be taking this

step at this time.

MR. BARNES: I don't have a great deal to contribute in a

technical sense to this debate, having listened to the previous

speakers who have achieved a fairly high level of expertise,

particularly our A-G critic, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota), the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and

the speaker who just took his place as our critic.

I think issues such as this we should try to address from the

standpoint of non-partisan concern. When you hear terms like

enforcement of maintenance, in most cases I would imagine we are

talking about doing something to patch up a tragedy of some sort — we'd

like to think, at least — because two individuals were able to bring

into the world offspring, but for whatever reason found themselves in

differences which resulted in their separating and leaving someone at

the mercy of third parties, etc., who have to intervene and try to

ensure that that person has an opportunity to grow and develop to the

fullest of their ability and capacity.

That's a tragedy. That's a reality that, I suppose, has been with us

historically. It certainly cuts across party lines, cultural lines,

just about every line. It's a human situation, but it's not one that we

should give up on.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we've been touching

on some issues that normally you don't debate in this House because of

the nature of them and their subjectivity. We like to deal in dollars

and cents, in things where we can bottom-line and be able to predict

the result in most cases. But when it gets into the issue of trying to

deal with the responsibilities of spouses and the handling of their

duties with respect to their offspring, invariably we get into a

multitude of complications.

I agree with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who suggested

that the enforcement of maintenance payments to mothers — in most

cases, mothers are the spouses who have custody — is in itself an issue

and concern that we should address as separate from the other

considerations, such as the fact that there are two parents, that both

parents should in some sense at least be viewed as having equal

responsibility, equal concern and emotional ties, etc. They are

different, yet they are almost indistinguishable. I too have had

lobbying. I've bad briefs and representations from fathers struggling

to maintain their relationships with their offspring, with great

difficulty because of the way the laws are presently in place. I'm not

in a position to suggest what the outcome should be and how this is

going to be dealt with, but I think we have to face that it is a

difficult situation. It's a vexing problem that goes back, I'm sure, to

all of our personal lives when we think of how we grew up in this

culture.

Two years ago, during my experiences on the downtown east side

trying to exist on the $350 that an individual receives under the

social assistance program, I had occasion to visit with a group of

teenage mothers who were left with the children that the putative

fathers had given them. They were just on their own. At the time, I

think there was a program at Churchill high school that had special

classes and facilities for these young mothers. I interviewed them and

had a great time discussing how they got into the situation they were

in and what responsibilities their boyfriends or ex-husbands — or

whatever the case may have been — were taking in looking after the

children. Most of them just said: "Are you kidding? These guys have

taken off. They don't seem to be responsible in any way, and there's

very little we can do to have them assume their responsibilities."

I guess the thing I'm saying is that even though we take it for

granted that it's the mother's responsibility, that they're the best

ones to raise the child — all of those very valid and traditional and

biological reasons for it — we should really consider what is causing

these problems. What is wrong when young men cannot have any

responsibilities? I'm not sure whether it's a good thing. I'm not sure

how we go after this, but I don't like the thought of what I know is

happening in many communities, where more and more young pregnant women

are being left and the young men simply disappear with virtually no

responsibility whatsoever. It's very difficult to get them to

understand that this is a God-given opportunity to show their humanity

and to be responsible.

So there is a tragic side to this that I don't think legislators can

deal with exclusively. I don't think any legislation is necessarily

going to change that social situation, that social problem which quite

often exists with the attitude among young men and, to some extent I

guess, the young women who may feel compelled to capitulate or to

respond to the demands of these young men in order to have a

relationship, in order to win their favour for whatever reason. It's an

issue that we shouldn't avoid. We shouldn't be afraid to challenge

students and young people and have them realize that if we want that

better world we're talking about when we make these grand, eloquent,

platitudinous statements about the future and a better world, it has to

happen with our young people.

We're going to have to start changing a few things. I would like to

see a more positive piece of legislation coming out somehow, whereby

there wouldn't have to be this enforcement, this criminality attached

to it, where someone has to be prosecuted, where we have to chase

people around. In all the years I've been in this Legislature I've had

to deal with problems of chasing errant fathers who refused to pay

their fair share and take responsibility for their children, who were

angry at their mothers or abused their children, and rather than be

responsible, hid their accounts and did anything they could to

undermine the process. It would cost thousands and thousands of tax

dollars and public resources to try to get a

[ Page 3216 ]

few hundred dollars from someone. People would go

from one job to the next, change their names, do anything. That's an

unfortunate situation.

I commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward a piece of

legislation that I think members on this side of the House generally

agree is seriously attempting to streamline a very complex problem, to

avoid the cumbersome methods that we've had to rely upon in the past to

expedite the process, to do it as humanely as possible, and of course,

as a result, to save tax dollars and cut down on the stress that

families, the mothers and their children, have to experience.

We've got a long way to go with this thing, and I would hope that

the Attorney-General would agree, in winding up this debate, that he

would like an addition to the administration of justice with respect to

maintenance enforcement, would like to get out in front and have good

education programs in place in the schools, to begin to talk to the

young people, have dialogue with them about how these problems develop

and about the contract of marriage and procreation, bringing in new

life. We have to face it: we're going to have to begin to have people

realize their responsibilities, that it's not all just good times and

fancy living and irresponsibility and living on a credit card. We can

do a lot better in this society.

As some of us have said in this House, the bringing into the world

of a life is probably one of the greatest experiences and opportunities

that people can have. Unfortunately, many of these young people are

misguided or, for whatever reason, do not understand what they've done.

They've created a miracle, but they're not encouraged due to economic

reasons, circumstances beyond their control, pressures and perhaps

ignorance in some cases.... Whatever the reason, they abandon the

opportunity on the fear or, as I say, lack of resources, lack of

understanding of opportunity or lack or encouragement and support in a

time of need and stress. What we end up with is the far from

satisfactory situation of trying to rescue a child or a family that has

had these problems compound as a result of human nature.

Aspirations, hopes, dreams, all these things are quite often lost

when these breakups happen, and they are very complex. I think it was

put best by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who was

talking about what happened when he was a lawyer attempting to discuss

their problems with mothers trying to get maintenance support and

participation from their spouses. There is a lot of trauma involved,

there is a lot of heartbreak — things that legislators have a great

deal of difficulty addressing but which are nonetheless there and have

to be picked up by the system. I am sure the Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) knows this very well, because

he must have to shake his head just about every day, feeling almost

handcuffed when it comes to dealing with real human problems.

[4:45]

I think we should ask how we enlighten our young people more. How do

we get through to their psyches? How do we help them realize it's a

positive thing that they have an opportunity to experience and grow and

develop in, rather than a sense of desperation and wanting to flee from

the responsibility of parenthood when it does happen; that they have a

sense of encouragement and hope and some celebration? I think that kind

of policy should be in place. Family life in a more comprehensive and

more supportive way that relates to real human concerns would be a

positive and good thing to have, because when we reach the stage where

we're just chasing these spouses around trying to enforce their

obligations in a dollars-and-cents way, without these other elements,

that's almost fruitless, if not hopeless. The best system in the world

isn't going to address the things that I'm attempting to address now.

I'm not suggesting that this is a partisan thing. I would say it's

more a condition of society. If we as legislators want to get in front

of the issue, we're going to have to begin to think of those elements

that are influencing people's values, that are forcing people to think

that it is beyond their ability to be responsible for acts that they've

created themselves, and therefore they would use any excuse as

legitimate to abandon their responsibilities.

That's something that has to begin to happen in our educational

institutions. We've got to begin to have dialogue with the citizens of

tomorrow, to ask them what responsibilities they should be learning in

their formative years as they grow up and develop, to have them tell us

how they view situations where families are breaking up, and why they

are breaking up, and what kind of recommendations they would make to us

as legislators.

What happens when these fathers who have begun to band together all

over the country...? What are they really saying to us when they say:

"Hey, what about us? We want to have an opportunity to be part of our

children as they grow up. We don't mind paying, but we want to

participate." Is that legitimate or not? What can we learn from this?

I think it's time that we evolved to a new level, at least began to

realize that there has to be something better than, what we have been

doing. I think we're undermining ourselves by failing to prepare people

who are going to be taking on responsibility, and becoming functioning

citizens in the workforce, and raising families and making decisions

about what institutions will exist, how tax dollars will be spent and

what kind of values will exist.

All of these things are at risk if we leave people in ignorance and

only tell them that the thing that matters most in their lives is just

to get a job and become consumers. They have to have a sense of

understanding about the delicate nature of society and how it

functions. We're talking about the democratic system. Again, we have to

tell them what it really means and how it works. That's a learning

experience. That requires participation, patience, diligence and

handling in a way that's.... It's a two-way thing. I think that

sometimes it is missing, and if it's not missing, it's too

happenstance. It's not happening in a consistent, methodical,

strategic, planned, committed way.

I would just conclude by saying that I support the initiatives of

the government with respect to this aspect of the issue, but I would

encourage that the other side of the issue be addressed as well.

Because I think that all of us agree that it is a frustrating, vexing,

time-consuming, difficult situation that we have all had to live with

for far too long. We're going to have to begin to talk about the future

in a positive way. I think the best way to do that is to encourage

people who create these miracles of life that that's a good thing.

Let's give them the kind of network they need in society and the

environment to be optimistic about tomorrow rather than to see it as

the end of an opportunity to their own fulfilment as parents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would advise all hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42, the Attorney-General will close debate.

[ Page 3217 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari) for making constructive comments about the legislation

and also for making a number of other suggestions that are very

helpful. I can assure them that we will review all the speeches and

that I will be bringing in some amendments in committee. I hope those

amendments will in some ways, anyway, reflect some of the suggestions

that have been made.

I just want to clear up a few misconceptions. The first

misconception that I sense from some of the speakers is that this

somehow will not be a good system or a workable system because it will

probably be operated out of the lower mainland, at least primarily if

not entirely. That, of course, is not so. The information systems, the

data base, the toll-free lines and all those things will flow into a

central office, and it can operate very well. The victim services does

that. But it is going to be important to have some resources in the

various courts around this province where ultimately the people who are

pursued under this legislation will end up — both the pursuer and the

pursuee. Therefore, we will have to have those resources, and we

certainly will have to have information for women. We're primarily

dealing with women, but not entirely. Primarily the kind of person who

will benefit from this legislation is a woman on her own with children,

a woman who probably can't afford legal services and has difficulty

qualifying for legal aid. She may or may not be on social assistance,

but her life is close to the line in terms of financial matters.

There's a misconception, I think, that universality is somehow

heaven; that unless everybody is automatically plugged into a program —

whether they want to be or not — the program can't succeed because

people will then have to access the program and that will somehow be a

major step, a large bureaucratic nightmare, or a degrading step. It

will be none of those things because of the very simple fact that

filling out a form will access you into this system. We have a number

of maintenance orders pronounced by courts in this province which are

obeyed, surprisingly enough. You would think, when we discuss this in

any forum, that nobody obeys them, that everybody has to be smartened

up. But the majority of these orders are obeyed. To automatically feed

them into the system so that spouses have to opt out of the system,

which is really what they would have to do under a Manitoba or an

Alberta-type scheme, simply provides more paperwork and more fuss, and

problems for people who have no need of this system.

So we are going to start a little differently from these other

provinces, and we also hope that we are going to learn from their

experience. There also seems to be a belief around here in some

quarters that not only is universality heaven, but Manitoba is heaven.

It is not the last word on social service perfection. It's done a very

good job in pioneering this legislation; it's been in effect there

since 1979. But they've had some problems there with their program.

Certainly I don't think their program has had anything like the

financial return success that the figures that the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was given would illustrate. He said that an

operating cost of $600,000 had achieved revenues of $1 million. That

indicates, I think, that it's a fairly small program compared to the

one that we're going to run. We're going to have considerably more

costs and considerably more revenue. But those figures, from what we

can tell, do not take into account anything other than the central

office and do not take into account the additional court costs,

bailiff's costs and so on. If you run a collection system in-house,

it's very expensive.

I think the third myth — if I can put it that way — is that if the

private sector does it, it's bad; it's somehow going to be insensitive,

inhuman, motivated by profit and greed; people with funny-coloured

jackets and repossession mottoes are going to swoop in and scourge the

landscape and pick up the motor scooters, bicycles and other things of

recalcitrant fathers. You can certainly conjure up, I guess, a nice

speech on all of that. But the fact is, there really isn't any magic in

this service being done inside of government or outside of government.

The real question is, where can it be done the fastest, the most

efficiently and the most effectively. We think that to get our program

going quickly — which we want to do — our best approach is the one that

we followed, which is to call for tenders for some person, company or

agency to run a provincewide service; so we'll not be broken up into

various regions, but one contractor takes on the service to prepare a

very careful contract with the successful bidder to ensure the various

things that have been raised here — quite properly — as to

confidentiality of data, access to information and the other queries

that have been raised, all very legitimate, as to what this collecting

agency should or shouldn't do.

I should make it very clear that we do not intend to turn over

permanent data banks of this information to any contractor. None of the

confidential information accessed from federal sources or our own is

going to be turned over directly; it's going to be turned over

indirectly through public servants.

Our program is going to be administered by a director of enforcement

who will be a public servant and who will have a monitoring staff. That

will always be the way. The director of enforcement will be the person

who will issue the notices and orders and authorize them, and they will

be done under that person's authority. We do think that a private

agency will be able to start operations much faster than a

government-run program would be able to do. The flexibility for a

private organization or agency will be greater. Facilities will be able

to be underway quickly. We think there's an obvious advantage to having

an agency step right in and do this. We think that it can be done very

well.

We contract out a number of services in my ministry now, from food

services in institutions to all sorts of other correctional programs.

Probation supervision and all sorts of other things are done on private

contracts. The essence of it really is that the service is only as good

as the person who delivers it, the qualifications of that person, the

contract that you write, and the enforcement of that contract and the

ability that you have to monitor it. I believe that the very correct

concerns that people have expressed in this chamber can be met by a

properly monitored contract for enforcement.

I also believe that enforcement is not a particularly pleasant job.

In my experience in practice, enforcement and collection of debts is

one of the least attractive means of employment. Any of us who have

built law practices, such as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew,

know that this is the least desirable of any of the work that we do. So

to have some incentive to do that kind of work, to have that profit

motive, is a very good spur to getting results.

We're going to go with this model, and we're going to go