EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 22, 1996

.0939

[English]

The Chair: We're back. If this is Tuesday, it must be Bill C-41.

This morning I want to welcome Elisabeth Beattie. Elisabeth is here initially at my request. She has quite a story to tell us. She may know more about the question of enforcement of orders than anyone in the world.

Elisabeth, I know you have a presentation. Thank you very much for your brief. It has been circulated to committee members. Please take your time and make your presentation. Structure this as you feel comfortable. We'll have lots of questions for you after.

Ms Elisabeth Beattie (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much.

.0940

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear at these hearings on Bill C-41. On a personal level this appearance marks the culmination of a very long, very difficult, and often very lonely struggle, first to do everything that could possibly be done to enforce orders for child support, then to use that experience to make the case for action on enforcement at the federal level.

For fifteen years my children and I have been involved in a worst-case scenario, a case that was described by one of the many presiding judges as a continuing saga of an ex-wife desperately attempting to seek remedies against an unwilling, recalcitrant ex-husband who had absconded and callously avoided his obligations. In pursuing justice for my three children, I became an advocate for all children who find themselves in similar circumstances. As a result, my children and I have a very personal interest in the enforcement aspect of Bill C-41, and it is on that issue I will be speaking.

Let me make three things clear right from the start. First, my proposals will necessarily reflect our experience, but our situation is not unique, neither was it unavoidable. It is the product of systemic weaknesses that encouraged the eventual outcome. The more defiant the behaviour became, the more the system broke down.

The statistics tell the story - and I assure you these are the only statistics I'm going to burden you with today: 15 years of effort, 40 court orders relating to child support enforcement, 14 citations for contempt outstanding, including 10 involving non-financial matters such as failures to appear before the court, an arrest warrant and criminal charges outstanding, the passport suspended but still in use by virtue of the debtor's residency offshore, arrears in excess of $400,000, split about evenly between child support and legal costs assessed on the punitive solicitor-and-client scale.

Secondly, my children and I have nothing to gain financially from what I propose. It is not about money; it is about a principle and the need for major policy change so other children may be spared what my children have suffered.

Thirdly, please understand that this appearance is very difficult for me. We are not here seeking, nor do we wish to have, publicity for our own trials and tribulations. I hope you will all respect that. While we are living proof of what can happen when default is not dealt with by tough, immediate, and decisive action, the personalities and the history are not important. The broader policy issues are.

In the area of child support, enforcement is the single most important issue facing single parents. When the finance minister presented the budget last March, it appeared the government had recognized the need for decisive action. We all heard the words: ``Our view is that children should be first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents. Children will only benefit...if they are paid in full and on time.'' Those statements gave us hope that the Minister of Justice had taken seriously a judgment rendered in my own case, which read in part:

The Canadian dependents of a fugitive from financial responsibility ought to have more immediate and complete access to any monies the government may have to which the fugitive is or may become entitled. This, however, in view of the extensive statutory framework presently in place, is a matter that Parliament must remedy.

As much as I would like to be able to say this legislation does the job, I cannot.

Single parents need a revolution in enforcement strategy. Unfortunately the focus of the child support package is the highly controversial, and to my mind questionable, revolution in guidelines and taxation.

The enforcement measures contained in Bill C-41 are mostly bureaucratic. There are, however, two active measures of particular interest to us: the amendments to allow the diversion of federal pension benefits in a wider range of cases and the amendments that provide for the suspension of passports. Neither is sufficient nor widely applicable, and my concerns in that regard are addressed in my submission. In my opening statement I want to talk about the greatest deficiency of this legislation, the failure of the national government to recognize the issue for what it really is and to show leadership by taking the initiative and by giving practical application to its rhetoric to the full extent of its considerable powers.

When Mr. Rock first spoke of the possibility of revoking federal licences, the chief of the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association expressed surprise that the federal minister would wade into enforcement. There appears to be a widely held view that enforcement, as a provincial responsibility, cannot be a national issue as well. I do not agree with that view. Fish swim. Defaulters abscond. As soon as a debtor crosses a border, be it provincial or national, there is not only a practical enforcement problem; there is the potential for competing jurisdictions and conflicting law.

.0945

In June 1995 The Globe and Mail included the following statement in a progress report on the federal child support strategy:

A uniform nation-wide system of enforcement has yet to be agreed upon so that delinquent parents cannot escape to more lenient provinces.

In the same vein, a September 1996 article in the Law Times offered the following lament:

What Canada needs is a national strategy, a standard across the country.

We need to get people's attention, we're not doing enough. It's really an accountability issue and the lack of accountability in Canada is unacceptable. The time for education and the subtle approach has passed. It has to be socially unacceptable to breach support orders, there have to be consequences and so far that's not happening.

A child's needs are immediate. They cannot be adjourned. The failure of the justice system to deal effectively with my own case, despite 15 years of effort and a mountain of paper, led me, and I hope will lead you, to question the integrity of a system that purports to act in the best interest of children.

Bureaucratic measures and tinkering in response to individual cases as embodied in Bill C-41 are not good enough. What we need is nothing less than a complete turnaround of attitude and action on the child support issue.

I am convinced the single most effective action the federal government could take on this issue is to make wilful default of child support an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The proposed section would apply when a wilful defaulter crosses or has crossed a provincial or national border and is in persistent arrears as defined in Bill C-41 in relation to the suspension of federal licences. The associated criminal proceedings would take place in the province where the child is resident. A standard package of practical remedies would be applied upon conviction.

The proposed section would also apply where a wilful defaulter lives in the same province as the child but enforcement has been unsuccessful. This is a new approach that is squarely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government has constitutional authority over criminal law and matters of an interprovincial and international nature, and a mandate to act in matters of public order. Child support is a matter of public order.

Most important, a Criminal Code amendment would demonstrate much needed leadership, which has been sadly lacking, and it would effect an immediate sea change on this issue at no incremental cost.

To be specific, it would establish child support as a serious moral, legal and economic obligation. It would create the much needed national standard and a Canadian equivalent to the U.S. Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, without interfering with or diminishing the provinces' efforts to get their civil courts in order. It would put first responsibility for children where it belongs, with their parents. It would put wilful default where it belongs, in the same category of seriousness as neglect and abandonment. It amounts to the same thing. It would send a forceful and unambiguous signal that the state is prepared to act as an equalizer when the welfare of children is at stake. It would encourage civil courts to issue bench warrants for child support default, something they are currently very reluctant to do. It would provide a fail-safe for cases where provincial enforcement bureaucracies prove ineffective, for example in dealing with self-employed defaulters. It would validate child support orders and redress the imbalance in the system by putting the pressure on wilful order breakers, where it belongs, rather than on helpless order holders, where it is now. It would show even-handedness in light of the proposed toughening of the Young Offenders Act. Fairness dictates if you're going to get tough on the kids, you should get equally tough on irresponsible parents whose actions help to create the walking wounded.

On the practical side, it would provide three essentials that are currently lacking. First, it would be a powerful deterrent. Second, it would be a strong incentive to settle existing arrears. Third, it would, where necessary, provide an ultimate sanction and a uniform Canada-wide enforcement mechanism from which much would follow, including revocation of passports pursuant to existing provisions of the Canadian Passport Order, criminal sanctions for third parties who aid and abet in the hiding and alienation of assets, registration of charges on police computers, and international recognition not given to civil proceedings.

.0950

A Criminal Code amendment would not result in overloaded criminal courts and jails. In the United States there are reportedly only 77 names on the FBI list for enforcement under the Child Support Recovery Act.

Criminal proceedings not only get the defaulters' attention; they provide the leverage to impose effective remedies, such as incarceration until a payment schedule is agreed to, seizure of the passport, appointment of a trustee to oversee finances, an order to report to the judge every month, no lifting of the citation for contempt until arrears are satisfied, a repeat offence to result in a fixed jail term and a criminal record.

Strong support for the enactment of a criminal offence of wilful default of child support is implicit in an August 1995 editorial in The Globe and Mail, which reads:

In any decent and humane society, the failure to honour these commitments should be stigmatized, scorned and condemned.

The deliberate neglect of these payments should be regarded as a failure to provide a child with the necessities of life: It should be socially unacceptable, and it should be punishable.

Child support enforcement lacks integration of effort at every level. One authority frequently, almost routinely, countermands the actions and intent of another without apparent thought to the effects of this territorial and technocratic mindset on the lives of the people involved, most notably the children.

Child support enforcement also suffers from a lack of accountability at every level. Father Emmett Johns, who works with street kids in Montreal, was recently quoted in relation to youth training, but the sentiments apply to child support enforcement as well:

We should all work together and not pass the buck and say it is a provincial thing. The leadership should come from all levels of the community.

The absence of a comprehensive, committed and coordinated child support enforcement strategy helps child support debtors. The introduction of a criminal offence of wilful default of child support would contribute significantly to the needed change in direction on this issue.

Is the federal government prepared to take the bull by the horns and weigh in on the side of children by demonstrating in an unequivocal and official way that the buck stops here? Are the provinces, which are ultimately responsible for administering the Criminal Code, prepared to follow the lead and follow through?

In the course of our struggle, my three children have learned that they have rights without remedies and that at times the system and various individuals within the system are profoundly ambivalent, if not hostile, to the notion that children come first. They have learned that the law can be applied unevenly and unfairly with judicial sanction. They have learned that state officials will not act to assist them or will act against them when a larger issue is at stake.

In the course of our struggle, my three children lost a little faith in the future. They lost a lot of faith in the commitment of government and the courts of justice. This cost cannot be estimated in money's worth. It represents a failure of society that is in some respects more profound than the failures of one flawed individual.

In May 1996 Dr. Louis Morrissette, a Montreal psychiatrist who works with some of the country's most dangerous juvenile offenders, made the following observation:

[Youth today] don't feel for other people, because they have the impression other people don't feel for them. I don't excuse them, but as a society we have to look at how we take care of our children.

While the legal system dithered, my three children passed from the ages of 3, 5 and 8 to 19, 21 and 24. For them Bill C-41 is too little too late. For them justice delayed has truly been justice denied. That all three of my children have emerged from this in good shape is a tribute to my mother and my father, without whom we would never have survived. But most single parents and their children are not even close to being as fortunate.

In a paper published in 1995, Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices for Children noted that:

...at the very least, one child in four is now showing signs of developmental problems such as psychiatric disorders, academic failure and premature school drop-out, inadequate control over aggression and/or repeatedly aggressive, anti-social and violent behaviour.

It is probable that many of those children are living in single-parent households and experiencing the additional stresses imposed by child support default.

Criminal policy as it relates to wilful child support default might therefore be viewed as one more lever against child poverty and its attendant social consequences.

When her former husband was arrested for wilful default pursuant to the U.S. Child Support Recovery Act, Marilyn Kane observed:

My children have been carrying Mr. Nichols' shame for years. I think it's time we gave that shame back to Mr. Nichols.

.0955

I am helping my three children to do that by appearing here today. There are many more children out there who are depending on you to do it for them.

Thank you very much for listening. How may I assist you?

The Chair: Thank you.

In the brief that you have received, you'll notice there are other supporting documents that support Ms Beattie's presentation. I just want to point that out.

From the Bloc, who will begin the questioning? Madam Gagnon, you have ten minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon (Québec): Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Beattie. You told us about something that happens to women all too often after a separation or divorce.

I would like to ask you a few questions about the guidelines the federal government would like to introduce. One of them assumes that the two parents are the same, even though that is not the case, that they have an almost similar income. Do you agree with this guideline? Do you think it is fair to say that there is very little difference between the financial position of men and women? That's what I was told yesterday. Personally, I don't have the same statistics. I would like to know what you think about this.

[English]

Ms Beattie: It's not my issue, basically, but I do have my opinions on it. Where the guidelines are concerned, I feel one of the things that they haven't taken into consideration is that the two parents should be contributing according to their ability. The main problem I have with the guidelines, though, is that they entrench an inflexibility that I don't think is useful. My own experience in these matters is that when you have a rigid system, it creates more problems than it solves. Certainly in the matter of family finances, there is absolutely no way you can generalize, because everybody is different, every set of financial statements is different.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: The reason I asked this questions is that the provinces are in a process of designing guidelines and a table. The Quebec government is basing its table on the ability of the two parents to pay. The federal government has not provided for this in its guidelines. So the Quebec government's guidelines seem to contradict the federal government's guidelines.

Why do we hear from witnesses? Perhaps in order to get the federal government to comply with provincial guidelines, which would be more effective in protecting the interests of children.

[English]

Ms Beattie: I almost answered that previously when I said this is the problem that you get into when you have rigid systems. When everybody has their own rigid system, you immediately set up a situation in which you're going to have jurisdictional conflicts.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and, given the different guidelines, it would be really interesting if anybody can tell me the answer to this particular puzzle. Whose guidelines would you use if there was a variation proceeding in Quebec and the mother and the kids lived in British Columbia while the father lived offshore? This is not a hypothetical case. Will Quebec use British Columbia's guidelines? I don't know.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): We asked the minister some questions and he answered them.

You have been through a similar situation, one that is very difficult. If I understood your comments correctly, you maintain that Bill C-41 does not go far enough to penalize deadbeat dads. That's what I understood you to say.

.1000

However, under Bill C-41, there could be differences between the Quebec guidelines and the B.C. guidelines.

In a case such as the one you just described, should we apply the guidelines of the province of residence of the non-custodial parent, or those of the province in which the children reside?

[English]

Ms Beattie: I think if we're intent on having guidelines, my preference would be to leave things to judicial discretion, because only the judges know everything about an individual family. You could set up guidelines informally, but if you're insisting on guidelines that are absolutely rigid and entrenched in the Divorce Act, I think in most matters concerning children it's where the child resides that should hold sway.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You say that Bill C-41 may be a step in the right direction, but that it comes a little too late for you and that it may not go as far as you would like. Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

Ms Beattie: Yes. Basically I'm in support of Bill C-41, but of course I only speak to the enforcement part of that legislation; that's where my particular sphere of expertise is. The guidelines I would not....

Apart from the few comments I've made on enforcement, certainly it's a step in the right direction. I don't think many of the amendments are widely applicable and I don't think they've gone far enough. But I think to get here, it's a big step.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I have no further questions. I would just like to congratulate you, Ms. Beattie, on your courage and determination. In closing, I would like to tell you that your children can hold their heads high, and be very proud of their mother. You showed courage in coming to explain your situation to us. The Official Opposition appreciates that very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

From the Reform, Mrs. Jennings, ten minutes.

Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Thank you. I'll share my time with Mr. Ramsay.

First I'd like to welcome you this morning, Ms Beattie. I have listened with great interest to what you have had to say.

I think in one sense we have to take a look at support payments in a much more serious manner than we have in the past. It is an obligation. It's a responsibility. It's a debt, and as with any debt it has to be paid. I think that's the number one thing; that's definite.

In spite of that, I'm concerned that we don't look at all cases the same way. I think you said that in your own presentation, that there are many scenarios. Your particular scenario needs to be handled very seriously and it requires government intervention, if you will, to make sure such a thing that happened to you could not happen to others.

I'd also like to say that across this country today - and I know many of us here are getting the same calls from our constituents - we experience the other side of the question. The other side of the question is that many non-custodial parents who are fathers have experienced frustration at making payments and not having those dealt with fairly, not getting access to their children, and consequently maybe getting turned off.

There are two things I have to ask you, that I wonder if you would comment on. One, I would suggest to you that as a country we should be looking at prevention, and by prevention I mean, as you've already said.... In two of the cases you quoted Father Emmett Johns, and you also quoted Dr. Paul Steinhauer, who admit we have some very serious problems with our young people, with our children. This has happened sometimes because of single-parent families - it's just too difficult for a single parent to cope with everything. Therefore, when we make the settlements...the settlement is an agreement, first of all, between the two parents who are divorcing.

.1005

I would like your opinion on this. Those settlements will be more workable and will perhaps be paid on a more regular basis if it's an agreement they both come to, although there are cases where someone will say one thing and then just go anyway, or disagree and be gone.

Taking that into consideration, Alberta has drawn up legislation, because they too have found what Dr. Paul Steinhauer and Father Emmett Johns found. They have found that they have to do something to minimize the impact of divorce on children to avoid future problems. They are worried that if children are damaged psychologically and emotionally, there's a very good chance they will end up in the criminal justice system. I think that's why I'm talking about prevention.

Might it be possible, contrary to what the bill says, to look first at workable agreements between parents that might enable a child to come out of this divorce mess perhaps having contact with the other parent for the rest of their life in a favourable position, not just as a pocketbook, a wallet? What do you think of that?

My second question is, if indeed that's necessary and workable, could we maybe look at the bill and then say...?

Yesterday, in speaking to Justice Minister Rock, he did say to me at the end that if the parties are not able to settle, we'll go to the grid. So I think perhaps he agreed with me in this.

Clause 2 of the bill, which amends section 15 of the Divorce Act, recognizes that a judge in both child and spousal award situations may look at agreements made between parties, ability to pay, and matters that would be of benefit to the children, but first it says the judge is to take into consideration the guidelines in the grid.

I suggest it should be the other way around. The judge should look first at an agreement that is settled between the two parents that they feel is workable and then go to the grid.

Could you comment on those?

Ms Beattie: I'll take the second one first, because I think I've already answered that my preference, rather than entrenching grids, is to rely on judicial discretion, where you do have everything coming in and there's more opportunity to look at the big picture. Grids are not my favourite thing.

With respect to agreements beforehand and so on, I should point out that our divorce was based on mediation and minutes of settlement. In hindsight, it seems mediation is often used as another mechanism by people who are powerful to manipulate people who are less powerful, who accept settlements that are deficient to what they should be looking to simply because they don't ``work the system'' as well.

Even though our original agreement was probably less than I should have accepted to begin with, notwithstanding the signature, defaults still happen. I think you can't legislate agreement and you can't always count on people. We can't be naive in thinking that just because their signature is on an agreement it won't result in default, or may make the world better than it is. Mediation is full of people who are very good at manipulating and getting the most and giving up the least, especially people who work in government and are well trained at that. It doesn't always provide the outcome that ideally it should.

Mrs. Jennings: You do have cases where people are very sincere and do keep their word, so mediation first would be a good thing in such cases.

Ms Beattie: Yes. I don't think there's anything in this legislation that prevents people from mediating and coming to agreements.

Mrs. Jennings: It's just that it suggests we look at the grid first and then the mediation. If there's a good mediation settlement in process, I suggest we should do that first and then go to the grid.

Thank you. I think Mr. Ramsay has a question.

The Chair: Four minutes, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm impressed with your presentation today. Without even looking at the content, this is very impressive. You've gone to a lot of time and effort to present your views and concerns in a very admirable fashion to this committee, so I thank you for that and I thank you for coming.

.1010

There are some in government, some perhaps on this committee, who do not believe penalties and punishment change behaviour. Yet you're advocating that. You're advocating we make a change to the Criminal Code that would allow the courts of this land to imprison spouses who fail to maintain their court orders. I'm not one of those who are averse to that suggestion, but I think you're going to have a very hard sell.

So my first question is this. You refer to this kind of law in the United States. I'd like to know if you have any statistics to indicate that law did in fact change the behaviour of some of these dads, or moms, who fell through on their responsibility as a result of court orders and agreements and so on.

Secondly, did you have an opportunity to present your recommendations to the Minister of Justice before the creation of Bill C-41 so those recommendations were part of the information or part of the mix from which they drew their final document, which is what we see before us today?

Ms Beattie: First of all, on the statistics, I don't have any follow-up statistics on the efficacy of the act. What I do have is the recent publicity that was given to the case of Nichols, a man who had been running for six years and came to Canada, briefly. He was caught by the FBI. As his lawyer was going down the stairs after he'd been arrested, all of a sudden he was saying he was looking forward to settling the issue. He owed $580,000.

This is basically the type of case I'm addressing. I'm not addressing the sort of case where a man is unemployed or there are reasons for default. I'm really targeting the very worst. My view is that unless you can handle the very worst, you have a loophole. There'll be a tendency to move along and up. And that's what's happening. You're getting more worst cases, because at the end of the day the court will disallow arrears after a certain length of time. I understand in Saskatchewan it's after one year. So if you can hide, run away, for one year, the statute of limitations will effectively wipe your arrears off the plate.

There's a message here to the kids that this is not something we regard as wrong having been done. The Criminal Code in effect is not just a system of negative penalties; it's also a system of values. When you have fraud under $1,000 in the Criminal Code, why on earth do you not have wilful - and I repeat, wilful - default, ability to pay, everything there, in the Criminal Code? It says something to my kids. In a business deal, if he had manipulated me out of $1,000, I'd be able to tell the crown ``go get him''. The crown will extradite for fraud over $100,000. The crown will not extradite in my case even though the arrears are over $400,000. That tells my kids something.

The Criminal Code is not just a penalty. It is, first of all, a statement about what we regard as right and wrong. Secondly, there is the deterrent factor, which is what you really hope for. I know in my case if this had been on the books this man wouldn't have gone as far as he did, because basically they're bullies. They will try everything. They can manipulate the systems. They take advantage of the weaknesses and the leniency always shown to them. Then you get this case evolving beyond anybody's control. You only get to the point where you jail people when there's nothing left. In my case there's nothing left, literally. We have done everything that could possibly be done in the civil courts.

I think I've addressed your concern about filling up the jails, because in the States, and with the things I'm recommending here, jail is not the goal. Jail is getting their attention. They sit there until they've agreed to pay. And these are people who have assets, who are still.... Again, it's the worst case....

.1015

Once they've agreed to pay, they're out, but a standard package of remedies is going to attach to them until those arrears are paid. You take their passport. You don't just suspend it, you take it. You appoint a trustee, because in effect they're bankrupts. They're saying they can't afford to pay. You make them report to the judge every month. So they're out there working, but they might as well be incarcerated because their lives are so restricted.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Accomplish something where you get their attention. You have the leverage to impose these kinds of remedies on them where you actually get restitution, which of course is the end goal. The goal is not to put them in jail for jail's sake - but I can say that jail probably concentrates the mind pretty well. In my case, the one time in jail was certainly a factor. It got his attention very nicely.

Mr. Ramsay: And my second question?

Ms Beattie: I'm sorry. What was the second question?

Mr. Ramsay: Did you make these recommendations to the justice minister or his department prior to Bill -

Ms Beattie: Only briefly. It was just a week or two before the budget came out.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Telegdi, did you have some questions?

Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Ms Beattie, thank you very much. You are certainly a very compelling witness.

I work in the area of young people in trouble with the law. I can certainly support many of the things you say, such as the feeling of alienation that occurs in kids.

There's no question that the whole issue of enforcement has to be brought under some kind of national standard. Whether it's the Criminal Code or not, I'm not totally sure.... Sometimes we use the Criminal Code...and I'm not trying to make light of this, but I'm going to give you an example to show what I thought was a ridiculous use of the Criminal Code.

A person, for whatever reason, refused to pay a licence fee for a dog. That individual ended up in jail for three days. The licence fee that we're talking about was $5. The state ended up spending hundreds of dollars, probably $1,000 or more, trying to make a point.

I wondered, then, if we would not have been a lot better off if we had proceeded against that individual in a civil fashion and had seen some compensation for what it cost the court to deal with his case. That probably would have made the point in a better way.

But if we were to use the Criminal Code, here's what I'm wondering about. You mentioned that we treat the people who reside outside the province differently from the ones who reside in the province. I'm looking at page 8 of your submission, where the recommendations are.

If we were to use federal legislation if there were a Criminal Code offence, why would we not have the same one applying right across the country, instead of differentiating between abusing somebody within the province versus outside of the province? The abuse is the same. Should not the redress be the same?

Ms Beattie: I think the redress is the same in what I'm recommending. The same remedies would apply. The reason I'm differentiating.... I've put what I suggest as criteria for the offence, but you can raise the bar if you're worried about really only targeting the worst cases.

The reason I differentiate between people who are inside the province and those who cross boundaries is that within the province it is one civil jurisdiction. I think you have to give the civil courts a shot.

We're trying to get at the people who cross borders. When people cross borders they're mobile. The really difficult cases involve people who are mobile, people who can either go to another province and from there to another country, or self-employed people who are notoriously difficult to get at through the civil courts.

.1020

The reason I make the distinction is that as soon as somebody crosses a border, you have to have your antenna up. So the bar is lower the moment you cross the border. Within the province you have to give the enforcement agencies a chance before you bring in the Criminal Code. I would suggest that after a year, if they don't have a case in hand, then you have to go to a higher level.

In a child's life, a year is an awfully long time. My children and I have been waiting 15 years, and this is what the civil courts have done to us. They've had all the time in the world. How much time do we give them?

You can raise it to two years if you want, but at some point you have to decide enough is enough. If the soft approach, which is what the civil courts are about, doesn't work, then you have to bring in something a little bit more heavy-handed. The real problem is if the civil courts don't get a grip, things can go out of control very quickly.

Mr. Telegdi: What seems to happen in a lot of the cases is there is an unequal power balance between the one who has the money and the one who doesn't. What if the state took a very active role in pursuing it and actually getting to the point where they will seize property for back orders? As long as the enforcement of that was effective, it wouldn't matter whether it was the Criminal Code or not, would it?

Ms Beattie: Well, hopefully you'd never get there. But the fact that I'm even thinking about it is indicative of the fact that the civil courts haven't yet gotten a grip.

My kids can't wait until the provinces decide what they're going to put in place. The Ontario enforcement agency actually had my case for three years. They did nothing but get us into great difficulty.

You need different levels of enforcement. The enforcement mechanisms that are in place in the provinces may catch the ones that are easier, but the worst cases are really beyond the capacity of enforcement agencies, which are basically bureaucratic institutions. In Ontario they're now 1-800 numbers. They would not be able to cope with a case like mine, where you have a particularly devious person who is intent on not paying child support. He would rather pay legal fees.

What we're aiming at is to have different levels of penalty, because some individuals will fall out lower down. My situation is not unique. There are quite a few people in my situation, where you need an ultimate sanction. If you don't have one, then you have an escape hatch, and all cases will tend to drift up towards it. That's where you need the Criminal Code, because the Criminal Code is standard across the country.

Mr. Telegdi: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Maloney, there are about three minutes left.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Thank you, Madam Chair.

You indicated in your presentation that there are only 77 names on the FBI list presently. I would assume the arrears situation, in light of their population, would be significant. Is there any reason why there are only 77 names? Are they reluctant to use this section? Are they reluctant to convict if they do? Do you have any background that would assist us?

Ms Beattie: That figure was reported at the time the Nichols case was publicized. I assumed there were only 77 because it really is used as a last resort. Even now there are things in the Criminal Code such as fraud under $1,000. I wouldn't think the Crown has discretion on what it's going to prosecute.

In the States you have to have crossed a boundary, and there are certain other things you have to prove. They will use that weapon only when it's really flagrant and when the arrears are enormous. Then it's worth the FBI going in and doing the job. I don't suppose they would go after lesser individuals if they thought there were some other way to do it.

Mr. Maloney: In the Nichols case the arrears were roughly $500,000. In your case they're roughly $400,000.

You say we're trying to target the very worst, but in the section Mr. Telegdi pointed out, you have suggested arrears out of province of $3,000 and arrears in province of $10,000, or the missing of three payments out of province and twelve in province. How do you reconcile the significant amounts you indicate of $400,000 and $500,000 when what you suggest is considerably less? How do we balance that?

.1025

Ms Beattie: That is because, as I said before, the moment somebody crosses the border your antenna has to go up. You have to be very sensitive to this person who is mobile.

The bar is lower for people who are moving around, because you know the moment they're out of the country they're effectively judgment-proof. They're showing signs of behaviour that you want to watch, and that's why I would have the bar lower for people who cross boundaries.

People who are still within the civil jurisdiction are easier to get at. They haven't crossed the border, so the Ontario civil courts can deal with them. The moment, for example, a debtor passes from Ontario across the river to Quebec, you have a very difficult situation because you have two civil courts involved.

With the Criminal Code, it's the same law across the country. With the provinces, it's all different civil law. You have conflicting law, in fact, in some cases. That's why I made the distinction.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon: If I understood you correctly, you have some reticence about guidelines. You would prefer that these matters be left to the discretion of the judge.

We have to analyze the bill, and I hope we will be able to improve it. However, we have to work with what we have, and the guidelines are there to stay. I hope we will be able to make them better.

The government is suggesting some criteria. However, the list of the criteria a preceded by the words "including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing". That leaves the door open to certain things. We are afraid those words leave the door open to the inclusion of other criteria. Are you also afraid that the government might decide to make the criteria less demanding or not to take into account some of the efforts made by the provinces? Are you bothered by these words "including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing"?

[English]

Ms Beattie: I don't think I'm really in a position to comment any more on the guidelines, other than on the two difficulties I've had. It's not an issue that I've analysed very closely and I'm not really confident to say any more than I've already said on it.

The Chair: Mr. Kirkby, you have five minutes.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): You indicated that the guidelines you had observed, while this wasn't the primary focus of your remarks, were inflexible. Would your opinion be different in light of the fact that there are cases or situations set out in the legislation that would allow for variance of the order upward or downward in certain cases? For instance, there are hardships mentioned that could allow for the variance of the order downward. There are special circumstances, such as uninsured medical expenses or special needs of the child, that would allow for the variance of the order upward. Would that not address some of your concerns about flexibility?

Secondly, do you not think it is a valid objective to do what one can to limit as much as possible - considering the various circumstances of individuals - the litigation or the number of questions or circumstances people can litigate to more quickly and better come to a conclusion of negotiations or litigation?

Ms Beattie: If I thought the guidelines were going to limit litigation, I would almost be happy. But I think if the judges detect any unfairness in these guidelines, they will use the undue hardship clause. They will use that to go back to doing exactly what they're doing now in terms of using all the material from both sides. They have computers now where it comes in and goes out, and they maximize the child support that way.

.1030

There is some entrenched unfairness in the guidelines, in the sense that the only person anybody looks at is the payer. I think you have to be a little more balanced. It's rather naive to assume that all the money a custodial parent has will automatically go proportionately to the kids. You cannot assume that across the board. It's a nice idea.

I think there are some things there where the judges will use the undue hardship clause, and I would be surprised if it's going to reduce litigation.

In terms of all these special things they can consider, that's fine. The way things work now, they do consider things like tuition, medical expenses, and so on. The basic unfairness is in the figures in the table itself, because you're drawing conclusions about all families, where there's an income of a certain level, that may or may not be true.

I don't think you can generalize, especially where family finances are concerned, to the extent that you can rigidly put a figure into a table and say that's absolutely the figure.

Mr. Kirkby: But do studies not show that families contribute, generally, similar amounts in raising children? That has been the basis of the formulation of the guidelines. In addition to it, inherent in the system, you have indicated it's only taking into account what is being put in by the payer. Also inherent in the system is the assumption that the custodial parent will contribute equally, according to his or her income, to the raising of the child as well.

Ms Beattie: I have a great deal of difficulty with that assumption. I don't think you can make assumptions like that across the board. I think there has to be more input into the guidelines in terms of looking at both parents. I have great difficulty with the way it's targeted to the payer only.

As I've said before, I would prefer guidelines of a more informal nature, because there has to be a starting point. That would at least give you some level of consistency. My kids have been maligned by judges in the past. If I had to choose between trusting a judge and trusting a bureaucrat, I know which one I would trust to do a better job of protecting the kids. If a judge makes an error, you can always go back. If a bureaucrat makes an error, you're stuck with it.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In this whole question of family breakdown and the rights and interests of the parties involved, of course the number one concern is for the children, but there are other concerns. There's the concern that has been raised here, which is a central part of Bill C-41, to ensure that the non-custodial parent makes the payments that have been set out by court order, agreement, or whatever.

I have - and Mrs Jennings touched on it very briefly - had representation at my office through letters and personal visits by the non-custodial parents who simply claim that the custodial parent is violating a court order with regard to access.

I asked the justice minister yesterday about this, seeing no recourse in the plight of those non-custodial parents. In his response he tied in the support payments to some sort of coercive power on the part of the custodial parent, which was not my question.

.1035

I'd like to ask you this question and have your opinion on the record for the committee to consider. This bill is aimed at creating greater penalties for the lack of payment by the non-custodial parent. Would you feel there should be in the bill, or in some form, a stronger penalty, if I can use that term, for the custodial parent who violates a court order in terms of access?

Ms Beattie: Criminal Code subsection 127(1).

Mr. Ramsay: What does that say?

Ms Beattie: Criminal contempt of court.

Mr. Ramsay: It's not used. Why isn't it used?

Ms Beattie: That's not a problem with the Criminal Code.

Mr. Ramsay: So you think sufficient powers are there now to protect the non-custodial parent in the face of a violation of a court order by a custodial parent? Do you feel there are sufficient powers there now to deal with that?

Ms Beattie: I don't know that I'm competent to say that. All I know is that's the section I would use.

The Chair: If it's any help to you, I've prosecuted two cases under section 127 before I was elected and I've defended about six, so it's fairly commonly used. It depends on the jurisdiction. But if you're concerned about it you might want to talk to your provincial attorney general.

Mr. Ramsay: Did the moms ever go to jail? Have they ever sentenced a mom to jail for violation of the court order?

The Chair: Have they ever sentenced a custodial parent, or do you just want to send women?

Mr. Ramsay: Or a custodial parent, yes.

The Chair: I don't know. I know I was successful in the two I prosecuted, but I don't know what the numbers are. I'm just telling you it's used, it's there, and it was quite controversial when it was passed because a lot of people wanted to extend it to the support issue. It was a very interesting debate at the time.

Ms Beattie: [Inaudible - Editor]...where the custodial parent went to jail.

The Chair: Yes. There are also provincial laws under the various family law acts that allow jail to be used for enforcement.

Mr. Rideout.

Mr. Rideout (Moncton): I would like some clarification to get a better understanding about where your amendment is aimed.

I gather your definition of ``wilful'' is the two circumstances, one where the person has fled the jurisdiction and therefore would become automatically wilful if he missed three months' payments, the other where if it's within the jurisdiction it's twelve months. Is that what's going to constitute the wilful aspect of it, to bring up the penalty of the criminal sanctions? I want to get a flavour for that so I know which way that's going.

Then perhaps you could tell me how many people you think this would be capturing in, say, a year? If I look at the United States and it says that similar type of legislation is getting 77 or whatever, it seems to be targeted at a very small group. Is that your intention, just to target it at that very small group, or is this going to be - and that's why I asked the question about ``wilful'' - an automatic thing? If I'm acting for a person who has an order saying he or she is to receive a certain amount each month, after twelve months can I go to the crown prosecutor and lay the charge? Is that what it is aimed at, or is there a higher threshold? I'm just trying to figure out where it would be.

Ms Beattie: The use of the adjective ``wilful'' is really to separate out those people who lose their jobs or have some reason for inability to pay. The wilful ones are the ones who have buckets of money and are simply intransigent. I want to target those people -

Mr. Rideout: How do you determine that?

Ms Beattie: The court would have to determine that through financial statements and so on. It's mostly known to people, who has money and who doesn't.

.1040

My aim in this is still to target the worst offenders. I could put the limit at $100,000 in arrears to ensure that you would only target the ones where it's really needed, but all the way through this you have to remember that there is Crown discretion.

Mr. Rideout: I appreciate that. I just -

Ms Beattie: There are many hurdles here, and Bill C-41, in the two measures that it does put in place, makes it very clear that these are last resort mechanisms. The $3,000 or three payments are the grounds they're using for suspension of passports. So for consistency I felt....

Mr. Rideout: In some cases, by the time anything gets to court - forgetting about the criminal side of it - there are usually arrears of three, four or five months. I wondered whether that would automatically trigger the laying of a criminal charge, because the court would become aware that there is a person who, for whatever reason, hardship or whatever.... Is that going to cause...? I agree with what you're trying to do, but I don't know....

Ms Beattie: My interaction with the Crown in Ottawa is that.... Even if this were in the Criminal Code, you'd still be in an uphill battle -

Mr. Rideout: Because the cops wouldn't lay the charge.

Ms Beattie: Yes. I still have not persuaded them to attempt extradition even with arrears of $400,000. It's not an easy climb.

Mr. Rideout: So this is really intended to get those people of substantial wealth and substantial arrears, and not the common garden variety type.

Ms Beattie: Yes, it's absolutely last resort, but unless you have that last resort you have a loophole.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Rideout.

Ms Beattie, I want to thank you very much for really intensive preparation. You've been very helpful to us and have given us a lot of things to think about as we consider this bill. I know you've been available as a resource for many of us, and we appreciate that very much. It was great.

We'll rise until 11 a.m.

.1042

.1104

The Chair: We are back. I'd like to welcome, from Revenue Canada, Denis Lefebvre, the assistant deputy minister of the policy and legislation branch; and from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Jocelyn Francoeur, director of security, policy, and entitlement at the passport office, Neville Wells, manager of the security and enforcement division of the passport office, and Evans Girard, legal counsel with Foreign Affairs.

.1105

I expect that each group has a brief presentation to make, so I thought we'd start with Revenue Canada, go to Foreign Affairs, and then address our questions after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Lefebvre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Legislation Branch, Department of National Revenue): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here on behalf of Revenue Canada to discuss Bill C-41.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the committee members of the Revenue's Canada current role in the enforcement of child support awards.

In 1988, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act was proclaimed. Since that time, federal income tax refunds have been garnisheed for defaulted family support payments.

When a garnishment summons has been issued, Revenue Canada is required to withhold money from any tax refund owed to the individual identified by the Department of Justice as having defaulted on his support payments. Assessed refunds are held and the Department of Justice is notified of the amount available for garnishment.

At the same time, the individual taxpayer is notified on the Notice of Assessment of the reasons funds have been held and is provided with a contact number at the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice informs Revenue Canada of the precise amount required to satisfy the court order; any residual amount is paid to the taxpayer.

The amount of the refund is sent to that department of Justice for forwarding to provincial enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice is the lead department for this program. Tax refunds, including the GST credit, are only one of ten possible federal sources of garnishment. Revenue Canada, however, is the largest source of funds for the program.

During the 1995 taxation year, approximately $31 million was diverted to the Department of Justice under these provisions. Over 81,000 taxpayers have a family support court order in place. Given current trends, it can be expected that even greater funds will be diverted in the 1996 taxation year.

I would now like to comment on the proposals set out in bill C-41 which implicate Revenue Canada. As you know, clause 19 of Bill C-41 will allow Revenue Canada to be added to the list of federal departments whose data banks can be searched at the request of provincial enforcement agencies for the purposes of locating individuals who have defaulted on their child support payments.

[English]

We realize that the non-payment of child support awards is a serious problem that warrants the joint cooperation of the federal and provincial governments and have therefore agreed to provide this information.

Revenue Canada will provide the information to the Department of Justice concerning the defaulter's address and the name and address of his employer. The confidentiality of the information provided by Revenue Canada will be safeguarded to ensure the information is used solely for the purpose of locating support defaulters and securing support payments.

We expect the taxpayers will react negatively to the department providing this information and may view it as a violation of our obligation to treat the information provided on their income tax returns as confidential. This is a matter the department will have to manage carefully.

.1110

While this is not directly related to the issue of child support reform, I would also like to point out that Revenue Canada is responsible for administering a number of programs that play a key role in income redistribution and may be of particular interest to custodial parents, including the child tax benefit program, the children's special allowances program, and the goods and services tax credit.

In 1993 Revenue Canada began to administer the child tax benefit program, which consolidated the funding from three previous federal programs into a single tax-free monthly payment. The payments are directed, on the basis of need, to low- and moderate-income families to help with the cost of raising children under the age of 18. Benefits are calculated using information from the income tax returns filed by both parents and are based on family income and the number and ages of the children. Currently the benefit is paid to over 3 million families.

In addition, a working income supplement is provided to address the needs of working families with children. The current maximum benefit is $500. As you know, it is anticipated that the change to the tax rules for support payments will produce revenue gains for the federal government, which will be used to increase the maximum level of the working income supplement to $1,000 by July 1998.

The GST credit was introduced in December 1990 to assist Canadian families with low to moderate incomes to pay the new tax. The credit is a tax-free benefit and is issued quarterly to over 8 million individuals. The amount of the credit is calculated using information from the applicant's income tax return and, where applicable, the income tax return of their spouse. Credits are based on family income and the number of qualified dependants.

In addition to administering these programs, Revenue Canada, in its capacity as agent for various other federal and provincial departments, plays a major role in a number of other income redistribution programs. For example, we provide the Province of Quebec with the necessary information to calculate their provincial family benefits.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Revenue Canada's ongoing commitment to assist the federal and provincial governments in addressing the difficult problem of enforcing child support awards and tracing defaulters. Through our current programs and our increased role proposed in Bill C-41, we will continue to play a significant role in the government's commitment to ending child poverty.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

From the passport office, we have Mr. Francoeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Jocelyn Francoeur (Director, Security and Foreign Operations Division, Passport Office, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

I will very briefly cover two points that are of some importance to the committee.

[Translation]

I will be telling you about the view of the Passport Office.

[English]

and present the scope and intent of the legislation as explained to us.

From our perspective on this initiative, Bill C-41, as everybody knows, we operate in a regulated environment to deny or withhold services. In the presence of a vacuum, when we do not have a legislated or a regulated ground to refuse to issue or revoke a passport, we have a problem.

I must admit we have been creative in one specific instance, in the one case that was brought to our attention. But we firmly believe it is up to the legislator to determine what constitutes a societal problem that needs to be addressed by withholding services such as passport services. So we are very happy with this initiative, Bill C-41, because it addresses the concern of our organization in that we now have a new ground to withhold services, a legislated ground. This will remove the actual vacuum that seems to exist. I wanted the committee to appreciate this.

The last point on the perspective of the organization is we are a special operating agency. We are not a big organization. The passport office operates on a revolving fund. Our understanding has always been that the Minister of Justice would cover the related expenses incurred in administering this new measure. At this point in time we don't think it's going to translate into significant costs, because we have the mechanism already in place to deal with the administration of control lists, and so on; however, should the initiative trigger a huge amount of case referrals, obviously there would be some related costs. But we have an understanding from the Minister of Justice that we would get reimbursed.

.1115

The second point I want to address is the scope and intent of the legislation as it was explained to us. We have noted that provinces are to carry the ball. In other words, it is not the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will determine who is a defaulter and from whom we shall refuse or withhold services.

We're happy with that, as I've stated before. The legislator is now ready to confer to the provincial authorities the determination of who is going to be touched by this measure.

Our understanding, as well, is that the provinces have numerous enforcement agreements with provinces, if not countries, so they would refer those cases to us in which they have jurisdiction over individuals. We don't think this would be a big problem to enforce the agreements, because they will be aware of the consequences.

With regard to the suspension scheme that has been envisaged by the Minister of Justice, we do not have such a scheme in the actual governing regulations. The passport office has this ability before this piece of legislation is enacted. Our only ability is to refuse to issue or withhold services to an applicant, or to revoke, but suspending a passport doesn't exist.

So the creation of a criminal offence, proposed section 76 of Bill C-41, to retain a passport is important. Up until now, all we were able to do was bluntly refuse or revoke a passport. But to suspend it means that the applicant is entitled to have his/her passport back when and if money owed is paid.

The related consequence to our organization is the dire need for the provinces, which are carrying the ball, to advise us swiftly and rapidly as soon as the debtor has paid back his dues so we can remove the individual from our control-issuance procedures and send back the passport.

I'll stop my comments there, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there questions for Revenue Canada or the passport office from the Bloc?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Generally speaking, we agree with these two features of Bill C-41. I would like some clarification from the Revenue Canada's representative, Mr. Lefebvre.

In your presentation, you say, quite rightly,

The confidentiality of the information provided by Revenue Canada will be safeguarded to ensure that the information is used solely for the purpose of locating support defaulters.

What system will be used to ensure confidentiality? How will you proceed? Will you rely solely on affidavits?

Mr. Lefebvre: One of the things we could do would be to give the Department of Justice the address of a defaulter. We must make it clear from the outset that in order to protect confidentiality, no one outside the department will have access to our data banks.

After we receive a request from the provincial enforcement agency, the Department of Justice will tell us that a taxpayer has defaulted on his payments. We will then pass on this taxpayer's address to the Department of Justice, and possibly the name and address of his employer. The taxpayer's address will not be revealed to the claimant. The address will be kept within the Department of Justice.

.1120

An agreement will be entered into with the provincial enforcement agencies and it will state that they shall use the information only to implement a court order.

Mr. Bellehumeur: Will the amendments proposed in Bill C-41 not generate more money for the federal government's coffers. Here I am referring to page 3 of your statement, where you say that the maximum benefits for families total $500 at the moment. If I understand correctly, if the proposed amendments were passed, the government could increase these benefits to $1000. So Bill C-41 would result in increased revenues. In your view, if the benefits were to be increased to $1000, would we be using up all of the extra money brought into the government by Bill C-41?

Mr. Lefebvre: Some calculations have been done. After subtracting the amounts that will be paid to the provinces to help them implement the new scheme, some money will probably be saved. To my knowledge, the intention is to use the extra revenue left over to increase benefits paid to families.

Mr. Bellehumeur: So the extra money collected as a result of the implementation of Bill C-41 will be redistributed to people who need it the most?

Mr. Lefebvre: That is correct.

Mr. Bellehumeur: I have no further questions. I have no problem as regards passports.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Jennings, you have ten minutes.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I think I'd like to address Mr. Lefebvre.

I'm also concerned with what my fellow Bloc member has just said. How will the department make sure that the confidentiality is really maintained? I think we're all aware that in many situations, as soon as you break confidentiality in any way, it's more than possible to somehow have others know information that we consider our own private business. I would really like to be assured that this is not going to happen and that it isn't an issue that we have to take care of.

You mentioned that the only time at which the federal department would open its data banks is if and when it gets a request from a provincial government. Are you set on that? Is it only from the provincial government that you would accept a request? Is it possible that there are any other sources that would require this information - an independent legal firm or anything like this? Would it have to come only from the provincial government? That's my first question.

Mr. Lefebvre: I can assure you that we are very concerned with confidentiality. Even giving the address for that purpose would be done because of that superior public interest, if you wish. But we are very concerned that giving the addresses of taxpayers might influence their behaviour at tax filing time, or may drive them to either under-report their income, to not report at all, or to find other ways to join the underground economy. So this is a real concern for us. Nevertheless, again because we have a superior public interest, if you wish, we have accepted the idea of giving out the address.

Just to repeat, we are not going to allow just anyone to have access to our data banks. We are going to receive the name of the defaulter and sufficient information from the Department of Justice, which is coordinating for the federal government the requests they receive from provincial agencies. It is only for requests received from provincial enforcement agencies, and the Department of Justice will provide to the agency the address and, if appropriate or if relevant, the name and address of the employer. It will be for the use of the enforcement agency only, and that will be specified. Again, we do not want the people who have a right to the payments to have the address of the person who has an obligation to make the payment.

Mrs. Jennings: I have a couple of other questions, but I'm not sure whether I should refer them to you or to Mr. Francoeur. One of them, of course, is in the area of international law.

.1125

I'm concerned about passports. What would happen if you were working abroad in the Iranian oil fields or somewhere like that, for instance, and you had your passport seized or suspended? Where would international law come into play? Who would you be responding to in actual fact, and what situation would you be in? Would you be in jeopardy in any situation like that?

Another question I have is with respect to shipping, or if you're on ships. In the act, it only mentions matters with respect to wages due or accruing to a seaman or an apprentice. Would there be any effect if you also had a pension? If you are working and you're on a pension, but you're also earning wages, could you have both? I know that is also possible under the pension garnishee.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings, with respect to your second question, these are not witnesses who can answer that question.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: With respect to your first question, I think Mr. Francoeur could answer it, but the quick answer would be that he should have paid his child support before he left.

Anyway, go ahead.

Mrs. Jennings: I think we'll let the witness answer. That's what he's here for.

The Chair: I'll decide when the witnesses will answer.

Go ahead, Mr. Francoeur.

Mr. Francoeur: Obviously, the effect of the legislation on those people, les justiciables - I don't know how to say that in English - those who are administered in between brackets by the act, is not the business of our organization. If this is really what your question is aimed at, we are more concerned about the effect of somebody being abroad without a valid passport.

It depends on the country, to be quite clear, blunt and simple with the question. Some countries would consider that the Canadian citizen is there without valid travel documentation, and removal could be enforced. In some other countries, it could be perceived of as less of a problem. They could accept having a Canadian citizen who is without valid travel documents. So it's just a matter of actually living through the usual arrangements, acknowledgements or requirements that people impose on Canadian citizens.

Mrs. Jennings: I guess what I'm asking is this. Is there going to be any attempt to be very careful before these are removed? If there's a mistake made or anything like that, are you willing to work with the country involved so that a Canadian citizen is not going to be left in the lurch?

Mr. Francoeur: Sorry, I misread the question.

If a Canadian citizen living abroad has his or her passport seized or retrieved, the obligation of the organization is to give a travel document in order to repatriate the individual. All this piece of legislation does is order our minister to suspend the validity of the passport. Bill C-41 is not hampering our minister from issuing an urgent emergency travel document valid only for the citizen's repatriation to Canada. In that sense - I'm sorry, your question is a superb question - we will certainly not leave citizens abroad without the travel documents necessary to get back into the country. If we are in possession of the passport, the related consequence is to enable this individual to get back to the country with a travel document that is valid in only one way - back into Canada.

Mrs. Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Thank you.

On this issue of the passports, if I am in France and all of a sudden you issue me a notice saying my passport is no longer valid, I can probably get a hotel room or I can probably get on a plane. All you really have to do is flash your passport and they look at it. Unless I've submitted it to you, it still looks like it doesn't have any markings indicating that it has expired or has been removed. I could actually get back into the country from a lot of places, like Europe, without any problem. So the issue, then, is that people could travel.

Let's say I've just had a passport issued, and then I get into trouble because I haven't paid my child support. Unless I come back into Canada, or unless somebody does a computer check on it - and I'm not sure that's always done - I could travel for five years on that passport without you having any real effect on my travel. Often, you just flash the cover of that Canadian passport and you're away and through. That's happened to me a lot.

.1130

Mr. Francoeur: Because the integrity of our document is so celebrated throughout the world, that happens a lot. That's the consequence of having a renowned, reputed travel document. If we had - sorry for the expression - a piece of crap, everybody would look at it very carefully. But that's not what we have.

Ms Torsney: Right.

Mr. Francoeur: However, I disagree a little with your statement that the person, unless he gets back to Canada, will do everything. The person might need some consular services at some point. Then he would go to our offices abroad and our offices abroad would be notified of the existence of that order at the first point. Then they could seize it, because they would not dispense services without first having a look at the passport. Of course they would not surrender it if it's being suspended.

The second point is that we could issue...and we want to give the fullest meaning possible to that piece of legislation. What we would do would be to notify the countries abroad. If we are aware that Mr. AB is living in, say, France, we could notify the French government via diplomatic note that Mr. AB is, to our knowledge, living in their country and is the holder of a now invalid passport.

What the foreign authorities would do with this is your guess and mine. In some instances countries would not hesitate to draw the conclusion that the traveller is not properly documented, but that's not the case in every country in the world. There are some police states that would probably act more swiftly upon such a denunciation than other countries. That's a difficulty.

Ms Torsney: The second problem I see happening is that a number of Canadians are entitled to a second passport from another country. I'm entitled to an Irish passport. Other people are entitled to French passports. What kind of coordination will be done with the countries where people are entitled to other passports?

Mr. Francoeur: Legally speaking on this one, just from the top of my head, if someone has dual citizenship it has nothing to do with Canada. If a foreign government wants to acknowledge that a person holds another nationality, we cannot go beyond an act.

Ms Torsney: But at the meetings you have with various people from other nations about issues such as this, would there not be some coordination such that if I'm applying for an Irish passport they would look, see I've lived in Canada all my life, check whether I had a criminal record or any other information on me, and there would be a communication saying ``by the way, she owes a lot of child support; this is important to our nation's kids''?

Mr. Francoeur: It's not the kind of information the passport office would give. This is not our responsibility.

Ms Torsney: Oh!

Mr. Francoeur: Well, it's a matter of fact. Criminal checks are not done in the passport office. We're not a law-enforcement organization. What other countries do when they are considering a citizenship application I don't know. They don't talk to us.

Ms Torsney: Maybe we'll have to direct that to somebody who can talk to somebody.

Mr. Francoeur: Citizenship or whomever.

Ms Torsney: The second question I had for Mr. Lefebvre is that in certain cases people are actually owed money by the government if they file their income tax return. That's great, because if they file you can garnishee that amount of money. But in other cases people might choose not to file their income tax return and to stick it to their former spouse. What mechanism is there to see that those returns are filed and the money is properly given to the children who are owed it?

Mr. Lefebvre: A big part of our life is to identify the people who don't file but who should file. We have a lot of programs and we devote a lot of resources to identifying those people who have income, who should declare it, and who don't. Then we have a number of powers under the act to get information from them. Eventually, if they absolutely refuse, they are subject to penalties, but in addition we can issue assessments based on our own information. Then we can have a judgment and execute those assessments that we made ourselves. We have a power under the act to demand the filing of a return. And I can assure you that if we receive information under this program that leads us to believe someone has income and is not filing a return, we will demand a return from such a person.

.1135

Ms Torsney: But isn't it true, Mr. Lefebvre, that you only do that when there are taxes owing? You might not do that if you owe money to that individual. Obviously it's a priority to collect money, but isn't it also a priority to award money where money is owed to the children?

Mr. Lefebvre: I can assure you that most people who are owed money by us do file voluntarily, so this is not a big concern. You are correct when you say that we have not had a program to chase after people we owe money to. But we have the power to demand a return even from someone to whom we know we owe some money. We had no reason to do that until now, I suppose, or maybe some time ago.... We do not have a program to get a return from those people, so we have a right to divert the refund owing. We will give some thought to that, given developments under this bill.

Ms Torsney: Does it matter if the person's living outside of the country?

Mr. Lefebvre: Yes. There can be some special difficulties in enforcement.

Ms Torsney: For instance, if I were in a messy divorce or a support battle, maybe I could get a trustee or somebody to file the income tax returns on behalf of my former spouse to get that money for my children.

Mr. Lefebvre: Yes. You can appoint an accountant to file a return for you.

Ms Torsney: I'd be interested in following up on how that program is being implemented, because I -

The Chair: I think there's someone else in the room who would be very interested in following up on that.

I'll just let you know, Mr. Lefebvre, that there is an individual in the room who did that. Your department refused to comply with the order of the court that a trustee file, and then you refused to pay the money out on a garnishment. You may wish to have a chat with that person before you leave and assist her as to how she can collect some of the approximately half a million dollars owing to her.

Mr. Lefebvre: I am not at liberty to talk about the personal affairs of taxpayers, but since 1988 if we had a refund owed to a person who was in default and we had been duly notified that the payer was in default, we would have diverted the refund to the Department of Justice so that the justice department could work with the provincial agency to get that money into the hands of the custodial parent.

Ms Torsney: That's assuming the person filed their income tax return.

Mr. Lefebvre: We would not have sent a refund to the taxpayer - since 1988 - if we had a demand from the justice department that money was owed to the custodial parent. We would not.

Ms Torsney: As long as the person had filed the income tax returns.

Mr. Lefebvre: Yes.

Ms Torsney: Do you see? If they haven't filed an income tax return, you haven't in fact sent money to people on the basis that.... You know from the documents what has been deducted from their income tax wherever they've been employed. Even though they haven't filed.... You wouldn't award that money to the Department of Justice to disburse to the individuals unless the person had filed the income tax return.

Mr. Lefebvre: If someone hasn't filed an income tax return, we probably do not have enough information to know that the refund is owing. That's where we get the information. It's difficult to say that there is a refund owing when someone has not filed any information. Again, unless we can through some other source.... Sometimes through other sources we do find out the income of a person. Normally it's an assessment to pay us some money as opposed to us sending them a cheque.

Ms Torsney: I guess T4s issued by the government are usually good.

The Chair: Thanks, Ms Torsney.

Ms Jennings, five minutes.

.1130

Mrs. Jennings: I'm concerned too with what Ms Torsney said. As I understand it, there has been no attempt this time even to look into the problem of dual citizenship. If we haven't, I think we should look into that, because the scenario I presented to you was that of someone working in a very difficult area, and it's very unlikely they would have dual citizenship somewhere in Iran, working in the oil fields or something like that, though not impossible. But Ms Torsney suggested maybe in France or a country like that you might find it a lot easier to get away with a Canadian passport or such. You might have dual citizenship in an area.

Could you look into that particular situation? I'm concerned that if you did have dual citizenship and you automatically applied for a passport when yours was seized by the government, you could in fact get a second passport and stay in that country.

The Chair: Ms Jennings, I think the problem is that these officials come from the passport office and the issue is whether they can issue passports or not. They have no power over the United States of America or any other sovereign country and their passports. That may be a recommendation you will want to bring the Minister of Foreign Affairs directly, or to another agency, but I hate to put them on the spot by our making statements and their thinking ``What am I supposed to do with this'' because they can't answer the question.

Mrs. Jennings: I understand that, but my concern again is if this is one that maybe caught you by surprise, it's very important regardless of what area you're working in. If you're definitely in passports and in this area you should be aware of it. Obviously somebody's going to be talking to you about it, because that's your business. It's up to us to raise the questions.

I'm concerned because Ms Torsney raised that and that's going to be a very real possibility. That's going to happen. I just wanted to say to you I hope we're taking that into consideration. I will certainly take Madam Chair's advice and take it to those concerned.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola.

[Translation]

Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Although this question has already been raised, I think a taxpayer should be legally required to file an income tax return. As far as I know, this is not the case at the moment. So as a taxpayer, I am not required to complete an income tax return.

I think that if I wanted to avoid my spouse, I could easily calculate roughly how much income tax was owing and perhaps determine that there was no refund nor amount owing. In this case, you really do not have any way of tracing individuals who behave in this manner.

I understand that employers are required to submit written T-4 forms to you each year. If T-4s were issued electronically, you could perhaps locate taxpayers who have not completed their income tax returns. Is it necessary to amend the act in order to trace more taxpayers who avoid being located in this way?

Mr. Lefebvre: Even in the case of individuals who have no income tax owing, the act authorizes the Minister to ask that an income tax return be filed. This is already possible under the Act.

Mr. Discepola: But it is used only rarely.

Mr. Lefebvre: It is rarely used because we spend our time and energy getting income tax returns from people who, to our knowledge, have enough income to pay income tax. As I was saying earlier, we will look into this matter. After the Department of Justice informs us that someone has defaulted on support order payments, we will try to determine whether the individual did not file an income tax return because the revenue was not high enough to pay income tax or because he or she wanted to avoid having the refund sent to the custodial parent.

.1145

We will review our policy on this matter and determine whether we can establish a policy requiring these people to file an income tax return.

Mr. Discepola: Should Bill C-41 require that divorced individuals file their income tax return? Would you go that far?

Mr. Lefebvre: You raise a very broad issue. Many people simply do not have any income, do not have to file an income tax return and may not have any support to pay.

Mr. Discepola: I'm only referring to cases...

Mr. Lefebvre: You are only talking about people who have to pay support?

Mr. Discepola: Yes.

Mr. Lefebvre: I think the necessary powers are already in the Act at the moment. In exceptional cases, and the cases about which we are talking are rather exceptional, we can do so by using our administrative powers and the powers given to the minister under the current Act.

Mr. Discepola: So you don't think that in future, people will take advantage of this to...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lefebvre made reference in his presentation to clause 19 of Bill C-41, which will allow provincial enforcement agencies to have recourse to a Revenue Canada database. He expressed concern that some taxpayers will react negatively to this information being released.

In the written submission it says ``this is a matter the department will have to manage carefully''. I'm just wondering if you could expand on what you mean by ``manage carefully''. It seems fairly clear to me that the clause says that information will be released. How will you manage that in light of the proposed provisions of the bill?

Mr. Lefebvre: It will be a matter of working with our field people. It will be a matter of communications with the public in general. We believe taxpayers think that Revenue Canada protects the information they supply to us.

In this particular case, it is a small deviation for specific cases, so I think we will have to be proactive in our communications with members of the public to make them understand that only in very special cases, when a superior public interest is at play, will we give any information, and even at that we will give it with the safeguards that are needed. For instance, we are not just going to give the address and put it out on the street. We are going to work with Justice and the provincial agencies. So it is useful, but it's useful only to the extent required for the program.

Mr. DeVillers: By manage, do you meant a communications program, so people understand the limited amount of information that will be released?

Mr. Lefebvre: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Do you have any estimate of the volume of requests you will receive? I'm concerned about the time required to give this information out and filter it back down through the system. Are you going to have a special department, or are you going to require more resources to do so?

Mr. Lefebvre: In Bill C-41 there will be some costs to make the transition, in terms of inquiries, systems and what not. But we are already diverting the refunds on an ongoing basis to the Department of Justice when we're requested to do so. So to give the address, when requested, of people who are defaulting on their payments, as well as the names and addresses of their employers, will not be a major expense.

Mr. Maloney: How long do you think it would take?

Mr. Lefebvre: We will be able to turn this around fairly quickly. The key will be for the information we receive to be good. We will want to make sure we give the right information about the right individual.

Mr. Maloney: If I work for two or more employers in any given year, would you give the names of all my employers? You wouldn't necessarily know who my last employer was by looking at my T4 slip.

Mr. Lefebvre: We can only give the information we have.

.1150

Mr. Maloney: But you would give all you had.

Mr. Lefebvre: We would give out the name and address of the employer, but our information is not always up to date. We receive returns once a year, and we would give the address of the individual on the last year's return. So depending on when the request was made - whether it was in the filing season or not - there could be some adjustments in that regard.

Mr. Maloney: If my address was a post office box, what would you do in such a situation? Are there any other resources to go beyond that?

Mr. Lefebvre: We cannot give more than what we have. We have no program to find people out there. Our commitment under this bill is to use our data banks to help with the enforcement of the program. But we will not have special investigations that go beyond the information we have for the administration of our act.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you.

Mr. Francoeur, I was always under the impression that if I had a criminal record I couldn't get a Canadian passport. You've indicated that you don't do CPIC checks or....

Mr. Francoeur: No.

Mr. Maloney: Has my understanding been incorrect all these years?

Mr. Francoeur: If you have a criminal record, it's not going to be there to haunt you for the rest of your life. Under the Passport Order, there are no grounds to refuse to issue a passport if you have a criminal record. Otherwise, the double jeopardy rule would apply and you would be penalized twice. But there are grounds to refuse, such as if you stand charged of having committed an indictable offence. Obviously, we would try not to issue a passport to somebody who would try to flee the jurisdiction of Canada.

Mr. Maloney: How would you know if I'd been charged?

Mr. Francoeur: We are checking. The only thing I said was in response to the question on dual citizenship. When it is time for people in other countries to examine citizenship applications, I do not know what their requirements are to give the other citizenship. I can certainly tell you they are not checking with me whether or not a Canadian has a criminal record, because I'm not the RCMP or a law enforcement agency. We are in the passport office. They're checking this with somebody else, not us.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?

Mrs. Jennings: I'm curious about the garnishee, as the intent to garnish will no longer be a factor. That's probably a good thing in the case of those who are really in arrears.

Right now in the bill, the garnishee is given 30 days to reply and do what has to be done to catch up on your debts. If there is some reason why you don't get it in time - perhaps there's a falsely sworn affidavit, or it could be anything at all - is there anything in the works now to provide an extension of that time to maybe 50 days? Is there anything at all that allows for that particular emergency happening? Remember, you're out of the country.

Mr. Francoeur: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you repeat the question? Somebody is out of the country....

Mrs. Jennings: If you're out of the country working and you're going to have your passport revoked, or that's in the process, and you're going to have your wages garnisheed, you will have a 30-day notice, I understand. You will have to get to some forum to appeal this or fight it if you feel it's a wrongful action. Is there anything in the procedure to allow you to extend the 30-day period? Remember, the intent to garnish is now gone.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings, I don't think the passport people or the Revenue Canada people can answer that. If somebody's wages have been garnisheed -

Mrs. Jennings: We did talk about the garnishee here, so I was hoping you could perhaps deal with it.

The Chair: In fairness to Revenue Canada, it only deals with an order of garnishment when it comes to its attention because it's about to pay out some money. Beyond that it would not have any knowledge. Mr. Lefebvre personally may be an expert on debtor-creditor relations, but I doubt that.

Mrs. Jennings: You wouldn't know about extensions at all?

The Chair: I think you could address that to Justice officials.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. You've been helpful.

.1155

We're adjourned until 3:30 p.m., when we will be joined by the Advocates' Society right here in this room.

Return to Committee Home Page