CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 January 1997
Case of Ms C
Ms Roberta Jamieson, Ombudsman
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Mr Kevin Costante, assistant deputy minister
Mr Allan Kirk, manager, social assistance programs branch
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair / Président: Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mrs ElinorCaplan (Oriole L)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
*Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
*Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
*Mr LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
*Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
*Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
*Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*In attendance /présents
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC) for Mr Murdoch
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC) for Mr Stewart
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lisa Freedman
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 151.
CASE OF MS C
Consideration of the Ombudsman's case report in the matter of Ms C and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Chair (Mr John L. Parker): Now that we have Dr Galt in the room, I'm happy to get started. This is his last meeting with us. I wouldn't want him to miss a minute of it.
There are a few items of housekeeping I want to get through before we get into the proceedings today. The matter on the agenda this morning is to return to the case of Ms C and carry that through to its conclusion. The Ombudsman has told me she's prepared to return after that to consideration of the 1993 report.
We don't know yet whether we'll have time today to do that, but you will recall, the last time we considered the 1993 report, the Ombudsman was taking us point by point through her response to the points in the 1993 report. We didn't get all the way through that. She's happy to pick up where she left off and resume that discussion today if there's time after we've dealt with the Ms C case.
That's a matter this committee may have some views on, whether you're prepared to do that or whether you want to leave that for another day. I suggest we discuss that at some point this morning, but the main point here is that she's prepared to carry on with that discussion if there's time this morning, if there's willingness on the part of the committee to do that. I'm not proposing to discuss that right now but I am raising it now with the proposal that we discuss it later, once we know what time we have after Ms C.
We will also have to deal with the matter of a subcommittee change, with the departure of Dr Galt and his position on the subcommittee therefore becoming vacant, but we'll leave that till the end.
Right now I address us to the matter of Ms C. You will recall that we have heard submissions on this matter, that we considered those submissions and the committee came back with the request for some more information from the ministry. The ministry has now provided that information in written form.
The ministry representatives are with us today to assist with any questions the members of the committee may have on that material. They tell me they have no intention of making a presentation per se, that they're prepared for the report to speak for itself, but if there are questions, they are prepared to appear before us this morning and answer those questions.
The Ombudsman is also here this morning, and I think it's only fair, since the ministry has given us some more material, that she have an opportunity to respond to that material herself. After we've heard from the Ombudsman, it's my suggestion that we then follow the custom of the committee and revert to closed session and consider at that point what our next steps will be.
I return to my main point, that the ministry has submitted fresh material to us. Each member of the committee has a copy of the ministry's report.
I now open the floor to questions from the committee of that report, if there are any, and as I say, the ministry is here to respond to them. My question to the members of the committee is, are there any questions arising from the ministry's report?
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Good morning, everyone. We have looked over your report and the costing you would relate to the changes that are proposed by the Ombudsman. Are any aspects of these changes anticipated regardless of the decision of this committee? In other words, when we last met you said that perhaps there would be, down the road, system changes as far as computerization goes. The question is, are some of the changes that are anticipated put forth only to build your case against the Ombudsman's request?
Mr Kevin Costante: My name is Kevin Costante. I'm the assistant deputy minister of social assistance and employment. On the very last page of the report we noted that we are in the process of and are about to sign a contract for a new computer system that would be available in late 1998 or early 1999 and we would start implementing then. The province-wide implementation would then take a little while after that initial start date.
Essentially we noted that the one-time computer costs that are related, for the other systems on the previous pages, would not be incurred, because we would just put these requirements as part of the new user requirements for the new system. The costs that would be new if you went with that option, as opposed to trying to make changes to our current system, would be reduced and you would have continued, ongoing costs of about $284,000 a year. All the development costs, the cost to change the computers, wouldn't be incurred if you put them as part of the requirements for the new system.
Mr Hoy: Thank you. You may have answered my next thought: If this proposed change were to be implemented, are you saying you could do it by 1998 or 1999?
Mr Costante: If we were to put it in the new system, it would be part of the new system, and we're going to have to lay out the thousands of user requirements for the new system. These requirements would simply be embedded in that new user requirements document, if the committee decides that we're going that way.
Mr Hoy: If you made this change, do you think it would run more smoothly than the changes made to the family support plan?
Mr Costante: I'm not going to comment on the family support plan.
The ministry, in implementing this new computer system, is doing a very extensive job in terms of implementation planning and contingency planning, and we expect it to be implemented extremely smoothly. One of our foremost concerns is that there is no interruption of service to clients. This is a very critical program and we will treat it very tenderly.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I definitely have some doubts when we say we will install a new system. As my colleague just said about the family support plan, even though it was supposed to be a new, centralized system it's a heck of a mess and nobody can sort it out, at the present time the same day. I have some doubts about what the government could do to improve the situation at the present time.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just as a follow-up there, it sounds like the support system was changed and that one system was destroyed before the other one was up and going. It looks like it's going to take another couple of years before all the bugs are ironed out of that system by shutting down all the regional offices. If the same situation were to happen here, we'd end up with another jigsaw puzzle that could go on for a couple of years. I know you're saying it should go smoothly, but we were told that on the other system and it's still not going smoothly. I'm concerned about how we can guarantee that if you go to a new system, that there are no disruptions.
The Chair: I take that as an editorial comment. I don't know if a response is requested of this ministry on that point.
Mr Len Wood: It's not really a question.
The Chair: Do you have any questions?
Mr Len Wood: No.
The Chair: From the government side?
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I don't know if it's a matter of a question or a comment. I think I'd prefer to make it as a comment.
Part of the discussion at the last meeting was not only with regard to cost and the transition and whether it was doable or not. On a personal basis, from my perspective, I think that's a secondary issue. It's important and it needs to be considered. I think there has been a lot of work done to provide the information for us and answer some of those monetary questions, but I think it's deeper than that. The primary issue, from my perspective anyway, relates more to the question of why we are doing this, why we are even considering this, and I think we have to look at the issue of differences in philosophies and how we agree or disagree with what a family unit should really be.
The Chair: Mrs Fisher, I'm going to ask that all caucuses keep their focus today on the content of the report. There will be time for discussion of the full spectrum of issues raised by this case when that time comes, but right now the ministry has submitted a report in response to specific questions from this committee, and I'm asking all members to confine their remarks to the content of this report at this time.
Mr O'Toole, I'm sorry I failed to welcome you to the committee earlier this morning. Welcome.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be on your committee. I hope you meet more frequently than you did last year.
Just a quick question to the deputy minister with respect to the breakdown of ongoing costs, I gather the mailing: What's the benefit of direct deposit? Isn't there a bank charge for direct deposit?
Mr Costante: The benefit of the direct deposit --
Mr O'Toole: I like the benefit of it, but the cost of it is what I'm really interested in knowing.
Mr Costante: Sorry. We don't have that number with us.
Mr O'Toole: I remember when I was a regional councillor and I sat on health and social services it was continually argued that social assistance should be direct deposit because there are lots of lost cheques and questions about whether they got them and all this kind of stuff that's not too easily proved. Is there a preferred view from the ministry, without any politics, of which is the most efficient, reliable, accountable, blah, blah, blah, system?
Mr Costante: Our preferred approach is direct deposit. In the family benefits program we've had quite an emphasis on this. Over the last few years, it went up over 80%.
1020
Mr O'Toole: Yes, I know. That's why I'm asking. I'm wondering if you could get that information for the committee without too much trouble.
Mr Costante: Sure.
Mr O'Toole: Is there a bank charge or not? That's kind of a yes or no.
Mr Costante: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: That presumes a lot of other costs go away. If there aren't statements -- there are the annual statements -- but if there are no printed cheques, stamps, somebody sorting it, all that kind of stuff, if it's purely an electronic thing, I think the $264,000 could be somewhat less.
Mr Costante: While it's direct deposit of the cheque, we still send the recipient a statement each month, so there's still the costs of that.
Mr O'Toole: That's something else, but that's another question I have for another day. The bank also issues statements, so how many statements do you need?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr O'Toole. I knew we'd be glad to have you on this committee.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): The issue seems to be whether the cheque should be split and each of the spouses receive a respective cheque. As I understand, presently direct deposit can be made into joint bank accounts and cheques can be written to both of the respective members of that couple. I'm struggling with this. In this case they both have access to that money. I can't sort out in my mind that there's an advantage to split cheques versus a joint cheque or deposit into a joint bank account where both can draw from. Do you follow the question I'm struggling with, one advantage over another?
Mr Costante: The clients have a number of options. As you mentioned, when the clients apply for welfare they can decide who is going to be the recipient and thus who receives the cheque. That's one option. Another option is having a joint bank account and the money being deposited in that bank account; a joint bank account, so there's joint access. That is another option as well.
The ministry has concerns about the direction of this recommendation. I think we also have concerns on the administrative side and the increased administrative burden of splitting the cheques. We've shown some of the costs here and some of the added complexities that result from that. Our preference would be to continue with our current practice as opposed to splitting the cheques and incurring that cost and the other downsides that are associated with that proposal.
Mr Galt: What I'm struggling with is that if it's going into a joint bank account, and that's one of the options, and if that's the option selected, then both spouses should have equal opportunity to the funds that are in there. My understanding is that this was the whole thrust, the whole concern of this coming before us.
Mr Costante: I'm assuming so. I'm not sure what the circumstances are in this particular case. They may not have it in a joint bank account. Whether it's a joint bank account or not is up to the individuals involved.
Mr Galt: But that is a choice they could ask for. Does it require both to agree or is there an automatic direction that it would go if one doesn't agree?
Mr Costante: I believe both would agree, but I should check that.
Mr Allan Kirk: Allan Kirk, manager of program design and accountability in the social assistance programs branch. At the time the couple apply for assistance, the choice is given where it's possible for either one to be the recipient. There are also other choices that are offered to the clients at that time, and one of the choices would be, do they want the money deposited in a joint bank account? The decision would be up to the couple whether that would be the case. If they chose that, then certainly that would happen and it would give them equal access to the allowance.
Mr Galt: I guess I was really asking, if one of them won't agree, how does it default?
Mr Kirk: They have to agree that one of them is the applicant and one of them is the recipient. During the application process often that decision may be made quickly. After that decision is made, if there are obviously problems once the allowance is in pay, then there are certain options that can be discussed with the couple. One of the options, if they are both eligible to be recipients, is that the other one becomes the recipient and the former recipient becomes the spouse, or that we perhaps use a joint bank account, or ultimately if one spouse is not eligible in their own right to be a recipient, we can make them the trustee and then the allowance would be paid in their name for the couple. Those are the options that are available to the couple or to the ministry in those exceptional circumstances where we have issues with paying the allowance to one person.
The Chair: Upon reflection it occurs to me that I may have cut off Mrs Fisher before she was able to establish how her line of questioning linked into the report, so I want to give her a chance to carry on her line of inquiry.
Mrs Fisher: I appreciate that. I guess it stems out of the fact that I considered it to be part of the report. Certainly in the first two summary pages, on page 2, at minimum two introductory paragraphs on that page, and probably three, relate to the issue I was trying to raise. It also falls back to some of the discussion that raised the request for additional information from the ministry at the last meeting as well.
It comes to the point that I was trying to differentiate two issues that were being dealt with which are both related to in the response from the ministry. I was saying that on a personal basis I would like to express my opinion as to what priority of significance those two issues have. I think the first one really deals with what raised the demand for further financial information, and that was the question of what's a family unit and how should a family unit be treated when it's in receipt of benefits.
That's where I was going on to explain my opinion with regard to the significance of philosophy and where you go from this. If the question is, do we now redefine a family unit for the sake of cutting cheques for social assistance recipients and family benefits and potentially other things as well, then I think the argument that needs to be had at this table is how we go from there.
On a personal basis, I would like to express my opinion that philosophically I am probably as far away as I can be with regard to what would drive this thing to create separate chequing. That's because I think we've meandered away from our responsibility wherever it plays in a family role in defining what that family unit should be. Again, this is a personal expression, but I do believe it would be one more wedge, if you will, of driving a family apart in allowing this to happen. It just leads from one thing to the next to the next that I don't think are conducive to keeping families together.
As a matter of fact, we've gone too far in being allowed to drive them apart. I think one of the ways of making some coherency to a family unit is not to be deciding on financial matters that drive them apart. If we start cutting cheques this way, where does it end? Does it end with the three dependent children, two of whom are with the mother and one who is with the father, in different locations, each on their own having a right to challenge whether or not they also should be issued their entitlement of their portion of that cheque because they have parents who have the ability to be paid an amount of funds to keep themselves in wellbeing?
Philosophically the whole question we're here about today is where we place that definition of "family unit." I would vote against, when it comes to that point, supporting the division of cheques for the purposes that have been outlined, because of the fact that nowhere are we making that family unit responsible for its decision to take care of itself as a unit. I think we're not doing society a favour at all if we take that run.
1030
Mr Lalonde: I have a question that concerns me and I think would concern a lot of people. At the present time, when we are talking of equal access to any deposit that is done towards the family, when it comes down to the rent or the hydro, would your system allow for the fact that someone would get the total cost or the total allotment for the rental?
Mr Costante: How our shelter component works is that essentially we pay actual costs up to maximums and the maximums vary, based on family size. In the general welfare program there is a capacity, with the approval of the municipal welfare administrator, to pay that rent directly to a landlord or the hydro directly to Hydro. In the Family Benefits Act -- these are old acts; I think the Family Benefits Act goes back to 1967 -- we don't have that authority, so in family benefits we can't pay directly to landlords or Hydro in that program, but we can in GWA.
Mr Lalonde: How would it be handled then? Are you going to give half of the rent to one person and the other half to the other person?
Mr Costante: We would have to split the cheque in half.
Mr Lalonde: If one of the two doesn't pay the rent, you'd throw the wife out or you'd throw the man out?
Mr Costante: That's one of the dilemmas that this proposal presents. The proposal by the Ombudsman is we split the cheque in two and give half to each. There are obviously procedures and policies that would have to be worked out as to how we would handle a rent-direct situation. I don't think I have the answer here immediately.
Mr Lalonde: I think we have a justice, a court system that would allow this at the present time. I am in agreement with Mrs Fisher. There's a lot more to think about than just talking of splitting the allotment. In the answer I got it's not clear at the present time, because that hasn't been looked at, if we ever decide to go that route.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lalonde. Any further questions? There being none, thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us.
Please welcome the Ombudsman.
Ms Roberta Jamieson: Bonjour, sago, good morning, Happy New Year. This is our first meeting in this challenging 1997.
I don't have extensive comments to make to the committee, but there are a couple of things I think bear emphasizing. That is that what we currently have in this province with this ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is a practice that is systemically discriminatory, pure and simple.
There's a Family Benefits Act and under that act, unless the woman is able to gain the agreement of her spouse for the cheque to be issued in her name, the ministry issues the cheque to the man for the total amount. This is the reality in 72% of the cases in this province.
Now, I'm not saying it's intentional discrimination. It isn't. That is what systemic discrimination is about. It's about attempting to treat people equally, but ending up with a situation that disadvantages a particular group of people. In this case, the group of people are women who are married or living in a common-law relationship with someone who is also entitled to family benefits.
The question was asked about joint accounts and how does it default and so on. The reality is that unless the woman who carries this unreasonable onus, and I would say it's a burden, of having to convince her partner that they should have a joint bank account or that the cheque should be written out to her, the ministry makes the cheque out to the man. That is systemic discrimination. It is in violation of the Human Rights Code and it ought to be remedied.
The way I've suggested it be remedied is that the cheque for the total amount for the family unit -- I am not questioning "family unit" and I am not questioning the calculation for the family unit. I am saying the cheque that's calculated for the family unit should be split in two and the people who are entitled in their own right should receive the benefits. "How would you pay the rent?" Mr Lalonde asks. "How would you ensure that?" The same way that two working people figure out who's going to pay the rent. The same system that applies to them should apply to people who are receiving their income source under the Family Benefits Act.
The ministry has gone away, at your direction, and calculated the cost of doing this, both doing it now and doing it under their new system, which they advise is coming into place in some two years. They provided those figures to both you and me a week ago. My staff have met with them to get some clarification on the figures, and while I've not done a detailed investigation of every last figure in the document, I have no reason to conclude that they are wrong. So I don't have any comment to make on the figures themselves.
What I can say in summary is that not to address this situation is to perpetuate systemic discrimination by one of the ministries of our provincial government. That's an issue I've found. That's my responsibility as the Ombudsman in examining the complaints. I've brought it here in front of the committee. It's for the committee to conclude how you best want to remedy this, including when. That's all I have to say, but I'm pleased to respond to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): You would agree that when anybody applies for benefits through social services, in this case particularly, there was a choice at the outset, right? There's a choice of who the benefits are paid to on the application. In a family unit situation, they can determine which individual gets the funds. That's on the application, right? There's a choice. Would you agree?
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
Mr Froese: So if the spouses or partners in a family unit choose who is the applicant -- or actually the benefits probably determine who the applicant is in different situations. I don't really want to get into that, but there is a choice who the benefits are paid to, correct? It could be the male or the female. The ministry isn't saying that it's got to be the male. It's the choice of that family unit coming in, correct?
Ms Jamieson: The reality is that the ministry, in the absence of the male's agreement that it go to the woman, writes the cheque to the man. We can say that's a choice; I'm not certain it's a genuine choice. We both know and we talked last day about the reality that in 72% of the cases it goes to the man. We talked about the need to acknowledge and recognize that there are power imbalances in many situations and the fact that it is not an easy task for many people, many women who are in a situation where they don't have equal power in the relationship, to gain the agreement of their spouse to have that cheque come to the woman, or to go to a joint bank account indeed.
My concern is that in the absence of that, the ministry makes the choice and the choice is that it goes to the man. That's the part.
Mr Froese: I probably think differently than you do on it. The problem is that we've got circumstances here where a problem has resulted or a dispute has resulted after they received the benefits, but I'm talking about initially when they come in. The ministry makes no decision other than discussing which applicant would -- the family unit comes in, as I understand it, and they determine who the applicant is based on the benefits in that family unit. That can be a determining factor in who the benefits are paid for, depending on those circumstances. But in every case where that isn't the case, it's a choice of the couples coming in of who's going to receive the benefits between the couples, as I understand it, and we'll probably agree to disagree on that. But that's how I understand it.
1040
The other thing is, you talked about the rent. Mr Lalonde talked about how the rent's being paid and all that. Your one comment was that you assumed there would be a choice between the couples in how they determine how that rent is paid. Why would you say that comment and yet say you've got a problem that it's not a choice when you receive the benefits?
Ms Jamieson: Well, you've hit the nail right on the proverbial head, because in that case they would each be receiving their benefits; they would each have the benefits in their hands. They would each be equally empowered. Then they would work however they wished to work as a couple to meet their debts, as we all do. The problem is that in this case that is not what happens, and it's not a matter of personal disagreement. It is a matter of fact that if the man does not agree that the cheque goes in his female spouse's name, it comes to him. That is what's wrong here.
Mr Froese: So if the policy was changed and you had children under the family benefits come to you, you had a case and a complaint that, "The benefits should be paid to me. I think it should be split because I've got a dispute with my parents," or whatever, where would you stand on that issue?
Ms Jamieson: In the original case report it's my suggestion that the benefits be split according to the custody arrangements, and that can be determined.
Mr Froese: But doesn't the child have a legal right then? If we change the policy, wouldn't the child have a legal right to get the benefits paid directly to them if they're over the age of 18?
Ms Jamieson: I haven't looked at that case in this investigation, and you might want to think about that further, but that is not what I'm suggesting today. I'm not suggesting that what I'm putting forward leads automatically to that result. I am saying that if there are children in the relationship, their benefits should be paid to the parent who has custody.
The problem here is that it's not fair to pay someone's entitlement to somebody else, and that's what's going on here. You're paying the benefits that the woman in and of herself would be entitled to if she were outside the marriage. When she comes to the marriage, that's gone.
Mr Froese: Isn't that exactly the point? The point is that if they're in, that's the whole part of the program. If they're in a family relationship, there are certain benefits. If they don't want to be in that relationship, then let them apply for single and it will be paid directly to them. This is a case of a dispute between two partners, not a ministry's problem, as I see it.
Ms Jamieson: I'm not being clear. Let me try again. This is not about a dispute between two partners. This is about a practice which says that unless the woman can convince the man to put to the ministry his agreement that the cheque goes to her, the ministry takes the action here, and the action the ministry takes, which is systemically discriminatory, is to write the cheque to the man. That's the point.
Mrs Fisher: Just a couple of points. It's my understanding, and we've all had some time to do some homework on this, that in fact it is a matter of choice; it's not a question of whether we agree or not, is there choice or not? The applicant is the person who gets the first choice at signing, and the bottom line here is that on a long-term basis, the benefit is not paid to a family unit unless two signatures appear on that contract which is entered into between the ministry and a family unit where there is more than one person living in that situation. "Family," again, doesn't just have to be spouse; it can be child as well.
What I'm getting at here is that the choice comes at the point of application. What was indicated to us, and I would ask for clarification if it's possible -- I'm not positive here on the protocol and when legal counsel from the ministry is allowed to reappear or do whatever, but to clarify a point of discussion here, my understanding is that the choice is made at the time of signing on between two parties in a relationship of adults, whether they are married or not: the common-law relationship or the marriage situation. The choice is made at that time of who will be the applicant and who will be the spouse or the other partner, and the spouse also has right to trusteeship of that account when and if in fact it's abused, when a whole other set of rules can click in. Somebody then can ask for direct payment of such things as rent to take care of the problem even in the situation where it's a combined payment to a party. In the event that it was split, it would be even more of a nightmare, quite frankly, because we might have one responsible party who is recipient of half a cheque and another who says they're going to be but aren't, and how do you chase that out?
I'm not positive we're helping anybody by doing this. As a matter of fact, I think I'll come back to the point of destroying the family unit. I don't believe that government has a responsibility in, nor should it interfere with, the decisions between those partners. If they have the right of choice at the time of signing, quite frankly, then they must be responsible for the decision that's made at that time.
I recognize you state the figure of 72% that are ultimately signed with the recipient being the male of that partnership. Maybe that's a decision that's been made. I'm not so sure that tells me that somebody has been forced upon because that's the decision that's been made. Let's assume for a second that, of the 72%, a significant amount was agreed upon anyway. Where does that become a systemic discriminatory problem for either partner? In this case, you're raising the case for the woman, but where does it become that just because 72% agreed it would be the male? That statistic doesn't tell me that that was in disagreement. That statistic tells me that's what happened in contract, and that decision had to be made in the household, however you want to define that, prior to getting to that contract being signed. I grant you that there are some cases, especially in the case of Ms C, where you are able to identify that somebody has a problem with that, but maybe the larger percentage of that or the majority of that, 70% or whatever the number might be, is what was agreed upon, and it just turns out that 72%, or the biggest part of that, agreed that it should be the male.
I find your statement contradictory when you say that, well, once the cheque is cut, it's really not our problem any more. I find it contradictory that you say that just like in the working couple's income, they then can decide who pays the rent. How can we have it that the cheque coming in is any different from how it goes out if in fact the problem is the responsibility of payment from the revenues from the cheque? I'm trying to be sympathetic to your argument here, but in listening, it tells me that it's okay on the incoming thing that it be separated, but after that it's not our problem or it's not our concern. Yet ultimately, quite frankly, the woman in this case could be worse off if that half of that rent on which maybe she had a little bit more influence on how it was spent is immediately spun off to a male cheque. How do you then track that other half of that rent that's necessary to be paid? I think we've probably doubled the problem potential instead of eliminating the problem.
The one question I have before I finish is -- no, it's not a question; it's a statement. I do not believe that government should be interfering with personal decisions within a household and that we are driving apart the definition of "family unit" by allowing that to happen. Therefore, I personally cannot support this.
1050
The Chair: Thank you. Any response on the part of the Ombudsman?
Ms Jamieson: Yes, on a number of things that were raised.
One, what's the difference between saying there should be a role in how the money comes into the relationship as opposed to how it goes out? Quite simply, it's because this cheque is drawn by government that I got involved in this case and why it's here now. I have no views to present to this committee in my role as Ombudsman about how people manage their money after the fact. I have found that government, in cutting one cheque to a family unit, is perpetuating a practice that is systemically discriminatory. That is why I focused on that piece. So that's the difference.
I think there's been a lot made of the issue of choice. The reality here is that the ministry makes the choice in a way that disadvantages women unless the male agrees. The ministry official, during the conduct of the investigation, said, and I quote: "Historically, the cheque has gone in the man's name (I hate to say it). Sometimes a man will ask to have the cheque in his wife's name." That's the reality.
We can all speculate what happened in those 72% of the cases. It may be that in the majority of those cases there was no agreement, as in the case of Ms C. She did not agree. The cheque went to the man. And what happened to Ms C? Ms C was left with the bills and no funds at the end of day. The situation that was allowed to occur here put her at an extreme disadvantage, whereas if she had received the benefits -- and here's the key -- to which she was entitled in her own right, she would have had the power, the authority that goes along with the use of those funds. That's what's at the base of this case and that's the issue, I think, that remains for the committee to deal with. It's not about family unit; it's not about family values. It is about systemic discrimination by a part of our government, and that's why, as Ombudsman, I feel it needs to be remedied.
The Chair: I saw Dr Galt's hand.
Mr Galt: What I'm struggling with -- we'll say we did agree with you and separate cheques are to be issued and that's how it is in this wonderful world we have. There's still coercion and we haven't got over that. If one spouse is going to force another spouse, I don't see that that spouse is going to have all the power that you're suggesting is going to allow separate cheques or going to insist on a separate cheque coming to the one with the most power, whether it be male or female. So I'm sitting here and what I'm struggling with is the disagreement to overcome the systemic discrimination you're concerned about.
When I asked the ministry people, "How does it default?" I got a very different answer from what I'm hearing you say. When you say the default automatically goes to the male, you've got a whole bunch of heads behind you, which you haven't been seeing, shaking no very vigorously.
Obviously I have two answers coming on the same question, which to me is the whole crux of the problem. It's a disagreement between the two, one having maybe more power than the other, and how do you solve this? I can see, even if there are separate cheques, where the weaker spouse, if I can use it that way, ends up paying the rent, and by then there's nothing left of that cheque anyway, so I don't see that they're any better off. I'm back to the problem with the disagreement on whom the cheque gets written to and gets defaulted to. There's certainly a disagreement between your office and the ministry's office, and that's what I'm struggling with.
Ms Jamieson: There are two points you've raised there, Mr Galt. The first one has to do with the issue of, if the two cheques go, what's the coercion factor or possibility in their requesting two cheques? I think there may well have been one, and that's why I didn't recommend that. I recommended that it automatically be issued in two cheques, that there not be a requirement for the man to agree, as the case is now. I would say that if the two cheques are issued, 50% to each person, keeping in mind the total for the family unit as it's currently figured out -- I wouldn't touch that; just split it in two at the end of the day.
On the question of what the ministry views as their reality and what I found is their reality, there's been a good deal of mention made about choice, and that's the answer I heard from the ministry when you asked about the default question. There's a presentation of, "Here are the choices." The default question for me is, at the end of the day, what does the ministry do if there is not agreement or if the man does not agree that it goes to the woman? At the end of the day, the cheque goes to the man. That's what I found. That was the purpose of the investigation and that's what we did. In fact, that was not disputed at any time by ministry officials. They've not responded very much at all to the improperly discriminatory principle.
Mr O'Toole: I guess there's assumed systemic discrimination here. That's kind of the way I see it.
I just want to pose a couple of questions to you. In your research, had you actually looked into the Canada pension benefit where the recipient, be it the surviving spouse or surviving children -- who gets the cheques there?
Ms Jamieson: We certainly looked at old age benefits and found that's a useful precedent because the cheques are split.
Mr O'Toole: That's really the point I'm making. I know that in your research you probably would have looked more broadly than just at the Ontario component of social programs. That is the case federally, not because we made it or anybody else made it, but that is the case. I know it to be the case.
Another thing I'd ask your opinion on would be, it does of course become politically stressful when you talk about the spousal entitlements and all those other entangled political differences people have. What is your view with respect to the current language, I understand, from the Family Benefits Act which does not allow the government to strip off a cheque for the rent or shelter allowance? What's your view? That is an outstanding issue, I can tell you, both as an MPP and as a previous councillor. It's an ongoing problem, as are hydro arrears. There's some inability for the landlord to turn the power off under certain legislation and also for the landlord to deal with the situation of back rent. What's your view with respect to, if we're simply going to change the system -- we'll have box number three, "Hydro," box number four, "Landlord," on this form they're going to fill in. Do you think those cheques should also be peeled off and we'll get right down to the money for the cigarettes and the food, whatever they buy with their money?
Those people have entitlements. They are providing a service and they should expect to be paid for those services. Let's get the program working right from the beginning. I think you look at things very objectively and I'd like your opinion.
Ms Jamieson: I thank the member for the invitation to comment on that subject. I honestly haven't looked at that piece in this investigation. I haven't looked at the extent to which that should be the role or that would be unfair in the case of the ministry's involvement, whether that in and of itself might be taking on a role that intervenes in a person's freedom to do with their benefits as they see fit. That's that whole area of political --
Mr O'Toole: It's not political really, though.
Ms Jamieson: It can be, but that hasn't been the focus of my investigation on this case.
1100
Mr O'Toole: Do you think we should address it, though? If we're going to change this new system to be able to adequately split maybe the children, there may be the case where the spouses, the couple, the whatever, are having problems and one of the dependent children is disadvantaged and should maybe be getting a cheque for their own food or whatever. You know, we've got to look to the 21st century here. Do you think we should make provisions for splitting it beyond just the spousal issue here that we're dealing with, hydro, landlord, dependent children, as Canada pension has done with --
Ms Jamieson: As I said, I think you're talking about a much bigger picture of social reform. While I have personal views on that, I haven't investigated it. I haven't looked at a complaint about that. It wouldn't be appropriate or fair for me to --
Mr O'Toole: Use your office in that way.
Ms Jamieson: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you.
Ms Jamieson: I think you can understand that.
The Chair: That completes my list. Are there any other questions?
Mr Lalonde: I would have a question to Ms Jamieson. This case of Ms C, do you know if we have any other similar cases where the people have been critical of not getting their share of the family benefits cheque, or is it just this one isolated case?
Ms Jamieson: I can't give you exact figures, but I can tell you that one case of systemic discrimination is enough in my books if there were even only one.
Mr Lalonde: Do you know if this Ms C has any dependants or children?
Ms Jamieson: I don't, offhand, know that. I don't believe so.
Mr Lalonde: I would come up with a statement before I close off. I wonder if the ministry has ever looked at the possibility, whenever there is a dependant or children within the family, that an arrangement could be made with the federal for those who have family allowance cheques, that the sole amount is transferred to the federal and one cheque issued for the family allowance for the dependant that would go with the family allowance. That would prevent a lot of headaches and also make sure that at least the mother is getting the cheque for the children. The share or the part that is allowed for each child, the mother would get at least that part.
At the present time, when it comes down to adults, to spouses, like I said a little while ago, I think there's a justice system in place that could handle that part, because for one specific case, looking at the cost that the taxpayer would have to pay, I think it's quite huge.
Ms Jamieson: Just to add to that, if you look at the initial presentation last day, we talked about the numbers of people who were in this situation, the thousands of people, the couples.
When I responded on how many people are in Ms C's particular case, I don't know how many are in her particular circumstance, having been left with the bills and so on, but I do know that there are many, many people, indeed by definition all the people who are receiving the cheques under FBA as couples when they were individually entitled, who are in the same situation.
Mr Lalonde: I really feel at the present time, referring to Mr O'Toole a little while ago, that if there was a form with the squares that you could just tick off, probably the government should look at this possibility: who would be paying the rent, who would be paying the hydro and everything. Even with the hydro at the present time, the landlord becomes responsible and you can't just cut off the power. I don't think the landlord's entitled to cut off the power. Only the hydro commission is allowed to cut off the power and he could be sued for doing it. Hydro is doing it at the present time without notifying the landlord.
Mr Len Wood: I have a couple of brief statements and then probably a question I'm not sure you're going to able to answer.
I agree with you that if there's one case of discrimination out there, if we can do something to eliminate it, we should do something, the same as if there's one theft or one murder or one assault, we shouldn't just say: "Well, that's not a problem. We shouldn't deal with it." I agree that even if there's only one that has come forward, we should find a way of making sure the discrimination does not continue.
The more questions we have from Tom and from Barb, the more questions I have in my mind. If the initial application is put in -- 24 hours can be a very long time in a family unit or a relationship or whatever and things can change very rapidly, depending on what's happening. Do you know if, after the first cheque is received, that could be changed by a phone call or by a simple matter of changing that to split it into two cheques? That's a concern I have. Rather than allowing the discrimination to continue and continue and continue for a period of time, if that can happen, I would say it's a step in the right direction.
But if that can't happen, if it's a situation that is allowed to exist for six months, we're going to be spending more money on battered homes and on trying to find other ways of eliminating this discrimination. I know for a fact myself -- and I just go one step farther -- we have people who, during the last census report, when the people went to the door asking, "How many people are living in this house?" the answer was, "Three, four people." In fact, we know, I know, there are as many as 19, 20, 21 people living in that home, none of them working, but they're all part of a family unit: the grandparents, the parents, the married children and the great-grandchildren, all living in one of these houses because there is a shortage of housing in some of the communities. In those units -- if they were to come out and say there are 18 or 20 or 21 people living in one and there is only one cheque being cut for the whole unit, part of that is federal responsibility, but still. That's the question I have. Can it be changed in a 24-hour period without an agreement from either spouse?
Ms Jamieson: It's my understanding that the couple can go in and change. Say, if the cheque initially comes to the man, can they go in and change and have it go to the woman? Yes, they can.
Mr Len Wood: Can they split it?
Ms Jamieson: Under the current system, no, and if you say there's always that chance you can come back and change it, you've still got the same problem as far as I can see, because unless the man agrees that it goes to the woman, it goes to the man. In a relationship where there is abuse, we all know it's about power dynamics. Money figures into that, a very key part. So what you're doing is forcing women to be in that situation or leave the relationship, and if they leave the relationship to get the benefits to which they're entitled, it's going to cost a whole lot more, because to calculate two separate benefits is higher than a benefit as a family unit together.
Mr Len Wood: If there's no way of eliminating this discrimination that is existing, whether it be one case or whether it be 100 cases out there, if there's no way of eliminating with the existing rules and regulations that are there, I think we have to try to find a way of making sure that discrimination does not continue, the same way as -- I'll repeat -- if there's one murder case out there, if there's one serious theft out there, one serious assault out there, we're not going to say, "Well, it's only one and we're going to forget about it." We would take some kind of action. Discrimination is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
Ms Jamieson: Just to that, as a final word, Mr Wood, every person who applies for family benefits is in this situation. Every woman, every person who applies for family benefits is in this situation, and that's why it cries out for remedy.
Mr Len Wood: I apologize that I wasn't able to make it for the beginning of this particular case on another day, but I'm realizing now that it is serious, that we should listen to what is happening here.
Mr Froese: Apology accepted.
Mr Len Wood: Thank you, Tom.
1110
Mrs Fisher: Just to clarify a couple of points and not to pose questions, because I'm not so sure there are any left, certainly that I have anyway, but a couple of points of clarification.
In a situation where the bills of the household aren't being paid, there is a mechanism, regardless of who the recipient is of that cheque, to make that be righted. Let's assume for a second that the male is the recipient of the cheque and in fact rent isn't being paid, hydro is being cut off because of non-payment, the phone is disconnected etc. The woman in this situation has every right and, I think, a responsibility in a family way to notify the social assistance department, GWA, that that is happening.
Now these cases are ongoingly monitored anyway. Any recipient caseload is ongoingly monitored and it should be obvious to the case worker, I think through the communication with the recipients -- and just because one's a signing matter and the other's a spouse, I consider it a partnership unless they're not living together. In the case of those recipients, each of those partners has a responsibility to that revenue, to spend it properly. The other partner, where there's abuse of spending, has the right to notify GWA so that will be righted. You can go as far as automatic deduction for rent, direct payment which is an automatic deduction from that social assistance cheque that goes to that house. The same with hydro, and I guess whatever other arrangements are made between the case worker and the recipients can be made in the event that the funds are being abused.
I think there's a protection mechanism in place right now to ensure that where they are being abused, whether it's the male or the female abusing that system or the cheque, there is a mechanism in place. All it is is the difference of a phone call or a contact with the case worker. In the case that Mr Wood raised, I totally agree with you that 24 hours is a very long time in a relationship that's not going smoothly. The potential for in and out and in of a relationship within that 24-hour period exists, of course. It's not normal, but it could happen.
The situation is that if we go to this other -- you were taking a direction which I can understand. With regard to one situation of abuse or one situation of any type of crime, a killing or theft or anything, it's not acceptable. But I don't think we want to abdicate the situation of a woman or a man staying in a relationship, in an abusive situation, because of this cheque. Whichever of the two parties chooses to leave that relationship has every right immediately to reapply for benefits to cover themselves and, quite frankly, the rate is higher on the single dependency issue.
I think if the situation is that bad in that relationship, again coming back to the point that, as government, we have no right to be determining a faulty relationship or a non-faulty relationship, that decision of choice has to be made between the two applicants and then the person has a right to get out of a situation they're not happy with, and it may be just the financial side of it. If in fact one of the parties is not spending wisely, the other party has a right to leave and then develops that right to an application for social assistance as a single individual, maybe with children and maybe without.
I think we're not trapping, if you will. I think this system prevents the trapping of somebody being abused in that situation by making a wrong choice maybe at the point of initiation of that application. I will come back to the point that there is choice at the initial stage. That choice has to be determined by those applicants. It's up to them as mature adults who have a need to decide how they're going to agree to filling that need.
In fairness to Ms C's case, I think she made a choice of in, out, in, exactly what Mr Wood demonstrated as to why somebody needed to be treated individually and the system will take care of that. She can be in and it's a joint cheque. If she leaves the relationship, she goes out and she's entitled to application on a single benefit. She comes back in and she's back in a relationship. But with the structure of a family unit, it's impossible, I think, to expect government to be deciding whether they want to do one or two with their relationship.
The Chair: I see Mr Wood's hand.
Mr Len Wood: I won't be lengthy, but --
The Chair: I'll just make a comment at this point. We're here to ask the Ombudsman questions arising from her response to the report of the ministry. There will be time for debate on the question before us after we get through this. I urge everyone to confine their remarks to questions of the Ombudsman, to flesh out their understanding of her position on the matter, and then we'll get into debate as soon as that's complete.
Mr Len Wood: Yes, and I'll direct my comments and questions to Mrs Jamieson and a follow-up from some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker.
If the only irritant is that the two people have to agree and if one doesn't agree the cheque would automatically go to the male partner in that household, if that is what is going to cause a huge argument or a huge disagreement as to what happens in that household where the male would have complete control over the money, and if by issuing separate cheques it would eliminate the discrimination and people could continue to have a half-decent relationship in that household, that's the point I was trying to make. If this is all we have to do to eliminate discrimination and make sure that particular family unit, however it's made up, can stay together and can have their independence, why are we not going to do that?
Ms Jamieson: I think that's an excellent question. In fact, for the ministry to issue two cheques is to get out of the business of being involved in the relationship, and I think that is where the ministry should be, because at the moment, with a policy and a practice that is systemically discriminatory, however unintentional, it puts them in a position of disadvantaging the women in the relationship, and I don't think that's the position where, particularly because it violates the Human Rights Code, any ministry wants to be.
I don't take any comfort, and I doubt that any of the women in this situation would take comfort, from the suggestion that if you don't want to be in a situation where you're on the receiving end of a policy that's systemically discriminatory, you can leave and that that surely is fair and free choice. I don't think that's a reasonable response to people in this situation. It certainly doesn't address the continuing issue of the ministry having this practice every day.
The Chair: Are there any further questions?
Madam Ombudsman, thank you for appearing before us and assisting us with this process, and thank you to the members of the ministry for your assistance this morning.
Ms Jamieson: Just for clarification, will you be dealing at some stage later this morning with the other hearings, what you're going to do about that?
The Chair: You can see where we are on the clock and how long it has taken us to get here. You can draw your own conclusions as to how much progress we're likely to make on other matters this morning.
Ms Jamieson: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: In a manner consistent with the established practice of this committee, I propose that we now enter into closed session.
The committee continued in closed session from 1119 to 1147.
The Chair: Welcome back, everybody. After considering the matter in closed session, consistent with the established practice of this committee, I have been instructed to report in open session as follows: After considering the submission received, the committee decided that it could not support the recommendation of the Ombudsman.
Thank you all very much. Thank you for your assistance with this process.
Moving now to other matters, the one matter remaining for us to dispense with today is the composition of the subcommittee. Mr Galt is no longer a permanent member of this committee and therefore is not a member of the subcommittee. Mr Froese, you have a motion arising from that?
Mr Froese: I move that Mr Stewart be appointed as a government party representative on the subcommittee on committee business.
The Chair: Those in favour? Any opposed? That's passed unanimously.
Thank you all very much. Today's proceedings are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1148.