McGuinty moves on electoral reform
Citizens will evaluate voting system
'People of Ontario will have their say'
The toronto Star, ROBERT BENZIE, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU, Nov. 19, 2004
Ontario voters could see radical changes to democracy, including proportional representation, in time for the 2007 election, says Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Unveiling his much-anticipated democratic reform initiative yesterday, McGuinty said Ontarians should expect a transformation of their political system.
Asked if proportional representation — where seats are given to parties based on their share of the province-wide vote — could be in place within the next three years, he replied: "That's a possibility."
"Some, as might be expected, have already expressed opposition to this very exercise," the Premier told about 150 participants at the Dialogue on Democracy conference at Queen's Park.
"They argue that our first-past-the-post system is clearly the best and, anyway, consideration of an alternative is simply too complex an undertaking for Ontarians who are not expert in the field," he said.
"To me, that attitude smacks of paternalism from a bygone era. When it comes to how the people elect their representatives, the people of Ontario will have their say."
A first-past-the-post win goes to the candidate in each riding with the most votes, and the party with the most seats almost always forms the government.
McGuinty's comments came as he announced a "citizens' assembly," where "randomly selected" residents — likely one from each of Ontario's 103 ridings — will examine the current voting system and propose changes. The group would be asked to consider a referendum on proportional representation — possibly before the Oct. 4, 2007 provincial election.
As well, a 12-person "citizens' jury" will be created to look at possible reforms of how political parties are funded and election campaigns are financed.
Details of both the assembly and the jury will be finalized early in the new year.
But the most striking — and controversial— change would be the adoption of some form of proportional representation.
Under such a system, Ontarians could see a dramatically different looking Legislature.
In the 2003 election, the Liberals won 46.6 per cent of the popular vote but 70 per cent of the seats (72 of 103). The Conservatives won just 24 seats with 34.6 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats seven seats with 14.7 per cent.
Attorney-General Michael Bryant said a prominent "non-partisan" person would be selected to chair the citizens' assembly.
"It's got to be somebody who isn't showing up ... with any kind of baggage," said Bryant.
British Columbia spent $5 million on a similar electoral reform commission and will hold a referendum in May on whether to change their system to a "single transferable vote" (STV) ballot.
Under STV, voters preferentially rank candidates.
Conservative Leader John Tory praised McGuinty for moving forward with reforms, but expressed concern about an end to the "stability" of majority government if proportional representation is adopted.
The last premier to win more than 50 per cent of the popular vote in Ontario was Liberal Mitch Hepburn in 1937.
"There are downsides to majority government that can be alleviated to some extent by parliamentary reform ... as opposed to electoral reform," said Tory.
"The question of looking at reform is a valid one and the citizens' juries is the right way to go about it ... which is why I'm quite open-minded on it."
University of Toronto political science professor Graham White said he was "very encouraged" by the Liberals' moves.
"It says that they still believe in their democratic agenda, which is not particularly a vote getter," said White.
"It's going to make a big difference in my view if the people come up with some interesting alternatives.
"For better or worse, he's turning it over to the people."
Ontario's child financial support collection agency has big problems
Ontario's Family Responsibility Office has many problems
Quote from Ontario Government Ombudsman -"an equal opportunity error-prone program,."'
Support recipients not getting their money.
Men who've been meeting their court-ordered obligations have trouble getting the FRO to stop taking payments when it's supposed to. Read More ..
Pilloried, broke, alone
March 25, 2000
Divorced fathers get a bad rap for not supporting their children. The truth is, many can't. And, tragically, some are driven to desperate measures, including suicide.
In his suicide note, Jim, the father of four children, protests that "not all fathers are deadbeats." Jim hanged himself because he couldn't see any alternative. Even now, his children are unaware of the circumstances of their father's death. Meeno Meijer, National Post George Roulier is fighting to regain money wrongfully taken from his wages by the Ontario child-support collection agency. Chris Bolin, National Post Alan Heinz, a Toronto firefighter, has gone bankrupt fighting for the return of his daughter, 3, from Germany. No one will help him, but German authorities are trying to collect child support from him.
Whenever fathers and divorce are discussed, one image dominates: the 'deadbeat dad,' the schmuck who'd rather drive a sports car than support his kids. Because I write about family matters, I'm regularly inundated with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mail from divorced men. It's not news that divorced individuals have little good to say about their ex-spouses. What I'm interested in is whether the system assists people during this difficult time in their lives, or compounds their misery. From the aircraft engineer in British Columbia, to the postal worker on the prairies, to the fire fighter in Toronto, divorced fathers' stories are of a piece: Though society stereotypes these men relentlessly, most divorced dads pay their child support. Among those who don't, a small percentage wilfully refuse to (the villains you always hear about).
What you haven't been told is that the other men in arrears are too impoverished to pay, have been ordered to pay unreasonable amounts, have been paying for unreasonable lengths of time, or are the victims of bureaucratic foul-ups. Read More ..
Non-dad on hook for support
Edmonton and Calgary Sun
Feb 5, 2005
EDMONTON -- An Edmonton judge has decided a divorced dad has to make child support payments, even though the child isn't his. Justin Sumner had an on-again-off-again relationship with the woman he eventually married, Dawn Sumner.
She already had a child from a previous relationship with a man named Rob Duncan, and as she and Justin broke up and reunited, Dawn was sexually involved with both men.
When she found she was pregnant, she called Justin, who recognized there was a possibility that Duncan was the father, but later concluded he was the dad.
Father Committeed Suicide after calling Family Responsibility Office
Andrew T. Renouf committed suicide on or about October 17, 1995 because he had 100% of his wages taken by the Family Responsibility Office, a child support collection agency of the Government of Ontario, Canada.
He asked for assistance for food and shelter from the welfare office and was refused because he had a job, even though all of his wages were taken by the Family Responsibility Office.
Andy was a loving father that hadn't seen his daughter in 4 years.
A memorial service was held in October, 1998, for Andy in front of the Family Responsibility Office at 1201 Wilson Avenue, West Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This is in the Ministry of Transportation grounds in the Keele St. & Hwy 401 area. All members of the Ontario Legislature were invited by personal letter faxed to their offices. Not one turned up. The Director of the Family Responsibility Office and his entire staff were invited to the brief service. The Director refused and wouldn't let the staff attend the service although it was scheduled for lunch time. There was a peaceful demonstration by followed by a very touching service by The Reverend Alan Stewart. The text of the service will soon be able to be read below.
The service made the TV evening news.
It was Andy's last wish that his story be told to all. YOU CAN READ HIS SUICIDE NOTE
Auditor General of Ontario
Disasterous Report on the Family Reponsibility Office FRO 2010
80% of Telephone calls don't get answered
Payers and recipients do not have direct access to their assigned enforcement services officer
"There is only limited access to enforcement staff because many calls to the Office do not get through or are terminated before they can be answered."
"The Office is reviewing and working on only about 20% to 25% of its total cases in any given year."
"At the end of our audit in April 2010, there were approximately 91,000 bring-forward notes outstanding, each of which is supposed to trigger specific action on a case within one month. The status of almost one-third of the outstanding bring-forward notes was "open," indicating either that the notes had been read but not acted upon, or that they had not been read at all, meaning that the underlying nature and urgency of the issues that led to these notes in the first place was not known. In addition, many of the notes were between one and two years old."
"For ongoing cases, the Office took almost four months from the time the case went into arrears before taking its first enforcement action. For newly registered cases that went straight into arrears, the delay was seven months from the time the court order was issued."
Ontario agency admits to overbilling on child support payments
The Ottawa Citizen
January 14, 2012
TORONTO - Ontario's controversial Family Responsibility Office has been overbilling 1,700 parents, mostly fathers, for as long as 13 years, the province admitted Friday.
The 1,700 parents were overbilled by an average $75 each month, after the agency wrongly applied a cost of living adjustment that was eliminated in 1997.
Those who were overpaid will not be forced to give the money back.
Instead, taxpayers will foot the $5.3 million bill for the agency's mistake.
"This error's been found and it's being corrected," said Liberal cabinet minister John Milloy. "We're going to be reaching out to those individuals (who were overbilled) and talking to them about their situation, formally alerting them."
The Family Responsibility Office, or FRO, is responsible for ensuring court-ordered child support payments are made. Read More .. than 97 per cent of all payers overseen by the office are male.
Milloy said the agency discovered the problem at some point in 2011. No one will be fired for the mistakes, he added.
"I see this as something very serious," he said in an interview. "I'm not trying to minimize it, but … there's been lots of action taken to reform FRO, to update computer systems, to update customer relations and it's on a much firmer footing."
The billing mistake is only the latest controversy to engulf FRO.
"Canada's national newspaper for professional women"
The Family Responsibility Office Under Scrutiny
On June 9, 2005 the McGuinty government announced the passage of Bill 155, legislation that promised to increase enforcement, improve fairness and enhance efficiency at the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).
However, the legislation did not address the problem of accountability and, as things now stand, the FRO is a threat to every Canadian affected by a government regulated support and custody arrangement system. Think of George Orwell's 1984 and you'll have a good picture of how issues are handled at the FRO.
They have legal power to extort money from Canadians, but are not responsible or accountable for their actions.
Last year an FRO staff member decided not to wait for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver and took it upon themselves to suspend his license because he was, understandably, behind on his payments, having lost his job earlier in the year. Although he was looking for work, the FRO cut off the only way he knew of to earn a living. His suicide note explained how he'd lost all hope. Is this what we want FRO to be doing? Read More ..
"Canada's National newspaper for professional women"
Does the FRO have a feminist perspective?
When families fall apart, they can make for the bitterest of enemies. The intensity of their hostility, the personal rhetoric, the posturing and positioning, and the utter faithlessness of remembrance in the relationship's good deeds and consequences is a breathtaking phenomenon. It's as if the positive qualities and countless achievements are struck from history as a revisionist might strike the Holocaust. Into all of this the family court system wades, often inelegantly. Divorce lawyers drive up the emotional and financial toll of separation and transformation. Family and friends frequently collude to make things worse.
And when government decides to rear its head, well, it's a mess for all the world to see. Witness the recent attention on Ontario's euphemistically branded Family Responsibility Office. A job in advertising doubtlessly greeted the person who came up with its title, because it suggests some sort of feel-good missionary work to hold together the sanctity of the institution. Read More ..
Ruling a big red flag for men
Calgary Sun,
February 5, 2005
If men knew more about family law, they'd run screaming from single mothers prowling for relationships and father figures for their children.
Any lawyer will tell you that the nature of your relationship with a child - not biology - determines whether you're on the hook for child support.
Sperm has nothing to do with it, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled a few years ago. Read More ..