May 24, 2001 — Le Protecteur du citoyen

Back to special reports and statement archives

Universal support-payment collection system
– Five year update –

Summary

May 2001

Introduction

The implementation of a universal support-payment collection system involves a large scale reform and the mandate, truly a fair sized one, has been assigned to the Ministère du Revenu.

Underestimation of record volume by 45% was the main cause the program sputtered from the very start. Through personnel shortage, records piled up and support payment delays quickly became the main cause of dissatisfaction with the new program. Program management then went awry and citizen dissatisfaction grew to a peak during the 1997-1998 financial year maintaining the same level during the next financial year. In 1999-2000, the work around plan set up by the Ministère gave results and reduced case processing delays.

Even though adjustments were performed, problems with the system still exist. Whether the causes are personnel shortage or inadequate computer programming, support payment delays are still being registered.

As far as problems with the computer system are concerned, citizen complaints dealt mostly with two items: reimbursement of advances and invoicing.

Advances

Under the Act to Facilitate the Payment of Support, the Minister has been able to grant up to three months advance payments or $1,500 to a support payment creditor. The reason for the remittance of these advances are the delays a debtor may encounter for his employer paycheque or if he is self-employed.

Advances are programmed through the computer system. No problem exists with programming these payments except when the debtor at a given time stops paying and the system keeps on sending cheques to the creditor. As previously stated, the system will pay three months support before stopping altogether.

Once all the advances have been paid out, the system stops sending cheques to the creditor, a state of affairs considered normal or even desirable. The real problem comes when the support payments resume: the system applies the amounts to the reimbursement of the advances first before paying whatsoever to the creditor.

The creditor who has therefore been waiting months for support, sometimes even years owing to the former spouse not being able or refusing to pay, will have more delays to endure because of reimbursement of advances.

As the title of the Act states, should not legislation provide for easier payments? Were not the primary objectives to cut back on delays and promote regular and stable payments?

Invoicing

Invoicing serves to determine the amounts to charge the debtor and those to pay the creditor. The great number of judicial, legal and administrative constraints as well as frequent adjustments derived from so many amendments to orders concerning Family Law do not make for easy programming of the system. Statements of accounts then sometimes yield mistakes and are nearly always impossible to understand.

Given the context, difficulties are not really amazing. Citizens complain that the statements sent by the Ministère are impossible to understand. At the same time, they question accounting accuracy especially the amounts due for back payments. From past experience, the Québec Ombudsman says such complaints are often founded.

The essential data required to produce invoicing are undeniably many and varied. However, computers are tools made to cope with these complex data and citizens are not to be made liable for poor programming.

All the same, the system’s universality has undoubtedly allowed to readily achieve specific goals as intended by legislation, for instance simplifying creditor proceedings to be given judgment and reducing, the risks of manipulation between parties. In fact, except for judgments rendered prior to legislation, all orders are managed by the system relieving the creditor of any proceedings whatsoever. As far as the risk of manipulation is concerned, parties must now compound with the collection officer.

However if the system now improves the condition of creditors when collection is done through source deduction or payment order, the situation gets worse when the Ministère has to bring support cases to court and case processing often stagnate. Not entitled to take matters into their own hands, creditors have no choice but to wait.

In other respects, one of the mandates the Ministère has been entrusted with, consists of seizing amounts from Federal Government sources, for example Employment Insurance benefits. The part the Ministère is playing here is paramount since a lot of debtors having quitted, lost or ended their employment receive such benefits and the writ of attachment is the only means by which support may be collected. Furthermore, since qualifying periods for Employment Insurance benefits are limited, the Centre de perception fiscale is hard pressed in the part it is playing as well.

Proceedings involving a number of steps in themselves and 45 days being a possible time lapse before the writ may be issued, processing these cases becomes a priority.

The Québec Ombudsman has therefore acknowledged the problems involving selection of support cases deserving processing priority and considers unfortunate that very often still, the creditor’s Employment Insurance benefits run out before the writ has been issued.

Still another mandate entrusted upon the Ministère consists in gathering evidence for prosecution by the Contentieux (legal department). After five years, the Ministère through lack of resources has been found unable to deal adequately with this task. The reasons: personnel shortage and lack of co-ordination between the Ministère’s internal directorates.

Finally, considering the significant progress that has been accomplished, the Québec Ombudsman’s update after five years of system implementation emphasises the need for corrective action: the Universal Support-Payment Collection System should entitle all parents and children concerned to receive support in the best possible conditions.

Recommendations

In order that all objectives of the Act to Facilitate the Payment of Support are met, the Québec Ombudsman recommends the following:

The Direction principale de la perception des pensions alimentaires should change the computer programming to insure that current support payments are given priority over reimbursement of advances.
The Direction principale de la perception des pensions alimentaires should review computer programming to insure information given to citizens is correct and easy to understand.
The Ministère du Revenu should give priority to the enforcement of the writ of attachment allowing the seizure of Employment Insurance seizable benefits.
The tax audit unit and the Centre de perception fiscale should adopt a policy making support cases transferable for investigation.
The tax audit unit should report the investigation progress and findings periodically to the Centre de perception fiscale.
The Ministère du Revenu and the Ministère de la Justice should consult each other in order that the Ministère du Revenu be the main party to recover a support payment owed by a debtor living outside of Québec, and consequently avoid delays generated by red tape.
The Ministère du Revenu and the Ministère de la Justice should move to convince other countries and governments to expedite the processing of support cases when the debtor lives outside of Québec.
The Direction principale de la perception des pensions alimentaires should work out an arrangement to follow-up the processing of reciprocal enforcement support cases.
The Direction principale de la perception des pensions alimentaires should provide further and comprehensive training to personnel in order that it may rightly inform creditors as to the progress of their cases.
The Direction principale de la perception des pensions alimentaires should take necessary steps where support has been modified or cancelled, to inform parties of periods of time and amounts of advances granted under Section 36 of the Act to Facilitate the Payment of Support.
The Ministère de la Justice and the Ministère du Revenu should consult each other and take action in order that the personnel from the Contentieux in charge of recovering support payments may expedite affairs.