Manitoba Committee Hansard — 20 June 1995 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 1, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-la1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Law Amendments Chairperson Mr. Denis Rocan Constituency of Gladstone Vol. XLV No.l-7 p.m., Tuesday, June 20,1995 ISSN 0713-9586

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Tuesday, June 20, 1995 TIME- 7 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Denis Rocan (Gladstone) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. David Newman (Riel) ATTENDANCE- 11- QUORUM -6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Reimer, Toews, Hon. Mrs. Vodrey Ms. Barr ett, Ms. Cerilli, Messrs. Helwer, Mackintosh, Ms. McGifford, Mr. Newman, Mrs. Render, Mr. Rocan APPEARING: Ms. Marianne Farag, Director, Urban Government and Finance Branch, Urban Affairs Mr.

Gary Kowalski, The Maples WITNESSES: Bill 3-The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act Ms. Denise Veilleux, Reseau Ms. Denyse Cote, Reseau Mr. Jules Gareau, Private Citizen Mr. Don Lee, Private Citizen Ms. Rosella Dyck, Private Citizen Ms. Louise Malenfant, Parents Helping Parents Ms. Marilyn McGonigal, Private Citizen Ms. Irene LaBrosse, Coalition of Custodial Parents Ms. Louise Dyck, Private Citizen Ms. Karen Johnston, The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law Mr. Mike Brentnall, Men's Equalization Inc. Ms. Sharon Spinks, Private Citizen Ms. Kim McCorriston, Private Citizen Ms.

Rhonda McCorriston, Private Citizen Ms. Michelle Bonnefoy, Private Citizen Ms. Sue Spiece, Private Citizen Ms. Judith Cornell, Private Citizen Ms. Norma McCormick, Private Citizen Ms. Victoria Lehman, Private Citizen Bill 7- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act Mr. Jae Eadie, Councillor, St. James Ward, City of Winnipeg Mr. George Fraser, Councillor, St. Charles Ward, City of Winnipeg MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 3-The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act Bill 7- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act *** Madam Clerk Assistant (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk Fitzpatrick): Order, please.

Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with its considerations this evening, we must elect a Chairperson. Are there any nominations for the position of Chair? Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I would like to nominate Mr. Rocan. Madam Clerk Assistant: Mr. Rocan has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing as there are no further nominations, Mr. Rocan, you are elected Chair.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 Mr. Chairperson: Or der, please. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. Prior to commencing with public presentations, there are a number of administrative matters that the committee must attend to. As a first order of business, the committee should proceed to elect a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations for the position of Vice-Chairperson? Mr. Helwer: I would like to nominate Mr. Newman. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Helwer nominates Mr. Newman. Are there any other nominations? None. Hearing none, Mr.

Newman, you have been elected as a Vice-Chairperson. Two bills are to be considered by the committee this evening: Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act and Bill?, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act. We have a number of presenters registered to speak to the bills today. It is our custom to hear briefs before consideration of the bills. What is the will of the committee? [agreed] I have a list of persons wishing to appear before the committee, and I will read the names of the registered presenters aloud.

Persons registered to speak on Bill 3: Jules Gareau, Private Citizen; Don Lee, Private Citizen; Rosella Dyck, Private Citizen; Louise Malenfant, Parents Helping Parents; Marilyn McGonigal, Private Citizen; Irene LaBrosse, Coalition of Custodial Parents; Louise Dyck, Private Citizen; Jill McKosti, Private Citizen; Steve Loftus, Private Citizen; Karen Johnston, Manitoba Association of Women and the Law; Mike Brentnall, Men's Equalization Inc.; Sharon Spinks, Private Citizen; Beverley Abbott, Private Citizen; Denise Veilleux and Denyse Cote, Reseau; Kim McCorriston, Private Citizen; Rhonda McCorriston, Private Citizen; Michelle Bonnefoy, Private Citizen; Paula Prime, MACSW (Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women); Darlene Byletzki, Private Citizen; Sue Spiece, Private Citizen; Judith Cornell, Private Citizen; Gordon Gillespie, Private Citizen; Tammy Williamson, Private Citizen. *

(1910) For Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act, persons registered to speak: Councillor Jae Eadie, Ad Hoc Committee on Election Review; and Councillor George Fraser, the City of Winnipeg. Should anyone else in attendance wish to appear before this committee, please register at the back of the committee room and your name will be added to the list. At this time, I would like to remind those presenters who have written copies of their brief to be distributed during their presentations, that 15 copies of the brief are required.

Should anyone require assistance to have the sufficient number of copies made, please contact the Clerk of Committees sitting at my right. Does the committee wish to establish a time limit on the length of public presentations? Committee members? We will review this a little bit later on this evening. Does the committee wish to indicate which bill it will hear from presenters first? Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellingt on): I would recommend that because there are only two presentations on Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act, we hear the presentations on Bill 7 first, followed immediately by the presentations on Bill 3. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? Mr. Helwer: Mr. Chairperson, after we hear the presenters on Bill 7, can we go clause by clause through Bill 7 so we get that one done? It will only

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 take a few minutes, and then we can go on to the presenters ofBill 3. Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee then that we would deal with Bill 7, finish with the presenters, do the clause-by-clause? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, my understanding is that all members of the committee are here for both bills, and I think it would be, given the number of people who have asked to make presentations on Bill 3, I think it is only fair to them to move as expedi tiously through and do the clause-by-clause on both bills after the public presentations. Mr.

Chairperson: Is that the wish of the committee? [agreed]. Bill 7-The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We shall now proceed to hear presenters on Bill 7. Will Councillor Jae Eadie please come forward to make a presentation to the committee. Do you have written copies of your brief for distribution to the committee members, sir? Mr. Jae Eadie (Councillor, St. James Ward, City of Winnipeg): No, I do not, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to be very brief and to the point. In order to move this down below, will you still hear me? Mr. Chairperson: Sure, go right ahead and proceed with your presentation, sir.

Mr. Eadie: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I first of all thank the committee for considering this ahead of the other bill. I realize there are other presentations. I want to say, first of all, very briefly that we are in general agreement with the amendments contained in Bill 7. We appreciate one ofthe final phases, I think, of a number of changes to the election procedures that were started in the last Legislature. We appreciate that just about everything contained in this bill complies with the requests that have been made by City Council over the past couple of years.

There are two items I want to raise with the committee, one on a

section of the act that is not contained in this bill and another on a

section that is contained in here that we think needs some refinement. The

section that is not contained in this bill for amendment is

Section 97.2 of the act which provides that the city's electoral officer is obliged to receive registrations by people who wish to run for mayor or council, but the act does not state that the electoral officer may reject such registrations for candidacy if those potential candidates have not filed their statement of election expenses and receipts which is the subject of the other amendment.

We would like to see wording in the act that would also permit or authorize the city's electoral officer to reject candidate registrations if they have not complied with the requirements of filing, if they were a candidate in a previous election and have not complied with the requirement that candidates must supply their statement of election expenses and receipts within a given period of time.

I believe our staff at the city have had some discussions with staff in the Department of Urban Affairs about language, and we are hopeful that that particular matter may be rectified in this particular bill so that our city's electoral officer may have the authority to either accept or reject if an applicant is in contravention. The other provision that I want to speak on, Mr. Chairman, is contained in the bill. It is on page 3 of your bill. It is your

Section 7, subsection 2, which is an amendment to subsection 100(3) of the act. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a penalty for those candidates in a previous election who did not file their statement of election expenses and income within the prescribed time. It was intended, and is intended, that those individuals be penalized, as they are not now presently penalized, from running in a subsequent general election or by-election. It was an oversight, I think, in the previous act. I know we appeared here in front of this committee a year ago when you had amendments proposed. This one did not make it at the time. The wording that you have in your

Section 7.2 does really not quite fit the bill. I have a suggestion for you to consider, and I have as a matter of fact 15 copies of

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 what a

Section 100, subsection 3 would read like if you were in a mind to accept some modification to the words. I will read for your information. The section, if you were to accept our amendment, would read as follows: A person who, as a registered candidate in an election, is not nominated as a candidate in the election, or is nominated and is defeated or withdraws and fails to comply with

Section 96(2. 1) (time for filing the audited statement) is not eligible to be nominated as a candidate in-and these would be our suggested words-an election for a period of (3) three years from the date prescribed in

Section 96(2. 1)(a). That

section of the act, Mr. Chairman, prescribes that all candidates, whether they were elected or defeated, must file their statement of election expenses and income no later than May 31 of the year following the election. This amendment would provide a penalty. Those defeated candidates who did not file would not be eligible to be a candidate for city council, mayor or council, for a period up to and including May 31, 1999, taking this year's general election as the election that is next coming up. We think that this is a worthwhile amendment. It does provide a penalty that is not presently provided in the act.

Candidates who win are penalized. If I as an elected city councillor do not file my statement by May 31 ofthe following year, my seat on council is vacant, and I am out of office. Defeated candidates, Mr. Chairman, have no such penalty at all. I might tell you that from the last general election in 1992, four out of the 17 candidates for mayor have still not filed their papers. A fifth candidate filed last week -filed his statement of election expenses and returns. Under the present

section of the act, that individual would be entitled to be nominated as a candidate either for mayor or council in this year's election. I had to file my statement within 90 days of the last general election or I could not be here today as a member of council. Eight of 48 candidates for City Council still have not filed their statement of election expenses and returns, but under the present

section of the act they could file that statement any time between now and nomination day in September and be eligible to be a candidate for City Council and then go through the same exercise of not filing again. They have no penalty. *

(1920) The proposed wording I have left with you provides our intent, which we talked about last year and which you have gone some way in 7(2) of Bill 7 to address, but you have not addressed it in what we think is clear language and language that shows that there is a penalty, and it very clearly states the period of time in which such an individual would not be eligible to be a candidate for City Council in a subsequent election. So those are the two suggestions I raise with the committee, Mr. Chairman, as further refinements to Bill 7. If there are any questions, I will try to answer them.

By the way, I might add that if anybody is interested, our electoral officer is here and does have the names of those candidates who did not and still have not filed their statement of election expense and income from the last election. If you are interested in seeing them, we have copies available for you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Jae.

I have known you for several years, and your love for the democratic process and the parliamentary system as we know it today indeed does surpass you, but I just want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward this evening and making that presentation and with your suggestions. Hopefully, the committee will give some serious consideration to what you have just presented. Do members of the committee have any questions? Hon.

Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I would like to thank Councillor Eadie for coming forth with his suggestions and his two proposed amendments, and I must say that both those will be part of the amendments that we are bringing forth with this bill later on this evening. So both those amendments will be put in, incorporated into the bill. Mr. David Newman (Riel): Mr. Eadie, is that a typographical error in the first line? Should that "as" be "is"?

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 Mr. Eadie: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not. Actually, those first few lines are taken right out of the present

Section 100(3) of The City of Winnipeg Act. The amended part, what we are suggesting as an amendment is the part that is italicized and underscored. The legal draftspeople can look and see if the "as" should be an "is," but that is what is presently in The City of Winnipeg Act. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was wondering if provision for a penalty is something that is included in the act for other jurisdictions municipally or at other levels of government. Mr. Eadie: I believe there are penalties.

I am not familiar with all election law, but I believe there are penalties for defeated candidates in other jurisdictions that do not file their statement of election expenses and income. I think generally what we are proposing here complies with electoral law generally across the country as we know it, and certainly the intent in Bill 7 to provide a penalty for defeated candidates who do not file is a step in the direction that City Council supports.

All we are essentially doing here with the proposed amendment that I have tabled with you is to clarify that and to clarify the period of time in which such a defeated candidate would not be eligible to run for election if they failed to meet the terms of the act presently. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, I would like to thank you, Mr. Eadie, for your presentation. Now I would like to call forward Councillor George Fraser from the City of Winnipeg. Mr. George Fraser (Councillor, St Charles Ward, City ofWinnipeg): Mr.

Chairman, I have some copies of parts of the act that I will be making reference to. Perhaps if they were circulated it might help everyone understand. I am asking for the co-operation of this committee to add to Bill 7 another amendment, and I hope I can explain it quickly. I think it is fairly straightforward. Mr. Chairman, to begin I would like to read into the record a motion which is motion 495 passed by the City of Winnipeg Council on February 22, 1995. All committee members now have a copy of this. It reads:

WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg currently operates with four Standing Committees and the Executive Policy Committee; and

WHEREAS the Task Force on the Political Restructuring-which is a committee that I am chairing -is looking at alternate decision-making structures to allow improved decision making and increased citizen participation; and

WHEREAS municipalities in other provinces are not bound by similar restrictive provisions;-and you will see a summ ary on the back of the larger document that I presented with respect to enabling legislation that you would find in British Columbia, Alberta, · Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia-and

WHEREAS-the resolution reads-the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, during its debate of Bill 17 last year, a bill to amend The City of Winnipeg Act, heard representation from myself who advised that as chairperson of that Task Force on Restructuring, the City was seeking flexibility in relation to the number of Standing Committees; and

WHEREAS Bill 17 which received Royal Assent on July 5, 1994, amended subsection 28(3) of The City of Winnipeg Act-which is highlighted there for you-by deleting the specific reference to the prescribed number of Standing Committees "four," however failed to accommodate this flexibility in subsection 33(1 );-which you will find on the third sheet in, which is the Standing Committee

section of The City of Winnipeg Act. THEREFORE the Council of the City of Winnipeg resolved that the Province of Manitoba be requested to amend The City of Winnipeg Act by deleting therein any specific references to the number of Standing Committees that Council may by by-law establish.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 Mr. Chairman, this was forwarded to the Minister of Urban Affairs, and we understand and we appreciate that this session did not necessarily offer all the opportunities that were there to gather everything together.

The reason I am here today is that we are very near completing the work of the task force, and again we simply appear at this time to request that what might have been an oversight, I will say, as a first statement, that the words, "not more than four" be struck from 33(1) so that it would simply read: council shall by by law establish standing committees. As I said when I was here last year, again, the evidence is there across this country that municip al councils have that flexibility to establish their own numbers of standing committees that they see fit will serve their organizational structure.

I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the final copies of The Municipal Act review and the proposed legislation has recently been tabled in the House, I believe, and circulated, and that same privilege is there for every other municipality in the province of Manitoba. So it would help us a great deal, and I believe, as I pointed out the last time-and the administration may want to give some advice on this-there may very well be a concern that Executive Policy Committee-there is a reference, if you would return to

Section 29(1), which indicates there shall be an Executive Policy Committee comprised of the following persons: the mayor, the deputy mayor and, as it reads now, the chairpersons of standing committees. We acknowledged last time that this may be where there has to be some amending work that is done to guarantee that Executive Policy Committee is not greater than a quorum of the Council of the City of Winnipeg. I think that would be one provision or safeguard that could be simply inserted that, I think, would perhaps meet the concerns that I have read into the original amendment.

But it would at least allow us some reasonable flexibility up to perhaps the number of eight or nine. It could be suggested that the amendment, Mr. Chairman, would read: one less than a quorum of the City of Winnipeg's Council. *

(1930) Wording like that would be very helpful, and it would allow us, if this were passed during this session, to prepare our new council that will find its way to City Hall in October of this year and allow them to form the number of standing commi ttees that we think would be appropriate within our own jurisdiction. That is my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank you for your presentation, Deputy Mayor Fraser. Do members of the committee have questions that they wish to address to the presenter? Mr.

Reimer: I would like to thank Councillor Fraser for coming forth with his presentation. I would like to point out to the council that the implications of this proposal are out of context and out of the scope of the bill that we have before us this evening. The bill before us we have this evening is an elections bill pertaining to The Elections Act of the City of Winnipeg.

The prop osal that you have brought is out of the scope of this bill, so it is not appropriate for an amendment process under what we are faced with presently, but it is something that possibly could be looked at with further amendments within The City of Winnipeg Act. But under the bill that we are looking at this evening, it is not within the scope of our parameters of discussion. Mr. Fraser: I guess I have to accept that, but I am simply looking at an opportunity here that was, I think we had an error of

interpretation or administration last time around, and that was our intent, to be here this evening, because it is very important for us to have that flexibility to put this in place. I suppose the next opport unity would be at the fall sitting of the Legislature to deal with this, but it may very well-depending on the timing, this is our concern-not be available, and City Council would be creating a new structure that would not fit within the regulations that are curr ently there under the act. That is the dilemma, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reimer: I cannot give you any type of indication of timing as to revisiting this situation regarding the number of committees and the outlook towards them

----------- June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 other than the fact that what you brought forth is worthy of consideration, and when the amendments are looked at again, why then maybe this is something that can be brought forth again at that time. Ms.

Barrett: My understanding, well, I know we have before us in the House Bill 17 which is a broader revisiting of The City of Winnipeg Act, and I am wondering if the minister would entertain to look with his staff and perhaps talk more in detail with City Council as to the possibility of putti ng this amendment, during the committee hearing stage on the Bill 17, into that process which perhaps could be dealt with in the fall sitting of the Legislature in time for it to be implemented for after the election of the new city council. Mr. Reimer: I guess it is like anything.

Anything can be brought forward for discussion and perusal at the time of not only the debate in the House and the amendment process that is available through the various readings of the bill, and there is always the possibility of discussion and

interpretation at that time. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any more questions? The presenter? Hearing none, I want to thank you, Councillor Fraser, for making your presentation here this evening. Thank you, sir. Bill 3-Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts) Amendments Act Mr. Chairperson: We presently will be proceeding with Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts) Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'execution des ordonnances alimentaires - modification de diverses lois. At this time I would like to ask-there are, I am not too sure how many right now-how many individuals are going to need the services of the translation booth? The reason I ask this is because we have two individuals cooped up in this little pen and the heat in there is unbearable. So I am going to ask those who would like to make a presentation in fran�ais in regard to Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts) Amendments Act, we will be calling on you first, so would you please make yourselves known to Patricia.

Oh, you know them already. Is it only Reseau that is making a presentation here this evening? I am just trying to ascertain whether or not it is simply Reseau that is making a presentation, because the minister will have some opening remarks prior to recognizing the presenters. Denise Veilleux and Denyse Cote. Bonne soiree, madame. Now, is it fme with the committee that we bring forward those that are going to be making a presentation in fran�ais, and therefore we can allow these individuals to retire for the evening? That is agreed? Agreed.

Patricia, you will ascertain who else is-so anybody else who wants to make a presentation en fran�ais, please make yourself known to the committee's clerk, Patricia, on my right. Et vous, madame, vous etes Denise Veilleux. Denise, pourrais-tu monter ton-mets-le done sur le podium, s'il vous plait. Ms. Denyse Veilleux (Reseau): Certainement. C'est mieux comme �a? Mr. Chairperson: Merci. [Translation ] Mr. Chairperson: And you, madam, are Denise Veilleux. Denise, would you please place your-Qn the podium. Ms. Veille ux: Of course. Is that better? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Ms.

Veille ux: Monsieur le president, mesdames et messieurs du comite, je vous remercie de I' occasion de faire entendre ce soir la voix des femmes francophones du Manitoba. Reseau est un organisme provincial qui a pour mandat de faire de !'information et de la revend ication afin d'ameliorer la situation de ces femmes dans les domaines economiques, politiques, sociales, educatives et culturelles. Le present memoire est le fruit du travail du comite qui reunit des personnes representant Reseau mais aussi

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 I'Association des juristes d'expression franyaise du Manitoba et Pluri-elles. C'est avec beaucoup de satisfaction que le comite a appris !'intention du gouvernement de faire du projet de

loi sur les pensions alimentaires enfants, l'une de ses grandes priorires. Nous y lisons un signe d'engagement qui permet beaucoup d'espoir. Nous avons d'ailleurs appuye les demandes de Madame Vodrey afin d'obtenir l'aide du gouvernment federal par rapport a l'acces aux informations qu'il possede. Nous reconnaissons les efforts du gouvernement actuel en vue d'ameliorer le sort de milliers d'enfants du Manitoba C'est done dans un esprit de collaboration que nous soumettons les recommandations qui suivent.

Avant de passer aux recommandations toutefois, nous avons juge bon de proposer trois grandes objectives pour toute legislation relative aux pensions alimentaires pour enfants. La premiere: assurer le bien-etre des enfants en veillant a !'execution d'ordonnances qui permettent le versement regulier de pensions alimentaires suffisantes pour repondre aux besoins reels des enfants. Deuxiemement, garantir Ia perception du montant integral des pensions alimentaires pour enfants. Troisiemement, simplifier et accelerer Ia procedure judiciaire pour l'obtention et Ia modification des ordonnances alimentaires. *

(1940) Je passe maintenant aux recommandations. En ce qui concerne les ordonnances et par rapport a Ia retroactivite des ordonnances, nous proposons qu'a l'instar de l'Ontario le Manitoba devrait rendre les ordonnances alimentaires retroactives a Ia date de Ia demande. En ce qui concerne l'indexation, les ordonnances alimentaires devraient toutes contenir une clause d'indexation automatique au cout de Ia vie afin de reduire les procedures longues et dispendieuses. II incombrait done au payeur de demander une modification de cette clause de !'ordonnance s'il y a lieu.

Montant suffisant: afm de favoriser le versement de pensions alimentaires suffisantes pour repondre aux besoins reels des enfants, nous recommandons d'etablir une grille fixant un montant minimal necessaire. Cette grille servirait de guide pour les avocats, les beneficiaires et les juges. Le ministere de I' agriculture du Manitoba publit deja une telle grille, en passant. II faut toutefois s'assurer que les montants fixes dans cette grille ne soit pas inferieurs aux montants actuels deja insuffisants.

Afin d'assurer des pensions alimentaires suffisantes les avocats devraient etre tenus d'informer les beneficiaires de l'effet fiscal des pensions alimentaires pour enfants. J'ajoute que c'est d'autant plus important que Ia cour supreme a maintenu !'imposition des pensions alimentaires pour enfants. Ceci, c'est-a-dire, le fait d'informer les beneficiaires, pourrait etre atteste par un certificat que les avocats signeraient apres avoir informe leurs clientes.

En ce qui concerne les payeurs assistes sociaux: lorsque les parents non-gardiens re�ivent de l'aide sociale, une portion meme minime de leur prestation devrait etre deduite puis versee directement aux parents gardiens. A notre avis il s'agirait d'une mesure d'incitation a trouver un emploi plus rapidement mais surtout une reconnaissance de l'obligation morale et legale des parents non-gardiens envers leurs enfants. Programme d'execution des ordonnances: il faudrait ameliorer Ia collecte des statistiques par le programme d'execution afin de permettre une evaluation de son efficacite et des services offerts.

Le formulaire utilise devrait comporter une question sur Ia langue parlee a Ia maison afin de determiner plus facilement le groupe ethnique, ce qui perm ettrait de deceler des particularites et des tendances s'il y a lieu. Pour faciliter le travail d'execution du programme, nous appuyons les demandes du ministere de Ia justice afin d'avoir acces plus facilement aux informations du gouvernement federal qui permettraient de retracer les payeurs en defaut et de connaitre leurs actifs reels. _,

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Lorsque le fonctionnaire designe demande des renseignements sur les parents non-gardiens a une tierce

partie celle-ci devrait etre tenue de les fournir par ecrit. A l'heure actuelle Ies payeurs doivent donner ces renseignements par ecrit. Ceci devrait done s'appliquer a notre avis aux tierces parties. II faudrait en outre prevoir des amendes pour refus de fournir les renseignements en question. La loi ne parle pas actuellement de sanction en cas de non-respect. II faudrait en outre prevoir un mechanisme permettant d'enregistrer les ordonnances alimentaires aupres du bureau des siiretes mobiliaires afin de pouvoir grever les biens meubles des payeurs en defaut.

Cette mesure est deja possible pour le bureau des titres fanciers. Elle devrait done etre elargie. Je vais maintenant ceder Ia parole a Denyse Cote, president du comite sur les pensions alimentaires. Merci. [Translation] Ms. Veill eux: Mr. Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to thank you for giving the voice of Francophone women in Manitoba the opportu nity to be heard this evening.

Reseau is a provincial organization whose mandate is to provide information and to lobby so as to improve the status of Francophone women in Manitoba with respect to economic, political, social, educational and cultural issues. This brief is the result of the work of a committee which includes representatives of Reseau as well as the Association des juristes d'expression fran�Yaise du Manitoba [Manitoba Association of French-speaking lawyers] and Pluri-elles. It is with great satisfaction that the committee learned of the government's intention to make the bill respecting child maintenance one of its priorities.

We see this as a sign of the government's commitment, and it gives us great hope. We have, in fact, supported Mrs. Vodrey's requests to obtain the federal government's assistance in accessing the information contained in its files. We recognize that the current government is making efforts to improve the situation of thousands of children in Manitoba It is therefore in a spirit of co-operation that we submit the following recommendations. Before moving on to the recommendations, however, we felt it appropriate to propose three major objectives for all legislation respecting child maintenance.

Firstly, to ensure the well-being of children by providing for the enforcement of orders that require regular and adequate maintenance payments to meet the real needs of children. Secondly, to guarantee that the full amount of maintenance payments for children is collected. Thirdly, to simplify and accelerate the legal proceedings involved in obtaining and varying maintenance orders. I will now go on to the recommendations. With respect to the retroactivity of orders, we propose that Manitoba follow Ontario's example and make maintenance orders retroactive to the date on which the application was made.

With respect to indexation, maintenance orders should all contain a clause that automatically indexes them to the cost of living, in order to avoid long and costly proceedings. The onus would thus be on payers to apply to have that clause of the order varied if need be. In order to ensure that maintenance payments are adequate and meet the real needs of children, we recommend the establishment of a

schedule that sets the minimum amount necessary. This

schedule would serve as a guide for lawyers, payees and judges. The Manitoba Department of Agriculture already publishes such a schedule, by the way. It is important, however, to ensure that the amounts set by this

schedule are not lower than the current amounts that are already insufficient. In order to ensure adequate maintenance payments, lawyers should be responsible for informing payees of the tax implications of child maintenance payments. I should add that this is all the more important given that the Supreme Court has upheld the taxation of child

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 maintenance. The fact that payees have been informed, could be attested by means of a certificate signed by lawyers once their clients have been informed. With respect to payers who receive social assistance, when noncustodial parents receive social assistance, a portion of their benefits, even if only a small portion thereof, should be deducted and paid directly to custodial parents.

This would, in our opinion, provide an incentive to find employment more quickly, but it would above all represent a recognition of the moral and legal obligation of noncustodial parents toward their children. The gathering of statistics by the Maintenance Enforcement Program should be improved in order to assess its effectiveness and the services it offers. The form used should include a question on the language spoken at home, in order to more easily determine the ethnic group in question, which would help determine certain characteristics and trends.

To facilitate the enforcement work of the program, we support the requests of the Department of Justice for easier access to the information kept by the federal government, in order to track down payers in default and to determine what their assets truly are. When a designated officer requests information regarding noncustodial parents from a third party, the latter should be required to provide such information in writing. Currently, payers must provide information in writing and this should, in our opinion, therefore apply to third parties as well.

Fines should be imposed on those individuals who refuse to provide the information in question. The bill does not currently provide for sanctions in the event of noncompliance. A mechanism should also be established for the registration of maintenance orders with the Personal Property Registry, in order to create a security interest in the personal property of payers who are in default. This measure has already been implemented with respect to the Land Titles Office and should be broadened. I will now call on Denyse Cote, Chairperson of the Maintenance Committee, to address this legislative committee. Thank you.

Ms. Denyse Cote (Reseau): Monsieur Ie president, moi je vais adresser Ia

section sur Ies arrieris et Ie droit d'appel. Nous nous interrogeons sur Ia necessite d'enlever aux beneficiaires Ie droit d'en appeler d'une decision sur l'etablissement du paiement de l'arrieri. Sur Ie non-paiement delibere Ia definition de non paiement delibere devrait preciser ce qui constitue une preuve suffisante pour attester Ie bien fonde de l'incapacite par exemple, lettre de medecin, d'employeur, de compagnie d'assurance, effort regulier pour prouver de l'emploi par Ie payeur. Cette derniere exigence existe deja pour Ie regime d'assurance chOmage. Effacement de Ia dette alimentaire: Ies arrieris au

titre d'une ordonnance alimentaire devraient etre effaces seulement Iorsque tous Ies actifs du payeur ont ete entierement Iiquides. Ces actifs devraient comprendre les credits de pension, Ies REERs et cetera. Dans Ie cas de liquidation d'un REER pour rembourser les arrieries de pensions alimentaires pour enfants il faudrait retirer Ie montant maximal admissible sans impot afin de reduire les effets fiscaux pour Ies deux parties et de faire ainsi profiter Ies enfants de l'argent qui leur est du.

Interet sur Ies arrieris: Ie projet de Ioi devrait prevoir Ie paiement d'interet autour des emprunts bancaires sur tous Ies montants arrieris de pensions alimentaires pour enfants. Ainsi Ies payeurs seraient incites a payer plus rapidement. De plus il n'est pas juste que les beneficiaires sans dette paient de l'interet souvent pendants des annees pour ne recevoir ensuite que Ie montant des arrieris. En agissant ainsi Ie gouvemement accorde sans Ie vouloir un pret sans interet aux payeurs en defaut.

De plus l'endettement des beneficiaires qui n'est pas compense par des inrerets en consequence a des repercussions directes sur Ia qualite de vie des enfants. Paiement d'amende: Iorsque des amendes sont imposees aux parents non-gardiens elles devraient etre versees par Ia suite aux parents gardiens afin de profiter aux enfants. Une autre solution pourrait etre de s'assurer au moins que Ies fonds provenant des amendes soient ajoutes au budget du programme d'execution des ordonnances alirnentaires.

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Aide juridique: pour eviter le recours abusif a I' aide juridique par les payeurs qui cherchent a faire modifier a Ia baisse d'ordonnance des ordonnances alimentaires l'aide juridique devrait etre tenue d'adopter une politique obligeant les avocats a justifier les requetes a repetition. Si nous reconnaissons le droit absolu des payeurs a l'aide juridique pour presenter leur cas nous tenons neanmoins a souligner le tort immense fait aux enfants.

Lorsqu'il y a un usage abusif de cet organisme public il n'est pas normal que les fonds publics servent a contester de fayon repetee et injustifiee !'ordonnance d'un tribunal qui lui aussi est finance par des fonds publics. Si ce n'est pas deja le cas les montants dfu; pour les pensions alimentaires ne devraient pas etres inclus dans le calcul du revenu des beneficiaires afin de determiner leur admissibilite a I' aide juridique.

Code de Ia route: lorsque les dispositions du code de Ia route sont invoquees au tribunal des ordonnances alimentaires le conseiller-maitre devrait exiger Ia remise immediate des plaques et du permis de conduire. Lorsque les payeurs se servent de leur vehicule pour gagner leur vie il faudrait toutefois prevoir un mechanisme pour qu'ils puissent continuer a l'utiliser mais a cette fin seulement.

Reexamen de la loi et du programme: etant donne I' impact des mesures proposees sur les enfants et toute Ia societe le gouvemement devrait former un comite consultatif pour etudier les statistiques accumulees et les decisions judiciaires rendues afin d'evaluer !'impact et l'efficacite des modifications apportees a la loi et au programme d'execution des ordonnances alimentaires.

Information du public: pour favoriser une meilleure connaissance et comprehension de toutes les dispositions relatives aux pensions alimentaires pour enfants le gouvemement devrait verser des fonds afm d'informer le public en general et les femmes en particulier. Les organismes communautaires seraient d'excellents moyens de faire circuler cette information sans trop de frais. De plus ils sont plus pres de la population done plus aptes a communiquer avec elle.

Afm de permettre des changements a long terme dans les attitudes nous recommandons gouvemement d'envisager d'integrer au programme scolaire les informations sur les droits et devoirs moraux et legaux des parents envers leurs enfants. 11 va sans dire que les informations et les services offerts par le gouvemement et les autres organismes devraient etre aussi disponsibles en franyais. Nous nous interrogeons sur Ia possibilite de presenter des recommandations additionnelles par ecrit suite a cette auditience publique. Merci, monsieur le president. * (1950) [Translation] Ms. Denyse Cote (Reseau): Mr.

Chairperson, I will be dealing with arrears and the right to appeal. We question the need to deny payees the right to appeal decisions concerning the determination of arrear payments. With regard to deliberate nonpayment, the definition of deliberate nonpayment should specify what constitutes adequate proof of a payer's inability to pay, for example letters from a doctor, employer, insurance company, regular efforts to find employment. This last requirement already exists for the unemployment insurance system.

Arrears under a maintenance order should be cancelled only when all of the payer's assets have been liquidated (these assets should include pension credits, R.R.S.P.'s, et cetera). In the case of the liquidation of an R.R.S.P. to pay child maintenance arrears, the maximum amount allowable should be cashed-in free of taxes, in order to minimize the tax consequences for both parties, and ensure that the money that is due to the children goes to them. The bill should provide for the payment of interest at the rate of bank loans on all child maintenance arrears. This would motivate payers to pay more quickly.

In addition, it is not fair that payees become indebted and pay interest often for years, only to receive the amount in arrears. By acting in this manner, the government

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 unintentionally grants an interest-free loan to payers. Moreover, the indebtness of the payees, which is not compensated by interest, has direct repercussions on the quality of life of the children. When fines are imposed on non-custodial parents, they should be paid to the custodial parents for the benefit of the children. Another solution would be to ensure at least that the funds collected are added to the budget of the Maintenance Enforcement Program.

In order to avoid the excessive use of Legal Aid by payers seeking to have their maintenance payments lowered, Legal Aid should adopt a policy requiring lawyers to justify repeated applications. Although we recognize the absolute right of payers to legal aid in order to present their case, we do however wish to emphasize the in justice done to children as a result of the excessive use of this public agency. It is unacceptable that public funds be used to repeatedly and without justification challenge the order of a court which itself is funded with public monies.

If this is not already the case, the amount owing for maintenance should not be included in the calculation of the income of payees when determining their eligibility for Legal Aid. When the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act are invoked in court with respect to a maintenance order, the master of the Court should require the immediate surrender of license plates and driver's licence. When payers use their vehicle to earn their living, there should however be a provision that allows them to continue to use their vehicle, but only for this purpose.

Given the impact of the proposed measures on children and society as a whole, the government should establish an advisory committee to study the statistics gathered and the court decisions that are rendered, in order to assess the impact and effectiveness of the amendments made to the Act and the changes to the Maintenance Enforcement Program. In order to foster a better knowledge and understanding of all the provisions respecting child maintenance, the government should earm ark funds to provide information to the public in general and women in particular.

Community organizati ons would provide an excellent means of distri buting this information at a reasonable cost Moreover, they have closer links with the general public and are therefore in a better position to communicate effectively with the public. In order to allow for long-term changes in attitude, we recommend that the government consider integrating into school curricula information concerning both the moral and legal rights and obligations of parents toward their children.

It goes without saying that the information and services provided by the government and other organizations should also be available in French. We are also wondering if it would be possible to submit additional recommendations in writing following the public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Les meilleurs mercis, Denise Veuilleux et Denyse Cote, pour votre presentation et nous avoir adresse Ia parole. [Translation) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Denise Veilleux and Denyse Core, for your presentation. Do any committee members have any questions for the presenters? Mr.

Gord Mackintosh (St Johns): I had a question on the proposal to change the PPSA system. I wonder if you could just outline that again. I missed it in my notetaking. Ms. Cote: I do not think we addressed that issue. The Personal Property Security Act? Mr. Mackintosh : Yes, I believe in the earlier submission there was a suggested change to the PPSA to give maintenance orders some security or some priority. Ms. Cote: Alors quelle est votre question exactement par rapport a �a?

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 [Translation] Ms. Cote: What is your question exactly in this regard? Mr. Mackintosh: Could you just repeat what the recommendation was regarding the Personal Property Security Act. Ms. Cote: Il faudrait prevoir un mechanisme qui permettrait d'enregistrer les ordonnances alimentaires aupres du bureau des sftretes mobiliaires afin de pouvoir grever les biens meubles des payeurs en defaut. Cette mesure est deja possible pour le bureau des titres fonciers.

On a done acces aux biens fonciers des payeurs en defaut a l'heure actuelle mais on voudrait pouvoir avoir aussi acces aux biens meubles, c'est-a dire, par exemple, des voitures, des choses comme ya. Et d'apres nous c'est possible puisqu'il y a deja un exemple avec le bureau des titres fonciers . <;a va? [Translation] Ms. Cote: A system for the registration of maintenance orders with the Personal Property Registry should be established in order to create a security interest in the personal property of payers who are in default. This is already possible with the Land Titles Offic e.

It is currently possible to access the real propert y of payers who are in default, but we would also like to be able to access personal property, such as, for example, cars and things like that. In our opinion, this should be possible since there is already a prece dent with the Land Titles Office. Does that answer your question? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I would just like to take a moment to thank the presenters from Reseau. You have brought a number of issues for consideration, and many of them will involve long-term consideration, I will be honest with you.

It is a great deal of information for us to integrate at this point, but you have brought important information which I will promise to you that we will have a look at over the next while. I also want to thank you for your support in dealing with the federal government and some of the changes which will be required from the federal side and also for raising the issue of what is produced by Agriculture interms of what a family might live on or what support might be. Yes, I am aware of that. We have had a look at it, and I appreciate your comments in relation to it. Thank you very much for your presentation. Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radission): I also want to thank you for that excellent presentation. There is a number of very good recommendations, and I want to ask you a question about the recommendation to have deductions on non-custodial parents if they are collecting social allowance benefits. Am I correct in understanding that currently there are deductions made from custodial parents on social allowance who are to receive maintenance? Ms. Veilleu x: I would not know for sure, but just in case they were not [interjection] -- so there are already some deductions.

Are they sufficient to be an incentive and to recognize? -- because our point was also to recognize the obligation, so some of the other presenters, I think, will have more on that topic. Ms. Cerilli: So I am just flagging that, then. It is a bit of a double standard if there is deductions from those custodial parents on social allowance who lose money from social allowance if they get their benefits and when they get the benefits, but there is no deduction from social allowance benefits for non-custodial parents. Thank you. Ms. Veill eux: Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Are there any more questions for the presenter? Hearing none, j'aimerais remercier Denise Veilleux, Denyse Core pour nous avoir adresse la parole. Bonne soiree. Merci. [Translati on] Mr. Chairperson: Are there any more questions for the presenter? Hearing none, I would like to thank Denise Veilleux and Denyse Cote for their presentation. Good night. Thank you.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 Ms. Cote: A Ia fin de rna presentation j'ai demande si on pouvait faire d'autres recommandations additionne lles par ecrit. Vous n'avez pas repondu a rna question. [Translati on] Ms. Cote: At the end of the presentation, I asked whether it would be possible for us to submit additional recommendations in writing. You haven't answered my question. Mr. Chairperson: J'excuse. [Translation ] Mr. Chairperson: I'm sorry. Ms. Cote: Est-ce que c'est possible apres cette audition publique? [Translation ] Ms. Cote: Will it be possible following this public hearing? Mrs.

Vodrey: By all means, we would be very pleased to look at additional recommendations, but I will be honest with you, as I said in my opening comments. We really do not want to hold up the bill for longer study and continuing inclusion. We believe that it is really important to make sure that at least some steps are taken with this bill. However, it does not mean that this is the fmal and forever form of the bill. We will be more than happy to look at additional recommendations that you would like us to see and happy to talk about them with you also. Mr.

Mackintosh: Can I just add, I want to thank you for the submission. It was very well researched, well presented, and I think you do particularly the women and children in Manitoba and everyone in Manitoba proud with that presentation. We have looked at many of the issues that you have raised and support them, and we will be seeking amendments to the bill to incorporate many of the changes that you proposed here tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Is there anybody else in the audience that would need the services of the French translator, because I will be dismissing the translators right now?

John and Don, I guess you are excused for the evening. I want to thank both you gentlemen very much for putting up with us in that little booth. Now, I will move along to the persons registered to speak, starting with No. I, Jules Gareau. Do you have written copies of your brief for distribution? Mr. Jules Gareau (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. I am two copies short, though. Mr. Cha irperson: Okay, we will get them. Again, anybody else needing photocopies, please let Patricia here know. Please proceed with your presentation, Mr. Gareau. Mr. Gareau: Good evening, ladies and gentl emen.

I am sorry that we are here on such a hot and humid night, but this is probably very symbolic of the anger I fe el toward the justice system as it pertains to child maintenance, custody and visitation. This speech was particularly written to address one person. That person is Rosemary V odrey, whom I have been trying to get an audience with for the last two months, but, I guess, because it was a ma jority government, sh ! is no longer interested in hearing my personal problems. My beef is with not what the bill contains, it is with what is does not contain. I am all for deadbeat dads getting their just desserts.

I am the father of a thre e year-old child and currently going through a divorce . We are still into the court proceedings, and we do not have an official maintenance amount written in stone yet. I thought we had a verbal agree ment of $400 a month. I guess the verbal agreem ent does not stand, or maybe she forgot exactly what the amount was, but now the amount is currently under re view. That is why we are going to go to this paper that I just gave you. The facts and figures are numbers quoted from the cost of living that we were supposed to present when we went for the divorce .

June 20, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 *

(2000) If you look on the top left-hand side, you will notice the amounts. Forget about the Department of Agriculture. This is hard-core dollar amounts that we brought up, not statistical studies from Canada wide. This is one person in Manitoba speaking with an average, everyday, paying job. So when we look to the top left-hand side, these are figures that we took from her cost-of-living expense form, and they are exact dollar amounts. When you see the percentages, that means the amount that she claimed which is particular to my child.

When you look over to the top right-hand side, that is the amount that I claimed and the amount that is particular to what I have to pay for when the child is in my custody. Now when we look into the middle left-hand side, you notice that it shows exactly what she pays per month, the amount that she receives from me, and then we add on the taxes that she would be taxed on, because child maintenance of course is taxable. On the right-hand side, the same follows except with my facts and figures. Now when you look at it, the actual out of-dollar expense paid is- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, sir. Just one second. Mr.

Gareau, would you clarify for the committee, did you indicate to us that this matter is presently before the courts? Mr. Gareau: Yes, it is presently before the courts, but- Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gareau, just one moment, please. In that event, I will just give Madam Minister here just one brief opportunity just to make a statement to you, sir. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I just would like to make it clear to the presenter that certainly for myself, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I am able to listen to your presentation this evening. I am not able to provide you with a response.

It would really be inappropriate for me to do so with your case before the court. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gareau, would you please carry on, sir, with that understanding in your presentation, sir? Mr. Gareau: Oh, yes, I understand. Basically, I understood that this committee would have no effect on what might be enforced, but I had to get it off my chest. Sitting behind a judge and watching what they have said and knowing that what I say does not have any relevance to her decision, it was really perturbing to me, and I had to come to here and speak on my behalf.

I have realized that it may fall upon deaf ears, but I must air my griefs here. So when we get back to it, you will notice that her amount that she pays, out-of-pocket percent of the child's per-month expenses, is 32.6 percent, and mine is 68.4. Now when we correlate that to the monthly income, you notice that the figures almost match. Now that is not even considering that this is a gross amount on the monthly income, and because my income is so much higher that this does not represent the true amount, the true percentages of the take-home pay.

Now, when I went to court just last week, it was kind of upsetting to hear the judge order-not order, but kind of steer my ex-wife's complaints to $600 a month. Now that would change the percentages drastically into her favour. All I am here for is I do not mind paying child support; I feel it is an obligation of every father to pay child support. But I want to pay an equitable amount, a percentage of what it costs to raise that child as proportional as it is to my wage earnings.

I would like the child maintenance branch just to come up with a guideline, a system similar to the criminal system, where they tell you how much time an offence is punishable by. At least it is my hope, my prayings, my wishes that the child maintenance branch finally comes up with a guideline such as that, which looks at your wage and looks back toward her wages and comes up with an equitable amount. That is all I have to say. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Gareau. Are there any questions at all for the presenter? No.

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 Mr. Gareau, a remark that you made, not to say that it falls on deaf ears, each one of these committee members, sir, takes the time this evening to listen to all the presentations that are being presented. Okay. So, you know, we welcome you. You should be thankful for the opportunity that you have, sir, to come forward and make a presentation. The members will consider the arguments that you have made. As you indicated, you wanted to get it off your chest, and I hope you have been able to do that. Mr.

Gareau: Well, it is just, you know, the facts and figures from the Department of Agriculture are nowhere even close to the figures that come from a person, just an ordinary citizen. I think the facts and figures were quoted as $7,200 a year. I could be wrong on that statement, but, if you look at the amount for a child, it is nowhere near that Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank you very much, Monsieur Gareau, for appearing before the committee. I would now like to call on Don Lee. Don Lee, would you please come forward, sir.

Do you have written copies of your brief, sir, for distribution to the committee members? You do. The Page will get them. Please proceed with your presentation, sir. Mr. Don Lee (Private Citizen): Good evening, Mrs. Vodrey and other honourable committee members. I believe the provisions of this bill will do nothing to decrease child poverty in Manitoba I also believe there are a number of things the government could do to address the problem. I am a noncustodial father who has made maintenance payments since December 31 , 1991.

Since August of 1992, I have virtually not seen my children or had a hope that I will ever see them again, despite nurturing my children for 14 years. My daughters are now both over 18 and say they do not want to see me. Since September of 1992, their mother has been very vindictive because I could not gain full-time employment as a teacher and could not pay the high maintenance payments she wanted. For years, she has traumatized my children into thinking I do not love them and I am not a worthy father for them because I cannot afford to give her more money.

Meanwhile, I have tried to gain full-time employment near my children for the last four years by substituting for Winnipeg School Division No. 1. I teach in some of the roughest inner city schools, schools where about 70 percent of the children do not have a positive male role model in their home, never mind a father. My hopes of becoming employed full time with the division have been low since January 1993 when the division passed an employment equity policy. This policy promotes the pref erential hiring of women when over 80 percent of the division's elementary school teachers are women.

Meanwhile, I try to gain employment here and elsewhere and cannot get a fuJI-time position, even though I am 40, have eight years teaching experience and have a wealth of experience from helping First Nation communities gain control over their local education services. I have taken additional training as a teacher, and it has not made a difference. My most promising hope is to be retrained and become a welder. As it is, I am having great difficulty surviving myself, never mind paying maintenance payments. I have little to confiscate; I am broke. Both my children and myself have suffered from our separation.

No doubt they, like myself, have had to cope with a loss of appetite, inability to sleep, inability to concentrate, a deep sense of loss, loneliness, sadness and anger at various times. I miss them terribly and resent that they have been allowed to have been turned against me so horribly in my absence. It is possible that nothing can repair the damage. My ex-spouse has even had the nerve to write "deadbeat dad" on the back of my maintenance cheques. She has used my inability to pay much maintenance as a tool to destroy the bond between my children and myself.

I would like to now review how I attempted to deal with this situation in the best interest of my children. In late August 1992 my children and I visited my parents for their anniversary. My mother was fighting a losing battle with cancer. After this weekend, she would only see my children once bef ore she died a year and a half later. I was with my children for three days.

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 This is the most I saw of them since May 1992. When I asked them if they would like to live with me for half the time in a month if I secured a home close to their school, they said they would enjoy that. *

(2010) In September of 1992, I informed my lawyer that I had been unable to secure full-time employment and would be unable to make the maintenance payments I had agreed to. He did not advise me to seek a variation order as he should have. When I inf ormed my ex spouse that I would not be able to pay the full amount I had agreed to, she stated that I would not see my children again until she received $800 a month. When I expressed my desire for both of us to raise our children through a joint custody agreement, she refused to consider it.

My lawyer stated that it would be impossible for me to gain joint custody with a hostile spouse, despite my children's wishes. It is interesting to note here that my lawyer's actions on my behalf only increased my ex-spouse's hostility towards me. Nonetheless, I secured a two-bedroom apartment near their school and furnished it so my children could live with me. Later in September 1992 my lawyer sent my petition for divorce to my ex-spouse. Meanwhile, my ex-spouse denied me access to my children, an action she has continued to the present day.

When I phoned, she interrupted my conversation with my children with put-downs, obscenities and death threats. I stopped phoning my children and began communicating with my children solely through letters to prevent my ex-spouse from turning any contact I had with them into negative experiences. In the winter and spring of 1993, I tried to negotiate access to my children with my ex-spouse through provincial family mediation services. This got nowhere when my ex-spouse refused to attend mediation sessions.

In February of 1993, my ex-spouse filed a statement of claim based on my inability to have been able to pay $800 a month maintenance from September 1992 to February 1993 amounting to $5,000. My lawyer was not able to suggest a defence against this, other than by filing a long affidavit in response. I dropped his counsel in disgust and was able to secure Legal Aid counsel. My first lawyer would then bill me for services I had already paid for. This was the start of my legal battle with him that was not settled until after the divorce was granted.

Since January of 1992-or December 31, 1991-1 have continued to regularly pay maintenance based on what I could afford up to the present day. In the spring of 1993, my ex-spouse sought a restraining order to prevent me from attending my daughter's Grade 9 graduation ceremony and to restrain me from having any future contact with the teachers who would later teach them. After talking with my children, I agreed that I would not attend their graduation ceremony to ensure their day would go as they had planned, even though I was not pleased with that arran gement.

When the judge heard the motion for a restraining order, she was informed that I had agreed with my children to not attend the grad. The judge turned down the motion for the restraining order. The judge then stated that the main problem, as she saw it, was my lack of access to my children. She suggested that my ex-spouse, children and myself be referred to the Access Assistance Program. I accepted, my wif e's lawyer accepted and the judge made the appropriate order. While I regularly attended the Access Program every two weeks for months, my wife attended a couple of times and eventually stopped attending.

My children would attend only once or twice. Eventually the provincial government withdrew funding from the program, and the program, along with my hopes for legally gaining access to my children, was terminated. While we were involved with the Access Assistance Program my mother died after a battle with cancer. She saw them only once since September of 1992. When my children attended the funeral, they did not talk to me or acknowledge me in any way. They hugged my father and brother and sisters as they left, and they passed by me like I was thin air. The divorce went through in March of 1994.

I had to pay $2,500 to settle the statement of claim before the divorce settlement was reached, an amount of money that I did not even have or had not made at all at that

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 time. I have been emotionally and financially and mentally drained from this ordeal that has no end. I have had to stand aside and see my ex-spouse emotionally abuse me in the hearing of my children. I have seen my children turn from happy children who did well in school into bitter, angry, depressed young ladies who are failing all their courses in their Grade 12 year. My youngest daughter, who once dreamed of going to university and becoming a lawyer, engineer or scientist when I was involved in her life, now does not plan to go to university.

They have suffered for years of hearing me called a loser and someone who does not love them because I no longer have the income I once did. My ex-spouse has brainwashed my children, turned them against me, deprived them of my love and care, and by withholding them from me, has used them to emotionally cripple me. I have gone for counselling for years to try and reconcile with my daughters. I was advised to quit trying to see them and let them come to me. I did so, and when they did contact me, my ex-wif e again interf ered in the conversations and made it impossible for me to communicate comfortably with them.

I have received little information about my children over the years with the exception of their school grades. I have heard that they have been involved in counselling, but I have not heard why they have failed so miserably in their school work this year. I fe el a great deal of sadness for them, because they have had the support of one-half of their extended family shattered and have been taught to despise their father. They are about to enter their adult lives as emotional cripples. I have been legally unable to prevent the emotional abuse they have suffered and will have to live with the rest of their lives.

It is apparent to me that countless other families will suffer the same fate that myself and my children have gone through. At present there seems to be no aware ness by judges or the legal system that children need to have the rights to see both their parents after a separation protected by law, or for noncustodial parents to have their rights to see their children protected by law. As our system works now a custodial parent can do whatever they please and know that they can get away with it.

After a divorce the noncustodial parent is usually too financially saddled to be able to afford a legal battle over access and too emoti onally and physically exhausted to stand up for their rights and the rights of their children. Some provinces have friendly parent legislation. Under this legislation, custody is awarded to the parent who will provide the most access to the other parent. A parent who denies access to the other parent can have their custody awarded to the other parent. That is truly legislation that works to the benefit of the best interests of the children.

As it is now, there are a majority of divorce cases that are settled amicably by both parents or partners. Fair settlements are reached and fair access provisions are made. The problem divorces are those where the divorce is conte sted. Both parents end up getting lawyers to fight legally for their respective rights. Money that should be going to support the children ends up in a lawyer's pocket. To make matters worse, many divorce lawyers only aggravate the situation and prolong the agony of the divorce procee dings. The more incompetent they are, ironically, the more money they make .

There is also the ethical dilemma of turning the lives of a family over to two lawyers to haggle over. The lawyer's bottom line is to make as much money as possible for the mselves. They are not concerned for the lives of the people they are acting for, nor are they much concerned when justice is not done. They can walk away at the end of a divorce . Those caught in a messy divorce remain stuck in the situa tion. There are probably some divorce lawyers, too, who collude with the opposing lawyers to prolong and aggravate divorce proceed ings solely to increase their own fe es.

In short, our divorce act was written by lawyers for lawyers. In the event of contested divorces, a far better solution would be elim inate divorce lawyers working in an adversarial fashion and replace them with one male and one fe male mediator working as a team with each couple. The mediation team would help each parent come to an agreement that both would support and that would be in the best interests of their children.

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 After the agreement is reached, one lawyer would draft and file the agreement with the court. After the divorce was granted, each parent would still have recourse to vary the agreement in case their circumstances change but would first have to take their proposals to the mediation team. Such an arran gement would go a long way towards helping separating couples get over their angry feelings and work together for what is best for their children.

I believe that the provisions of Bill 3 will not work for the betterment of the couples and children it is designed to assist. First, it takes as its premise the idea that having one custodial parent and one noncustodial parent is in the best interests of the children. Such a situation is not in the best interests of the children, because children need the nurturing, caring and love of both parents on an equal basis as well as equal financial support. Joint custody should be regarded as the arrangement that is in the best interests of the children and of both parents.

In such an arrangement, both parents have time to care for their children and time to build a new life for themselves. Both parents are responsible for financially providing for their children, and both parents have the incentive of developing their careers. *

(2020) As it is now, there is a tendency for women with custody to treat their children as an easy meal ticket. There is no incentive for them to be employed or develop a career, because a great part of their income could be derived from their partner. With the employment equity policies now in place, women have even greater opportunities than men for getting a job and being financially independent. I believe that the provisions of Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement bill, reflect the lack of research and understanding that has gone into the bill.

Indeed, the bill is simply a rubber stamp with the suggestions proposed by the Coalition of Custodial Parents, a group organized by the defeated incumbent for Osborne, Norma McCormick. Her actions placed her in a conflict-of-interest position. Together the proposals are draconian, invasive, unprecedented and self-defeating, and are more informed by maliciousness than by reason and research. Gordon Sinclair Jr. writes on May 7, 1994, of his interview with Irene Young of the province's Maintenance Enf orcement branch.

Miss Young stated that 58 percent of the cases it handled were in arrears, but that is not a truly representative statistic, because that includes people who are even one day late on a payment and others who lose their jobs and simply cannot pay, and that she has seen relatively few deadbeat dads in Manitoba, and that furthermore, when I look into the files, 90 percent of the time there is a good reason why that person did not pay. Any attempts to improve maintenance enforcement should be based on finding solutions to the good reasons that people cannot make their support payments.

Taking away a person's vehicle will not make it easier for them to make their child support payments. It is more likely to cause a person to lose their employment or limit their employment opportunities. Taken as a package, if a person is not in a position of being able to make child support payments, they are more likely to liquidate their assets and move away or kill themselves rather than be humiliated by impossible demands on them. In short, the legislation will lead to greater nonpayment of maintenance, higher child poverty and greater animosity between couples.

If the government is serious about decreasing child poverty with this legislation, it should be broadening its idea of a child's needs to be emotional, intellectual and spiritual as well as financial. Children suffer from the absence of their father as well as from a lack of monetary support. If the government is truly serious, it would be looking at other jurisdictions where they have superior lower rates of the nonmade payments of child support payments. The state of Michigan has the lowest rate of delinquent child support payments. This is attributed to the state's access enforcement legislation.

The legislation prevents a vindictive custodial spouse from denying their partners access to their children. It appears that the more contact a person has with their children, the more they are able to financially support their children.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 Another aspect of Bill 3 that will be harmful to Manitobans is the higher social costs that will be necessary to implement and maintain the provisions. More staff will have to be hired to determine whether a person's vehicle, et cetera, will be taken from them. More staff will be necessary to fully implement the confiscation of people's assets. The fascist overtones to such occurrences should be enough to disgust anyone who believes in common decency, freedom, democracy and justice, much less the people who have to administer such actions.

Many of these actions may be contested in the courts, further clogging the overburdened situation the Family Court is presently experiencing. Such legal actions would further drain money away from child support payments and to lawyers' fees. Surely, the extra financial costs of the administration plus Legal Aid costs plus the costs of the social repercussions of this legislation far outweigh the dubious benefits of the process. Considering the past and present economic conditions, there simply is not much money out there to confiscate.

Ideally, the Maintenance Enforcement branch should be looking at helping couples come to workable solutions between themselves, so that recourse to maintenance enforcement is not necessary and the costs to the taxpayer are decreased. Another aspect of the problems separating couples experience that this bill does not address is the root cause of the problem, an alarmingly high divorce rate. It seems our institutions have failed to provide young people with the tools to create loving, permanent relationships with their partner or to provide the skills to choose who that partner will be.

Clearly, courses focusing on relationships and how to make them work should be developed and implemented as a mandatory course for all Manitoban high school students. Some engaged couples have found it helpful to take marriage courses together before getting married. These courses are offered by some churches. The province should at least be examining and adapting these for the general public either as a service or as a mandatory requirement before couples can get married.

These two measures focusing on education would go a long way towards lowering our future divorce rates and the enormous social costs associated with them. The government should also acknowledge that the high child poverty rate in Manitoba is related to the shortage of meaningful employment that provides people the wages to pr ovide the essentials to their children. As it is now, men and women are fighting for jobs that do not adequately remunerate people to raise children. Raising the minimum wage higher is one thing the government could undertake immediately.

Making daycare free to those who cannot afford it is another step the government could undertake to alleviate the child poverty problem in Manitoba Lastly, the government needs to work out a long-term strategy for creating employment that will provide . more Manitobans with sustainable, meaningful and well-paying jobs. People are starving in one of the most resource-rich areas of the world. We should be looking at creating process ing plants to process more of our crops into foodstuffs and developing an inland fishery to offset the decline of the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries.

Surely some of the lottery money that is being raised, that has an adverse affect on the family, could be used to implement measures to help our families. As it stands, Bill 3 seems to blame poor underemployed men for the high child poverty rate rather than considering the failure of private business leadership and government leadership in creating adequate jobs for Manitobans. In

summary, I believe the governm ent should drop its plans to pass Bill 3 and should work to pass legislation that will: 1) define joint custody in family law as the situation that is in the best interests of the children as a guide for judges hearing divorce/separation hearings, 2) pass "friendly parent" legislation in Manitoba to guide judges who must award sole custody to one of the parents, 3) amend the divorce act so that mediation for embattled parents is set up instead of having traumatized couples drain their resources fighting each other with lawyers,

June 20, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 4) pass access enf orcement legislation fo r noncustodial parents who presently do not have access to their children, 5) develop mandatory courses on relationships fo r high school students, 6) develop mandatory marriage courses fo r engaged couples, 7) raise the minimum wage so poor men and women are able to raise their children with some measure of human dignity, 8) increase the daycare subsidy fo r parents who cannot afford daycare, and 9) create more resourc e-based, sustainable, well paying jobs fo r Manitobans.

In closing, I would like to remind you that I am only one of many men who have had their lives ruined by the family law provisions that aff ect the breakup of fam ilies in Manitoba Other men have had their ex spouses abuse the law to get sole custody of their children through unnecessary restrai ning orders, fa lse domestic abuse accusations made under the zero toler ance policy and fa lse sexual abuse allegations. These women go unrecognized and unpunished when their accusations are proved to be fa lse.

Such a situation constitutes the state-sanctioned kidnapping of children by women who have shown themselves to be morally reprehe nsible. Bill 3 is only more of the same injustice and doubtlessly will be abused by people who think they are helping children . How many people here could accept getting thrown out of the lives of their children? How many here could put up with the injustices this system perpetuates? How many here could call this a just and honourable society? How many here would survive the pain of these injustices? I know some who did not. They are called dead deadbeat dads.

Some men are so traumatized by the loss of their children and the impossibility of seeing them again that they kill themselves to escape the daily pain they experience. This situation may be part of the reason that men commit suicide eight times as frequently as women do. This bill must be stopped, because it continues to deny the basic fa ct that vindictive mothers are part of the prob lem of delinquent child support payments and must be part ofthe solution. On January 22, 1995, Pat Doyle quotes Armin A.

Brott, author of the book, The Expectant Father, who points out that fo r the most part divorced dads who become deadbeats do so because of custodial laws and that the correlation between child support payment and visitation is clear and inescapable. Mr. Brott points to research that fo und that only 1. 9 percent of noncustodial parents with access to their children did not make their support payments. When access is denied, however, the nonpayment perce ntage is over 60 percent. *

(2030) He also states that often it is the mother who creates the problem of refusing their ex-spouse court-ordered visits with their children. He points to research that fo und as many as 50 percent of custodial mothers routinely and actively tried to sabotage father -child meetings. I would like to know whether the government is going to pass bills whose prov isions are based on the study of our best research studies and the successful legislation of other jurisdictions .

Also, when will this government pass bills to protect the equal rights of fat hers to equally share in the nurturing and care of their children? Thank you, committee members. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank you, Mr. Lee, for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions they wish to address to the presenter? None? Mr. Lee: [inaudible] two of the arti cles that I mentioned and one other page that I mentioned. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we saw them attached. I want to thank you very much. Seeing no questions, being none, we would like to thank you fo r appearing bef ore this committee, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 I would like to now call on Rosella Dyck. Rosella, would you please come fo rward . Do you have written copies of your brief fo r distribution to the committee members? Ms. Rosella Dyck (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the Page will pick them up. Ms. Dyck: I have to apologize fo r the quality of the copies. I am not much of a typist.

It took me eight hours to type this up, and then I tried to print it off, and I had hours of trouble with the printer because I do not know how to use it, and then I tried to photocopy it, and the photocopies did not come out very well. So I hope that you are able to read it. At any rate, I would like to say, first of all, that I think basically Bill 3 is a good idea, and I want to congratulate the government with coming up with it. We need all the help we can get to provide fo r our children. I would just like to make a bit of a comment on the previous presentation.

I do realize that Irene Young was quoted as stating that 90 percent of def aulters have a good excuse fo r def aulting. I have this one question to ask: What is a good excuse to not fe ed your children? I think it is very important fo r us to really realize that at the heart of this difficulty with collecting maintenance, we must be concerned with the children, because the children are the ones who are suff ering the most.

Over and over, custodial parents do give up all kinds of things fo r their children, and they sacrifice all kinds of things fo r their children to prov ide fo r their children, but there comes a time, of cour se, when that sacrifice is simply not enough to get what the children need. At that point, it is the children that suffer the most because, as custodial parents, we are used to sacrificing things, and we do it over and over. We are good at it, and so it does not bother us as much, but the children are not used to it. (Mr.

Vice-Chairperson in the Chair) I would just like to start with a comment also about the bill itself. I am here as a personal citizen, and so I will be speaking mostly to my own situation. However, in the bill, I have noted that there is a diffi culty. To me, at least, it seems like quite a difficulty. It appears that the rights of the payee, what little rights I as a payee have, at present, in the system, are being taken away. For some reaso n, under the new bill, there will no longer be any possibility that I can appeal a decision.

Now, this is interesting because, last September, I had a difficulty with a decision a master made in Maintenance Court, and I did write to Chief Justice Hewak. He sent a reply stating that I could make an appeal. Now, unf ortunately, by the time I got that response and realized I could appeal it, the 30-day limit was over. Collection of child support has to be considered a major social policy issue because, what is happening here in Manitoba, my understanding is, there are 25 percent of our children living in poverty and 62 percent of single-parent fa milies in Manitoba live in poverty.

That is an awful lot of people, and I suspect that the number of noncustodial parents living in poverty is much, much lower. I understand it to be something like 10 percent. At present, there is an awful lot of money owing to the children in Manitoba By the way, speaking of the Jets, you know, the recent thing to do with the Jets, it occurs to me that I would like to see $37 mill ion donated to children in Manitoba in a similar fashion. Our children are very much deserving of it. By the way, they do not make any money of their own, and they do need support.

In 82 percent of cases, 92 percent fo r children below the age of 13, according to Stats Canada, the custodial parent is fe male. There is a gender-based issue here because of this, and women's wages are generally only 66 percent of men's wages. A recent court-based study done by the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law fo und that the wage gap was much greater fo r women who had child care respon sibilities, and I quote from their publication, Fairness in Family Law. It states: The women's average gross income, including

June 20, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 child support, was $15 ,10 4, median of $1 2,000;

whereas the men's average income was $45,457, median of $42,000. There is a very large issue here in how are these women who make so much less money going to provide for their children if they do not get adequate and regular child support payments? Repeatedly, large numbers of noncustodial parents are allowed by our justice system to choose not to support their children. Yet 100 percent of custodial parents have no option but to support their children whether or not they receive support payments and no matter how low their incomes. Even those on welfare are expected to spend 37.5 percent or $3,530 on one child.

In 1992 the Manitoba welfare rate for a single employable person was $6,191. The rate for a single parent with one child was $9,72 1. This is, of course, far from adequate, but it occurs to me that if a single parent on welfare is expected to spend over $3,500 for one child, why is it that custodial parents who make often $30,000, $40,000 a year cannot afford to spend a couple of hundred dollars? Why are they excused for it? Going back to Manitoba Agriculture's standards, which I guess some people do not agree with, they estimate that a five-year-old child costs $9,656 for basic essentials.

Only that is the updated 1995 statistics. In my experience, that is far from adequate. That does not even cover my child's basic expenses. The basic Manitoba foster care rate for '93-94 for a similar child was $6,956.90, not including work related child care. In other words, there was no child care involved for work situations. Custodial parents are expected to go to work. They are not allowed to sit at home, generally speaking. If they do try that, it does not work for very long. Every foster parent can count on the support money arriving on time and in full, unlike the custodial parent.

About 65 percent of custodial parents do not even have a support order. Many do not seek orders or pursue payment because they fear retaliation from their ex-spouses, many of whom have been abusive. Under the present system, payers are continually allowed to further the abuse by withholding support and demanding unreasonable concessions. Some women make too much money to qualify for Legal Aid, but they cannot afford to seek a court order for their children. The costs are great, especially when the other parent repeatedly files for variations that lower the payments.

This is a common situation, even though the average initial support payment in Manitoba is only $325 for the entire family. *

(2040) You have to remember too, of that $325, the custodial parent will be lucky to see $17 5 after taxes. You know, how does that provide for the children? A huge amount of money is wasted by noncustodial parents on fighting child support orders, and the custodial parent is left to defend the child's interest alone with little or no funds. The child can only receive the amount of legal representation that the mother can afford to buy.

Most women must choose between feeding their children with their own meagre funds or giving the food money to the lawyer to defend the child's right to maintenance, that, if ordered, will most likely be inadequate and not received anyway. More than half of present maintenance payments are in arrears. Once an order is made, chances are that the noncustodial parent will renege on the payments repeatedly, then file court motions to delete the accumulated arrears and reduce the payments, preferably to zero.

This again will cost much in legal fees to the custodial parent if the child's right to support is to be defended-more money for lawyers, poverty for children. Every child has a right by law to be supported by both parents. Repeatedly, Legal Aid funds are used to defend defaulters. I see them all the time in maintenance court, and I have been there almost 20 times in the last three years. Generally speaking, the only people who have a lawyer to defend them there are people who qualify for Legal Aid, unless they are, of course, people who are quite wealthy.

As a result, children suffer great socioeconomic disadvantage. It seems to me that a publicly funded Legal Aid system should have some social conscience

24 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 1995 and should not defend those who oppose their children's right to live a reasonable life. As far as I am concerned, every child should qualify for legal aid to ensure that this right is honoured. Children have no income of their own. They are not able to support themselves. Child support is for the child. What case could be of greater merit than the child's? If the payer is well-to-do, well, perhaps Legal Aid could try to recover their fees from the payer through the legal system. Perhaps they would have more luck with it than recipients do in the courts.

I really find it so amazing that the legal system seems to expect me, as a custodial parent, to spend thousands and thousands and thousands and many, many thousands of dollars to defend my child's right, our child's right, to support, and somehow they encourage and they support the children's father in directly opposing the rights of the child. Repeatedly, courts ignore the child's very real needs in favour of the payer, who, after all, is an adult who should be able to look after himself and even to obtain extra jobs if necessary. Many custodial parents are forced to do that.

Too many men voluntarily quit their jobs or reduce their incomes to avoid paying child support. I do realize that there are some people who get laid off through no fault of their own and that there are people who do fall on hard times through no fault oftheir own, but I am just amazed, in the last year, how many cases I have heard of where the payer has deliberately quit a job or deliberately reduced their income to avoid paying child support. I used to think it happened only to me. I realize now that it is a very common situation. Children must still be maintained even if the parent is not working.

If courts insist on excusing the payer then I think the government should pay the child support amount. Reluctant payers will not take their responsibility seriously until the court and the government takes it seriously and holds them accountable for their actions and their obligations towards their children. Courts must realize that if payers really want to support their children they will do it without waiting for the court to order them or to enforce it. I was really quite amazed in Maintenance Court last year in May, a man had actually offered to liquidate his RRSP to pay his child support arrears .

Amazingly, the master said, oh, no, you might need that money as a tax deduction. Do not liquidate it. Do not pay those arrears. I mean, I really was amazed. It is just ludicrous as far as I am concerned, but perhaps the master was impressed because this man was offering to do this. It seems to me that if this man really, really wanted to support that child he could have gone and liquidated that RRSP immediately and not waited for any court to force him to do it. True willingness translates into action. Courts must always put the needs of the child first.

Why should the custodial parent be forced into great debt in order to make up for support not received or to pay legal costs the payer repeatedly forces them to incur to the great disadvantage of their children? One excuse that is often given why men do not pay is because they have access limitations, but according to some information put out by a local men's group last year, I 0 percent of men who have joint custody do not pay their support, though it is usually the mother who bears the brunt of the physical care and financial costs even in joint custody situations.

According to this men's group, 21 percent of men with visitation also do not make their support payments. I do not understand why. I have to support my children 100 percent of the time. If I do not I will be charged with negligence. I will lose my children. I could very well never see them again. Maintenance should never be considered a reward for visitation. Supporting one's children is an inherent obligation of parentage for both parents. Children should never be forced to choose between seeing a parent and being supported.

It is unusual for a man who wants access to be denied it in the courts even in child abuse cases, and I can tell you of situations. Children should be allowed the right of deciding whether or not they wish to see their parent They should not be forced to tolerate a situation where they may be at risk. A child's right to safety and personal integrity must take precedence to a parent's right to see the child. In the case of a child who refuses to see the other parent, it is quite likely that the custodial parent should receive additional support

June 20, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 rather than reduced support, because she gets no relief from her constant duties as a parent. Most custodial parents really would like to have a break now and again. It is really not usually their idea that the children should not see the father. Any withdrawal of support harms the child the most, and it seems to me that maybe a good thing to have in Maintenance Court would be the child's victim impact statement. Maybe that would help to clarify the situation. The only person who is listened to there is a defaulter. No one else has a voice.

Every possible avenue of payment should be pursued and as quickly as possible. I do not understand why defaulters are given lots of time to make their excuses. Why are they allowed to make all their kinds of excuses when their children are not allowed to have decent food and clothing? Why are defaulters allowed to go on welfare to avoid payment? . Much of the default activity is done with a mindset of vindictiveness and to control the other parties. No one should be allowed to treat other people in such a disrespectful manner.

The courts and Legal Aid should be doing all they can to aid the victims of the defaulters rather than aiding the defaulters in their despicable pursuits. The family law system should actually insist that the priority be the best interests of the child as maintenance legislation states and requires, and they should stop encouraging men to directly oppose their child's best interests. They should stop forcing the custodial parent to pay all the costs of attempting to ensure that the child's best interests are honoured.

I also believe that the custodial parent should be allowed to bring forth any evidence she may have in Maintenance Court and to participate in any decisions made that might affect the well-being of the children. No arrears should be deleted without her explicit and informed consent, and I will tell you that that happens an awful lot. I spoke to another person just the other day who had many thousands of dollars wiped out, and she did not even know it. The recipient should always have a right of appeal by way of a new trial.

I would also like to say that I fully support a document that was put out by the Coalition of Custodial Parents regarding this. It has many more recommendations. I just want to say a little bit about my own personal situation because it is through my own situation that I have learned what I know. If I had not gone through it, I would have no idea. I was in an abusive marriage for 18 years. To friends and neighbours, he was a quiet, unassuming, helpful man, but my husband controlled us in many ways-phy sically, emotionally, psychologically, fmancially. He controlled me with threats of various sorts.

Many were veiled threats. He was very jealous and made very many unfounded accusations of me. As a result, I was very isolated and could not go out without him, except to work. I was afraid to leave because I was convinced that if I did, he would fmd us and would likely kill me, and then who would look after the children? That was my biggest concern. *

(2050) After my daughter was bom-- 1 should just say that he was not always like that. Before my daughter was born, for some reason he got along very well with my son and took care of him, et cetera. He really did well with him. But for some reason, after my daughter was born he seemed to basically ignore the children except to yell at them if they dared to interrupt his TV shows. What I did not realize was that he was regularly beating the children when I was at work on weekends and evenings. I did not suspect him because he was not involved in disciplining the children.

He refused to have anything to do with it. I knew they had some bruises, but I thought that they were falling. I did not know at the time that he has a history of physically and sexually assaulting family members. (Mr. Chairperson in the Chair) In November 19 90 my husband attempted to strangle my daughter while he was yelling, I am going to kill you, and you should never have been born, and things like that. As you can imagine, she was terrified. He was upset because she had to practise her piano lesson and he wanted to watch TV in the same room.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 19 95 He finally agreed to go to counselling. That was the only way I would allow him to stay in the house at that point I realized that I had to protect my daughter. He seemed to become a reasonable person for a while, but then he started making threats again. In March 19 91 he tried again to kill my daughter. He called it a joke. She did not. She was terrified of him, and she was suicidal. I feared for her life. I thought either he would kill her or she would kill herself, and we had to get out. Over the next few months, he threatened us numerous times.

Well, what he did mostly at that time was threaten to quit his job and go on welfare to avoid paying child support He did not physically threaten us at that time. In June 19 91 he agreed to a consent order for maintenance, and, on August 29, it was signed by the judge. Of course, until then, if I wanted any payments, I had to go and collect them personally from him. On September 6, he deliberately quit his job, and, a few weeks later, he received $1 5,000 from the sale of our home, and guess what? By mid-October, he was on welfare. Soon after that, he was on legal aid because now he qualified.

You know, when you are on welfare, you qualify for legal aid. Then he threatened to continually take me to court until he had forced me to spend $30,000 in legal costs, and he said that it would cost him nothing because he would be on legal aid. He also refused to apply for various jobs. He said he could not afford to live on the amount of $10 an hour or whatever. He did not think of how his children would live. Over the next few years, he harassed us in various ways and forced his presence upon us. He showed up at my place of work in the middle of the night in the dark, and there were other things as well.

My daughter has refused to see him because she is terrified of him, and I believe that she should have that choice. I do not believe that any court or any judge has the right to tell her that she should see this person whom she is afraid of.

My husband, I might add, goes around and tells people that she will not see him because I will not let her, but this child is older, in her upper teens, and it seems to me that if she really wants to talk to him, even if I would be so stupid as to try to prevent her from seeing him, she can surely go to the telephone at the school and dial his number and I would not be the wiser. I have never in any way tried to influence whether my children see him or not. However, I do feel that if my daughter insists in not see ing him, I need to support her in that.

At one point in December '92 he showed up at a place where she was spending some time, and she was just really terrified. As a result of that she filed an affidavit stating why she did not want to see him. Meanwh ile, by the way, he had filed a motion asking for a home assessment. He said that she is not safe with me. Sometime later he started to stalk her on her way home from school. She was so frightened that she could not sleep or concentrate on her studies. She missed several months of school and she has been struggling ever since.

She has not even been able to complete her high school subjects and she is of the age where she should be pretty close to finished. She is afraid to be home alone because she fears that he will show up. She is not afraid of the burglar on the street She is afraid that her father will show up. After many struggles with the police over enforcing my restraining order and finally obtaining a more restrictive restraining order at my own cost, the physical harassment ceased, but the financial and legal abuse continues and it is accelerating. There is no zero tolerance on this type of abuse.

In fact, the present legal system encourages and supports it When my husband quit his job in '91 he was a steelworker. He went on welfare, qualified for legal aid. After eight months he was finally called into Maintenance Court. Guess what? A month later he had a job. So it did help. Unfortunately, he immediately filed a motion to delete all maintenance and arrears on legal aid funds. In June, Maintenance Enforcement finally started to garnishee his wages after a number of letters from myself and from my lawyer. I had to pay her for that as well.

He then asked his employer to lay him off so that he could go on welfare. His work became very shoddy, and he was doing much damage to clients' homes and to the business. Finally he was fired. He had just signed another consent order for maintenance. He went back on welfare. A few weeks later he filed another motion to delete all child support and arr ears, again on legal aid.

June 20, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 In the past three years he has been in Maintenance Court nearly 20 times, always represented by his Legal Aid lawyer. Almost every time he has been adjourned. He has been given a lot of time and opportunity to think of creative def ences and methods of avoiding payment. He has had three show-cause hearings. Once he was sent to jail because the master decided that he was not really looking very hard for work.

However, last September in Maintenance Court he explained to the master under oath that he was working half time instead of full time, that in fa ct he could be working at the very same job fo r twice the amount of money at full time but he chose not to because he needed the extra time to find another part-time job. I laughed. I actually thought that was kind of funny. I mean, I could not have come up with that kind of an excuse myself. I would not have thought of it. Then he went on to explain that he had actually applied fo r two jobs in the last eight months.

The master said-not in these words but very similar-you poor man, you should not have to pay all those arr ears you owe. You are probably paying too much maintenance anyway. What you should do is take this to trial and have your arr ears deleted and your support reduc ed. The master did not tell him that he should try to support his children. The master did not tell him that he should go out and find a decent job, work at the job that he could be doing full time and try to support his children. She did not say anything of the sort. She was not at all concerned fo r the children.

This should not come as any sur prise. A couple of weeks later, he quit that job as well. The chief master did not take his obligation seriously, and so, why would he? Some time later he got another job, a contract position this time. He cannot possibly be garnisheed at this job because, you see, he has written his contract in such a way that he only does the work; he does not get paid. The cheques are all made out in his girlfriend's name. Maintenance Enf orcement tells me that they cannot do anything about that. It seems to me that they ought to have some recourse. *

(2100) Now, quite likely, they do not have the time or the resources to do this kind of work, but it seems to me that they should be given sufficient resources that they can fo llow up on stuff like that. I mean, it is crazy, if you want my honest opinion. In the past fo ur years, I have been fo rced to spend more than $6,000 on legal costs because of my husband's actions. We are not even divorced. It is because of the actions that he keeps bringing up in court. Any money that Maintenance Enf orcement has managed to collect has been claimed by taxes on the child support amount and by my lawyer.

There has been no money fo r the children. My children have received no benefit from the child support collected since our separation more than fo ur years ago. My husband now insists on going to trial. Chances are, he will go to appeal as well. Why not? It is free fo r him. Legal Aid will cover it. It costs him nothing. It will cost me many thousands of dollars. Most likely, I will simply have to give up all my children's rights to support. I cannot afford to go to trial. Pretrial is coming up in August. I will probably have to go and try to represent myself. I think that is a very unf air thing.

Why should he have a lawyer there when I cannot afford to have one? I have incurred debts of $10,000 in the past three years to pay legal costs as a result of my husband's actions, to pay taxes on the child support amount received and to provide fo r my children while support was not fo rthc oming. I have to pay interest on my debt. His child support debt is interest free. I do not know why it is interest free. It does seem to me that most people, when they have a number of debts, if they have an interest-free debt, that will be the last one to be paid.

The child support debt is interest free and also prov ides him with a hefty tax deduction if he chooses to use it, that is. For two years, he did not choose to use it. He chose not to file his income tax returns because he was afraid the money would be garnisheed and it might go fo r the children. Finally, in '93, he filed fo r bankruptcy. As a result of that, all the refunds fo r the income tax returns fo r the past two years went to the trustee in bankruptcy. They went to help pay the trust ee's fe es, and a little bit of it went to Visa. The total of his debt, by the way, was $2,700.

At the time that he went bankrupt, the amount that he owed in child support was less than his 19 92 income tax refund. It seems to me that my children should be able to benefit from the money that

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 19 95 went into the trustee's account, but the official receiver in bankruptcy refuses to allow it to happe n. I have spent thousands of dollars trying to settle out of court. It is now clear that my husband will settle for nothing less than to have all the arrears wiped out, pref erably all the maintenance as well, plus he will take half my pens ion. By the way, that is exactly what he filed in his trial motion, to have all his arrears wiped out and to take half my pension.

Now it seems kind of ludicrous to me because I have been trying since last September to settle-! kept trying to propose, you know, things that hopefully he would agree to. It seemed to me that I would be willing to wipe out his child support debt if he would leave my pension alone. He owes me more than my pension is worth, so I would still be the one losing in the situation. However, he refuses to negotiate . Why should he? He can go to trial, he can go to appeal, he can go to whatever.

On Legal aid money he can force me to spend all kinds of money on legal costs, or he can force me simply to give up my pension, the arrears, et cetera. I think it is very unjust, but what really bothers me the most is how my children have suff ered as a result of all this. In the last four years we have been living on a shoestring so much of the time. We have struggled. I have had to find extra work trying to provide for my children. I have been fortunate, very fortunate to hang on to my regular job, by the way.

It is in health care, and with all the health care cutbacks in the last fe w years, the only reason I managed to keep my job is because it happened to be a night position and nobody else who was bumping wanted to work nights. So my children have been very fortunate in that I was able to keep my job, but I do think that something has to be done very soon about what is happening in the legal system regarding children. I do believe that judges have to stop wiping out those arrears.

I am afraid that this bill is going to come too late for me, because probably the arrears will all be gone before the pension provisions will come into eff ect. They will be wiped out bef ore the pension provisions will come into eff ect. I have one other suggestion to make on the pension part. It seems to me that there should be a provision in this bill-and I do not see one there-stating that he should not receive my pension as long as he owes any money in arrears. Thanks. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to thank you very much, Ms. Dyck, for your presenta tion.

Do members of the committee have questions that they wish to addre ss? Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I would like to thank you very much for your pres entati on, Ms. Dyck. Many of the hardships that you have suff ered would be addressed in the amendments that we wish to suggest to Bill 3. We would really like to thank you for sharing your personal story. I know it must be very difficult for you to speak publicly about some of the things that you have done tonight. Thank you very much. Mrs. V odrey: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say as well, thank you very much for your present ation.

We have had the opportunity to speak and to speak in person, and I know many of your recommendations and concerns I believe have also been passed on through a group you belong to and also to the Maintenance Enforcement branch. Thanks a lot for coming tonight. It was nice to see you. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any more questions for the presenter? Seeing none, I would like to thank you for appearing bef ore the committee . Thank you. Prior to calling our next presenter, I would like to inform the committee members that we presently have 23 presenters left to appear bef ore the committee.

At the rate we are going right now, we are going to be here till about seven o'clock in the morning. I think in the best interests of all these individuals who have come and they want to make a presentati on to this committee-we understand it is very hot, humid and muggy in this room-is it the will of the committee to put a time restrict ion on the length of time for the presenta tions? Any suggestions for a time limit? Compromise. Somebody suggest a time. Fifteen minute s? We will put it on the record.

June 20, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I would suggest 20 minute s. Mr. Chairperson: A 20-m inute time limit has been sugges ted. Is that good? Agreed upon? Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) : I fe el a 15 - minute time limit would be sufficient. Mr. Chairperson: A 15 - minute time limit has also been sugge sted. Fifteen minutes for presenta tion, five minutes for questi ons. Is that acceptab le? A good compromise. Done. That is agreed? Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples) : I have no problem with the time limit on the presentation but I do on the limitation on questions in case there is a presenter and some members may be excluded from asking questions if the time runs out. So I am opposed to putting a limit on the time for questions. Mr. Chairperson: So what we have bef ore us right now is 15 minutes for presenta tion and approximately five minutes or thereabouts for questions. Is that agreed upon? Agreed? Okay. Mr.

Mackintosh: I am wondering even with the limitation given the number of presenters, if we should not be looking at a reasonable time to rise tonight. Otherw ise, we will be here until the sun comes up. * (211 0) Mr. Chairperson: The other thing I would like to-- and I am going to ask the indulgence of the committee-th is committee does have the power now, if certain individuals who want to make a presentation and if this committee decides to agree to it, we can dispense with the reading of your presentation if you so choose. We can have it inserted in Hansard.

This is a recomme ndation I am going to put forward to the committee right now, that any individuals in the crowd here this evening who would like to dispense with their reading-[ interj ection] Norma, you know we do not have telephones in here. If they want to dispense with the reading of their brief, we will deem it to have been read. We can put it into Hansard. My recommendation to the committee would give you an opportunity of five or 10 minutes to summarize what is in your brief. That will give the members an opportunity to ask questions of the individuals. Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I would like to test the floor of the presenters with respect to that recommendation bef ore we make a decision. Mr. Chairperson: No, I think what we are doing, Marianne, is giving them that opportunity, if they would so choose- An Honourable Member: If they want to. Mr. Chairperson: That is right, if they want to do it. That was my recommendation to the committee, to the presenters, because there are an awful lot of peo ple. There are 25 individuals who want to make a presentation here this eveni ng-so in the best interest and the time that is allowed right now.

Would that be acceptab le to the committee right now? If anybody would like just to present their brief , we can dispense with the reading of it, put it into Hansard and give them a five or 10 minute time allocation to summarize their brief . Floor Comment: I do not have a written presenta tion. I have a brief verbal one. Mr. Chairperson: That is fine. We are just talking about those who will come forward with a written brief . We have had several. You just indicate to the committee when you come forward that this is what you want done. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Chair, I think we do not want to discuss this too long, but what you are saying is presenters with brief s have an opportunity to summarize the brief. It will still be recorded in its entirety in Hansard, and that will allow us to read the brief , listen to their

summary and ask questi ons. Mr. Chairperson: A very good point, Ms. Barrett. That is exactly what we would like to do. I thank you very much for that.

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 19 95 Ms. Barrett: I think that is an excellent idea enforcement. In short, it is merely trying to create further punishments, which will penalize men who are Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee agree to that? not paying maintenance without recognizing any of the underlying reasons why some men do not pay. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed. Good, so be it. Thank you very much. Mr.

Mackintosh: Just to follow up on the earlier issue of the time for rising tonight, there is always a debate as to whether it is more onerous to keep people up until two or three in the morning or for them to come back on another day. My experience has been that people would rather go home and get some sleep around midnight and come back, as long as another meeting was scheduled. I would suggest that the committee make a decision that we rise at a particular time. I would suggest that midnight is plenty late for anybody-particularly a lot of the people here have kids. Mr.

Chairperson: On that point that was just raised, this committee does not have the power, Mr. Mackintosh, to set its time and date when it will meet again. We do not have that power. I think what we are going to do with the sort of little bending of the rules that we have done here tonight-maybe it might just speed up the process a little bit. We will find out. Now I would like to call upon Louise Malenfant, Parents Helping Parents, please come forward. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Louise Malenfant (Parents Helping Parents): I guess by the fact that the committee is now receiving the presentations, then I cannot assume that you have seen them already. I would like to ask, what you just said, that it be read into the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-la1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf la1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	032a3910ce0c0d27c05f24eb859cced76fbb0497

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).