Manitoba Committee Hansard — Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 3 (31st Legislature, 3rd Session)

31-3-la3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Chairman: Mr. J. Wally McKenzie, Constituency of Roblin Monday, June 11, 1979 8:00 P.M. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

Hearing Of The Standing Committee On ime: 8:00 p.m. HAIRMAN: J. Wally McKenzie. Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 R. CHAIRMAN: The comm ittee will come to order. We're dealing tonight with Bill No. 30, an et to Amend the Child Welfare Act; No. 36,

an Act to Amend the Real Estate Brokers Act; No. �.

an Act to Amend the Trustee Act; No. 47,

an Act to Amend the Personal Property Security et; No. 48,

an Act to Amend the Civil Service Act; No. 51,

an Act to Amend the County Courts et; No. 55,

an Act to Amend the Insur ance Act; No. 56,

an Act to Amend the Family Maintenance et. The following names have been offered to the Clerk that have presentations to make tonig ht. n Bill No. 30,

an Act to Amend the Child Welfare Act, Mr. James Dubr ay from Portage la Prairie, e Di rector of the Chil dren 's Aid Socie ty of Central Manitoba, Sandy Mclvor, a private citizen; 3: 3.UI Swartz repre senting the Manitoba Associat ion for Rights and Li berties. Bill No. 48, we have brie f that has been presented to us for distribution tonight which was presented by Mr. G. A. oer, the President of the MGE A, and on Bill No. 56,

an Act to Amend the Family Maintenance :t, we have Alice Stein bart and Marcel Baril. So I will call James Dubr ay of Portage la Prairie, Bill No. 30. By the way, are there any other that would like to make a presentation tonight on this legislation? they would come forward and leave their names . . . RS. MARY BERG: I'm Mrs. Mary Berg, the president of the Childr en's Aid Society of Portage Prairie, and Mr. Jim Dubr ay, our Executive Di rector, will be prese nting our brief to you. R. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Berg. Mr. Dubray. R. DUBRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have copies of the material I wish to speak to.

Do you want me circu late them to you? R. CHAIRMAN: We will have the Clerk pick them up. Proceed, Mr . Dubray. R. DUBRAY: In making the presentation to Legislative Commit ee, we would like to ident ify some tlient points that need further work and clarification in the proposed Child Welfare amendments, as the case may have it, articles in the present Act that need changing. You will note that in 1r items that we were refe rring to, the minis terial amendments as the working comm ittee document >t under Bill 30, but I can happily provide you with a cross-reference to Bill 30 as I go :m g.

The first item we'd like to talk to is the definition of parent, and it appears on Page 2, item ). 2 of Bill 30. The amendment as we see it is highligh ted there for you to read , and I'll just oceed to our recommendation. In parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, parent includes every person who is, as a natural or adoptive trent or guardian or person who is under legal duty to support, maintain and ed ucate a child, cept a person or persons alleged to have caused a pregnancy by a mother through artificial :;emination. We are also proposing that in

Part 6 and 7 of the Act the definition of parent be: "Inc ludes ery person who is a biolog ical or adoptive parent or guardian of a child, except a person or 1rsons alleged to have caused a pregnancy of a mother by artificial insemin iation ." Our rationale for this proposal is as follo ws. If the proposed min isterial amendment is adopted can be construed to recognize common- law relationships. In our work under

Part 3 of this Act, would allow us to ascertain some of the plans of common -law husbands towards their chil dren , 63

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 cared for by them, under

Part 3. At the same time, we feel it has the potential to add confusio to the Adoption

Section of the Act, normally called

Part 7, as it projects the definition of common-l a· relationship s into a specific section. We are not sure that this was the original intent of the definitio or of The Child Welfare Act, but from our point of view, the confusion can arise when the common-la parent, who is not the natural parent, has by the very nature of this proposed defi nition, the rigl to be served under Sections 83(2), on 10 0(2), and 10 2(4) of this present Act. lt must be clear that in the Adoption Section, parent does not mean common-l aw parent, br clearly ind icates it is either the natural parent or the adoptive parent. Further, in Sections 56(

d) of the minis terial amendments, there is a clear thrust to exclude parent who becomes a parent through artificial insemination. To have consistency in the Act, tt definition of parent should also include that exclusion as well. A further compli cation can arise in

Section 60 and 69 of the Act.

Section 60 basically makE provision for more than one punitiv e father to be named on an Appl ication for an Order of Affi liatio And

Section 69 makes it clear that a judge can make an order against one male in hearing E Appl ication for an Order of Affilia tion. Gi ven thi s situation, it is theoretically possible that six me could be named the puni tive father for a child. We would seriously question, that for the purposE of adoption, whether all those men should be served in an adoption hearing, as not all of the can possibly be the natural parent of the child. The net effect of having all these men served f1 an adoption hearing, would certainly delay matters at a minimum, and bring a compl ete aura , confusion into the adoption hearing.

In the words of our agency solicitor and I can quote you, "i hell would break loose in adoption heari ngs." The second item we would like to comment on tonight, Mr. Chairman, is the min isteri amendment,

Section 25(7.1) and it can be fou nd on Page 7 of the present bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 17 is that right? MR. DUBRAY: Of your bill, it should be Page 7 of Bill 30. I'm going from the working copy, IV Chairman, that I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: I see 17 here. MR, DUBRAY: It'll be entitled Item 27 on Page 7. The minis terial amendment says, "In determ inir under Su bsection (7) whether representatt ion of a child is desirable, the judge shall have in additic to all relevant considera tion, a regard to (

a) any di fferences in the views of the child and the views of the child -caring agency, or of parent of a child ; (

b) any dif ference in the interest of a child and the interests of a child caring agency or tl parent of a child; (

c) the nature of the proceedings, includin g the seriousne ss and the complexity of the issu· and whether the child caring agency is requesting that a child be removed from the home of parent; (

d) the capacity of a child to express his or her views to the court; and (

e) the views of a child regard ing the separate representa tion where such views can be reasonat ascertained ." Our recommendation, Mr. Chairman, is that

Section 25( 7. 1) be dropped from the prese amendments and relegated to the reg ulations in such a way that it can act as suggestions ar gui deli nes for the judge to review and make a decision whether or not a child needs le� representa tion, but this will not commit a judge to a min i-trial before a Child Welfare A heari ng. Therefore, the dis cretion of the judge remains intact; guidance from the Act is offe red, and t rights of the child to a counsel are preserved in accordance with the definition of the best intere! of the child as proposed on the first page of Bill No. 30.

Our rationale for this proposal is: while it is desirable in a worthwhile cause to provide crite1 for making a judicial decision, the net effect of establishing such criteria in The Act will only provi a basis for having a min i-trial prior to any hearing under The Child Welfare Act, and I can certair solemnly speak to that from experience in the court system right now. The effect of this min i-trial will only be to delay hearings even further than they already c and by dir ectly causing adjournments and utili zing judicial tim e which is already in very short sup1 in the province.

Secondly, by providing criteria in the Act itself allo ws for the possi bili ty of overlooking sor particular situation that possibly cou ld qualify. Thir dly, no thing is said in

Section 25( 7. 1) that would happen if a judge found two of the abo 64

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 conditions applied- and the rem aining three did not. Gi ven this situation , we feel that the princi ple of prov iding counsel for a child is enshri ned in the Act under

Section 25(7) that further off ering of conditions is only going to hamstring the judge and cause useless delays and in the end will only serve to provide confusion and inconsis tency :>f practice. The thir d item we would like to speak to, Mr. Chairman, has do do with Sections 27( 1 )(a), Sec tion 27( 1) (b), 31(1) and 31( 2) and these are found in Bill 30 on pages 7, 8 and 9, bottom page 7 and tems 29 and 30. If I can read to you the amendments as proposed now:

Section 27 (1) says "where upon the �ompletion of a hearing under

Section 25 , a judge finds that a child is in need of protec tion, he ;hall in the best interest of the child, order (

a) that a child under 12 years of age be made a tempo rary ward of the dir ector of society or a period not exce eding 12 months ; or (

b) that a child of 12 years of age or over be made a temporary ward of the dir ector of the >ociety for a period not exceed ing 24 months.

Section 31 lig htly applies to reconsiderations and it says: "Any extension or continuation of the >eriod of temporary guard ianship of a child under the Clause 30(3)(

a) with respect to a child under 12 years of age shall not exceed 12 months; and the period or periods of exte nsion or continuation mder the clause together with a period of temporary guardiansh ip granted under

Section 27 shall 10t exceed 24 months.

Section 31( 2) An order of tem porary guardian ship of a child 12 years of age or over ,ay be nade for a period not exce eding 24 months; but a judge may extend or continue the order of 1uardianship for a further period or periods not exce eding 24 months each, as the case may le. Our recommendation has to do with what time do you decide whether or not a child is over r under the age of 12 . And we have highli ghted that in our reco mmendations. In

Section 27. 1(1) (a), 1at a child of 12 years of age, at the time of apprehension be made; and at 27. 1 (b), at the time f apprehension also; and 31, we've asked that since it's a reconsidera tion, tha t the 12 years of ge be at the time of the current hearing, and that li kewise for

Section 31( 2) at the time of the urrent hearing, since both those two latter sections apply to reconsiderations. Our rationale, Mr . Chairman,

Section 27 deals with the initial hearing, where decisions are made �garding the status of the Child Care Agency's application under

Section 16 of the Act. This is di fficult

section , because a judge must determ ine if the chil d is over the age of 12, or under 1e age of 12. And as a result, certain deli berations and judgme nts are made with regard to an •rder of Tempor ary Guardianship. lt is unclear from the subsection at what point, at what age, the decision made by a judge is 1ade. Is the child to be 12 or over, or 12 or under at the time of the heari ng, or at the time of :>prehension? lt is necessary to provide some guida nce for judges in making their decisions, so 1at we can have some consistency of practice across the province with regard to this very di fficult Jt necessary section. Su bsequently in

Section 31, we are deal ing with a simi lar problem of guardianship that can be <tended for a further period of 24 months if the child is over 12 years of age. Again, the crucial �cision must be made with regard to the age of the child. At what point are you going to determine e magic age of 12 years? Is it at the age of the child at the time of apprehension, the time of e ini tial hearing, the time of the application for the heari ng, or the time of the present �aring? Given all these variables, we would recommend that the most consistent way in dealing with is

section is to have the judge make a decision on the age of the child in the case of the consideration, at the time of the current hearing. So, we're suggesting that in the two sections where a child is made a ward in the beg inning )m apprehension, that the time of the apprehension be considered the point of reference, and e time of the current hearing be consider ed the point of reference for reconsiderations. Item 4 - We were talking about

Section 26 of Bill 30, and that is Item No. 28 on Page 7 of 11 30. The Mi nisterial Amendment says, "Where the parents of a child consent, or the person who has charge or custody of a child ·nsents to tem porary guardianship of the child by the dir ector or a society, as the case may be, � judge may, without recei ving further evidence make an order respect ing tempo rary guard ianship a child in accordance with Clause 27( 1 )(

a) or (b), as the case may require, and may, subject

Section 31, review or extend that order. Our reco mmendation, Mr. Chairman, is that proposed amendment,

Section 26, be dropped from � present amendments. Our rationale for our recommendation - well, it can be argued that social agencies should make 65

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 it easy for arents to get out of parenting, if they make a decision on their parenting skills and th profess ionals in the field agree with that decision. This could potentially be accomplished by havin a Child Welfare Hearing and those parents consenting to an Order of Gua rdianship made undE this proposed

Section 26. However, it can be pointed out, that if parents wish to get out of th process of parenting, they can do so easily under the present

Section 15 of the Act and they d not need to go through a cou rt hearing, which cou ld be an added burden . If this proposed Sectio 26 is im plemented , we are asking Family Court judges to make a decision on the guardianshi of a child without hearing any evidence. We would propose that many judges would be reluctar to hear applications under this

section as they personally cou ld not be satisfied that such an ordE cou ld be in the best interests of the child, as outlin ed in the bill's current

definitions of best interes1 of a child. And lastly, if the parents were consen ting, and it was therapeutically expedient to have a hearin! where the parents indic ate their consent, the judge ulti mately has the power to decide how muc evidence he needs to hear in order to make a decision. We feel that dis cretion should be left t the ind ividual judges. We had included Item 5 but I would like to skip over Item 5, as we find in read ing Bill 30, whic we just received today, that that item has been dropped from the origi nal working papers, an it really makes no sense for us to further comment on it.

So, I would like to move on to Item 1 please. Item 6 can be found in Bill 30, on Page 4, Item No. 14 or Page 15 , Item No. 54, as the ca5 for

Section 85 and

Section 15 respectively.

Section 15 presently says, under the min isteri. amendments, "No agreement shall be entered into under

Section 1, until the expiration of at lea: seven clear days after the birth of the chil d", and then we want to point out the inconsistenc in

Section 85, where it says, "No person shall execute or give consent to the adoption of a chil under

Section 83(2), and no person shall take, request or solicit the consent of any person to tt adoption of a child under that

section until the expiration of at least 10 clear days after the da1 of the birth of the child ." Our recommendations, Mr . Chairman, are that there could be consistency of practice and I won read through them all, but we rec ommend that you use seven clear days, clear calendar days, 1 specify it even further, and our rationale for that is as follows: Both of these sections deal wi1 the consent by parents. In the first

section , consent cannot be given until seven days have elap sed. On the other hanr

Section 85 is ind icating it takes 10 clear days before a consent can be given . Since both of the� sections deal with re linqui shing chil dren for adoption placement, it is preferable the ti me-frame aft1 which consent can be given should be made consistent. Secondly, there is always a possibility of confusion between calendar days and jurid ical day lt is im portant for legislation to express their preference. Therefore, we would propose using U term "calendar days" , as it relates to these sections of the Act.

We would prefer the seven-di ruling, rather than the ten-day ruling, because in modern society we are deal ing mostly with mobi people, and especially in the rural areas. The longer time we spend after the bir th, the greater U chance the mother will be unavailable for signing consents. Item 7 is found in Bill 30 on Page 21, Item No. 72. The minis terial amendment says, "Wher after the hearing of the applic ants or the guardian of the child, and the parents of a child , as tt case may require, and after considering the report of a chil d-caring agency, the judge may gra1 the order of adop tion, or he may order: (

a) that the care and custody of a child be turned ovr to the parents or guard ian, or that the child be made a ward of the Di rector or a society." Our recom mendations on thi s amendment are as follows: "Where after hearing the applican or guardian of a child and the parents of a child, as the case may require and after considerir the report of a child-caring agency, the judge may (

a) grant the order of adop tion, (

b) that the care and custody of the child be turned over the parents or the guardian of a child, or that the child be made a permanent ward of the Di rectr or a society," with the key empha sis on "permanent ", Mr. Chairman. Our rationale is as follo ws: This

section under private adoption part of the Act, allows a jud( basically three dis positions: (

a) to grant the order of adop tion, (

b) to return the child to the ea and custody of his parent or guardian, and (

c) to make the child a ward of the Director or a societ Ho wever, the wording in this

section is such that it only clearly shows two alternatives. i.e., (

a) ar (

b) of the ministerial amendments and the net effect would be confusion, un less the th ree alternativ1 are clearly spelled out. Secondly, in Su bsection (

b) of the existing amendments, it is ind icated that the child be mac a ward of the Di rector or a society. lt does not articulate what kind of wardship is ind icated. VI do know, however, that a judge is asked to make a decision with regard to a permanent plan f, a child, i.e., adoption, and that the child- caring agency has made an investigation of the adoptic 66

nd presents its recommenda tion. law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 However, if an order of adoption is not granted, and if the return to the parents is unworkable, would seem to be in the child's best interests, that he be made a permanent ward of a society r the Dir ector, rather than a tem porary ward. The permanent wardship would be then in line with 1e provision and request for permanency under the private adop tion. The need for permanency well deli neated in the

section of the new amendments under the best inter ests of the child, as the first page of the Bill No. 30. Item 8 has to deal with The Child Welfare Act itself and not the amendments, but it has to aal with

Section 4( 14 ), Sections 5(1) , 5(2) and 5(3) of the child welfare amendments, and that's 1und on Page 2, Items 5 and 6 - at least 5(3) is. This has to do with the di fficult

section of nding and I'd like to add ress that for a moment, if you would, Mr. Chairman.

Section 4( 14 ) says, "F rom and out of the Consolida ted Fund, with moneys author ized by an et of the Legislature to be paid, and applied for the purposes of this Act, the Mi nister of Finance ay pay to a society in any fiscal year of the provinc e, such grants as may be specified by an ·der of the Lieutenant-G overnor- in-Cou ncil."

Section 5 (1) says, "The Mi nister may fix the amount that shall be chargeable to, and payable r the Di rector to a society, or an institution, in respect to tem porary contract placement, mentally tarded childr en, placement of childr en under apprehension, and childr en in charge of or comm itted the care and custody of a societ y."

Section 5(2) - ''The rates fixed. under Su bsection 1 shall be effective on, from and after such tte as may be fixed by the order of the Mi nister, or they may be fixed retroac tively." Our amendments, Mr. Chairman, are as follo ws. I'm sorry, the min isterial amendments are as llo ws now:

Section 5(3) - The cost of tempo rary contract placement, mentally retarded childr en placement, ildr en under apprehension, childr en co mmitted to the care and custody of a society for any reason 3ced in the charge or care of a society shall be chargeable to and payable by the Di rector to society, or an institution, in accordance with the per diem rates fixed under the subsection. That's the mini sterial amendments. Our recommendations are as follows: That Sections 4( 14 ), 1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4) and 5(5) be all col lected under one section, and numbered as

Section 5, and titled as Funding, as they all deal with mone y matters.

(2) That

Section 4( 14 ) be changed to

Section 5(1) , to read as follows: "From and out of the msolida ted Fund, with mone ys authorized by

an Act of the Legisla ture to be paid and applied · the purposes of this Act, the Min ister shall pay to a society in any fiscal year of the province, eh grants as may be specified by an order of the Lieutenant-Go vernor -in-Council, for the specific rpose of carrying out the society's duties and responsibilities as designated in

Section 6 of this :t." We further reco mmend that 5(1) shall be renum bered as 5(2), and remain worded as is; 5(2) renum bered as 5(3), and remain worded as is; 5(3) be renum bered as 5(4), and remairi worded it is presently worded in the amendments; 5(4) be renum bered as 5(5), and 5(5) be renum bered 5(6). Our rationale for the substantive change that we itemiz ed in thi s second

section above, is all � sections above deal with the fundin g of agencies or institutions in their respective per di em es or grants. We see them spread out between two numerically dif ferent sections in the present t and the amendments. To our manner of thinking, they should be dealt with as one separate :tion of the Act, and entitled as Funding. Sect ion 4( 14) deals specifically with the service and admini stration grants to societies, which essence funds our basic operating costs for such items as salaries, benefits, travel expenses, 1lding costs, etc. Further, it is our understanding that

Section 4( 14 ), as it presently stands, and c:tion 6 of this Act are inextricably tied together. If you look at

Section 6 as it is item ized on the bottom of Page 2, you will see it puts out very arly what the duties and res ponsibi lities are of a child care agency, and therefore we are saying , two are link ed together.

Section 6 spells out in the Act, and in the proposed amendments, at the duties and the obl igations of the society are. The Act further provides, under

Section 3(1 )(c), t the Child Welfare Di rectorate can hold the child caring agencies accountable for their duties l obligations. The paradox that is typified is that

Section 6 spells out the obli gations;

Section 3( 1 )(

c) ind icates accountabil ity; and

Section 4( 14) provides only questionable obligation on the part of the Mi nister fully fund all those activities, obl igations , duties and responsibil ities. lt is widely recogn ized in admin istrative circle s that if you mandate a service, you must also :ure or guarantee the funding for that service. If the funding is not available for all those activities, n it is the obli gation of the Legislature to review the mandate, and cut back the obl igations 1 respo nsibilities in proportion to the money available for goods, service del ivery. 67

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 We are not requesting a blank cheque for governmental funding, but we are concerned a: admin istrators of a private, non-profit, charitable corporation, that our mandate be clearly spelle1 out in a piece of legislation, and that funding be secured for that mandate; that we, in makin! application for funding, know specifically what our duties and obl igations are, and know that if w' present a case for service deliv ery in accordance with the se duties and obl igations, the provinc< then has a respo nsibi lity to secure the funding for that mandate.

If that is not possible, then th' mandate should be revised. If we are permitted one further point on this matter, we know that, for example, the provinG< over the past year has provided service standards in the area of child protec tion, and child care and is presently proceeding with work on adoption standards. Whil e we applaud the work bein' done in thi s particular area, we note specifically that the standards fall far shor t in determ inin ' the necessary casework levels to im plement those standards. In

summary, we have a legitim ized mandate, service standards, but no leg itim ized staff cas ratio to carry out those standards and obl igations. We strongly sugge st that the province leg itimi z in the reg ulations, casework standards for. the various areas of service del ivery. The net benefit for the province in the short and the long-run, is that it would know specificall what it is funding, and what the cost or unit cost for each area of service is, inst.ead of fu ndin a block of unkno wn child welfare services with a "X amount of staff" allocated to it as a conditio of this particular fiscal year.

Two additional comments with regard to overall considerations in the amendments. First, it i im portant for us, as practitioners where events can occur legally and a designation occur to whethe these are calendar days or jurid ical days. We have high lig hted one of those inc idents in OL presentation. We would ask that you review the Act and the amendments, and designa te all tim frames in terms of clear calendar days or jurid ical days. That would make for intense ti me-savin in the fiel d, and it would be clear from the outset what is meant.

Secondly, many of the sections in the Act deal with a variety of options available under a particul� section. lt is very im portant to us, as practitioners in the fie ld, to have those options clearly spelle out and itemized. The tendency has been in the past, and is still with us in some of the sections of the amendment: to obscure the co nditions of a

section with the real options that it provides. And we strongly sugge: that these options be item ized as either a, b, c, or 1, 2, 3, or whatever you prefer. In conc luding, Mr. Chairman, may I say, on behalf of the Board of Di rectors of the Childr er Aid Society of Central Manitoba, we thank the Legisla tive Comm ittee for taking the time to liste to our concerns on the proposed Child Welfare Act amendments, and we hope that ot recommendations will be taken into account, and we look forward to opera tin g and functionin under one of the most prog ressive Child Welfare Legislation packages in Canada.

If there are any questions, I'll ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you , Mr . Dubr ay. Are there any questions of Mr . Dubr ay. If there are none, I thank yo u, Sir. MR. DU BRA V: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I call Sandy Maclvor. Mr. Maclvor? I call Paul Swartz. MR. PAUL SWARTZ: Ladies and gentlemen, and Mr . Chairman, I appear on behalf of the Manitot Association for Rights and Liberties. The brief that I am about to refer to was prepared by a numb1 of persons including myself , those other persons being, Vivian Rachlis and Mr. Mi chael Skremetk There are other members of this group.

We have conside red Bill C-30 in some detail - the Childr er Concerned Group, that is - not the entire Association for Rigb ts and Li berties. We have bee functioning as a group since October of 19 78 andwe are composed of a number of persons involv e either professi onally or as volunteers in the Child Welfare System one way or another on the periphe1 or dir ectly involved.

We have worked hard on considering the amendments and we are going to put forward thrE major concerns· to you that we have and hope, of course, that you will consider them serious and perhaps take some of our suggestions with the seriousness that we feel they should t taken. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Swartz, do you have copies of your brief for the comm ittee? MR. SWARTZ: I'm sorry, because of the nature of the timing involved, we were advised only ear this morning and we do have a written brief that I'm only going to refer to it as dr aft and it w 68

law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 be submit ted in final form within the next day or two. I think that you will be able to follow me because as I said, there are three major portions that we wish to deal with. The first area of our concern is the best inter est tests. We cer tainly welcome that there are )revisions made to give judges guideli nes in dete rmining what is in the best interest of a child n making decisions in protec tion hearings, or custody hearings, but one concern that we have about hat; it's hard to state it succinctly.

The best interest test would lead one to bel ieve that the decision hat is being made is certainly in the best interests of a child.

Quite frankly, we feel it's more realistic o consider it that it is more like the best move in the surr ounding circums tances, and accordingly rve are suggesting that rather than using a sim ply best inter est test, that it be combined with the )h rase "the least detrimental alternative" and that in fact, best interests be defined to mean "the east detrimental alternative in the cir cumstances" and then reference being made to the specific Juidelines that have been stated in the Act or the proposed amendments.

We feel that that just >uts the matter in a more realistic setting when the judge is deciding the situation. The concern again, we wish to empha size is not a minor one because in most cases one must mderstand that no di sposition is best for the child in an absolute sense. The child has already, n most cases, lost the best choice, that is being with his family. And the suggestion that we're naking is certainly not out of a vacuum. There is substantial periodical lit erature available on the >oint. The recommendation itself is one that was conside red by Ontario in their amendment to their ;hild Welfare Act.

We strongly urge the commit tee to consider that test - the least detrimental alternative in the :ircums tances - with reference to the guideli nes as outlined in the amendment. If the comm ittee 1ill bear with me, I just wish to give you a brief example of that. Supp osing that a chil d is found to be in need of protec tion.

A judge sitting and applying the tandard of the best interests, the judge is at that point not really expected to compare the probable onsequences of the child's remaining in the home with the probably consequenc es of his removal, ince in most cases only the risks of the child being placed or kept in the home are placed before im, the judge may not readily see the risks of foster parent placement. In that particular example, of course, the result is a substantial bias in favour of removal.

If 1e court were requir ed to choose the least detrimental alternative instead of the best interests, re feel it would sim ply be more realist ic. By deciding that the child is in need of protection the ourt has already determined that the child has fallen below the minimum standards of care and 1at interference by the State is requir ed to raise that standard of care. The least detrimental lternative we feel, would convey the idea of minimum interven tion without creating false expectations 1at there is somehow a best future for the child in State care.

The second point that we wish to make has to deal with the legal representation of childr en, nd while our focus of course is on the childr en who are inv olved in the process, it is with some Jrprise that I find we have come to a comp letely opposite conclusion to that which the preceding )eaker, I believe, Mr. Bray, came; Mr. Dubr ay, I apologize, Mr. Du bray.

The suggestion made by im was that he is applauding the prog ressiveness of the legislation and certainly we are to some Ktent in agreement with that because the bill itself obviously impl icitly accepts the fact that legal �presentation of childr en is a matter of prime considera tion. And I say prime consideration because 's true that in the existing Act,

Section 25(7) there is a provis ion whereby a judge cou ld appoint lawyer to represent the interests of a child. But that matter was left in a vacuum since 19 74 1d the information that I have is that there are very few, if any cases, where legal representation >r childr en has been provided. Now, as I said, we say that the legislation that is now proposed, Bill 30, impl icitly accepts that gal representation is a matter of prime consideration and we would like to further expand on 'at and in fact, we feel that the

Section as proposed , is somewhat li miting and should be more 1arply focussed. If we accept that legal representation is a prime consideration, then our subm ission that the

Section should be amended whereby legal representation for a child should be dir ected, 1less the court is satisfied that the interests of the child would otherwise be adequately protected. s st ill our position that the matter would be left to the dis cretion of a judge and contrary to what r. Dubray said we do not belie ve that this would cause any delay in proceed ings. He referred a mini-trial. Certainly the judge would have to - in our subm ission I'll get to the particulars of the

Section a moment - in our view, the

Section would requ ire the judge to make a dete rmi nation at the Jtset whether or not a child should be provided with legal representa tion, but we do not feel that at would cause any delays nor would there have to be a mini -trial. lt would be a simple matter r the judge to determine, and even if it were to cause a min i-trial, we feel that the concern for e chi ldren who are being processed through the courts, overrides that little problem. The

section that we would propose being instituted, rather than the present

Section 25.7 (1) , that which was recommended by the Ontario Attorney-General's Comm ittee on the Representation 69

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 of Childr en. Bill 11 4 in Ontario, I believe, became law not too long ago in the province of Onta1 and the

section that was en acted there is, I'm reasonably certain a dupl ication of what is in E 30, or perhaps Bill 30 is a dupl ication of what is in Ontario. The Commit tee for the Representation of Childr en looked at that

section and came to t conclusion as hum bly, we also have, that the

section was not strong enough. We are reco mmendi that the Law Amend ments Commit tee consider the following

section in substitution for 25. 7( The

section should read as follows: "A child may be legally represented at any stage in proceed ing s under thi s part." And tt specifically is, of course, the protection hearings where Childr en's Aid is alleging abuse or negle "Where on an application under this part, a child is not legally repres ented, it is the duty of t court, before proce eding to the hearing of the evidence, to determine whether representation desirable to protect the interests of the child.

If at that or any later stage in the proceed ing, t court is of the opinion that representation is so desirable, the court shall dir ect that le< representation be provided for the child ." I point out, it seems to me a fairly simple determinat i that a judge can make it the outset, without the need for any min i-trial.

Sec tion 2, to that or the following would be: that in determ ining whether represen tation desirable to protect the inter ests of the child under the foreg oin g section, "Wh ere. the court is the opinion that there is a di fference between the view of the child and the view of the socii or of either parent or custodian of the child, and Sub (1) the society is requesting that the child be removed from his present residence, o Sub (2) the society does not propose to return the child to the care of his parents or custodi upon the termination of a tempor ary cont ract placement; or upon the expiration of a tempon wardship order; or the child has been apprehended and a parent or custodian of the child canr be located so as to be present at the initial hearing of proce edings under this part; or a child w has been taken into care is alleged to be a child upon whom abuse, as defined, has been infl ictE the cour t shall dir ect that legal representation be provided for the child, unle ss having regard the views of the child, if any, the court is satisfied that the interests of the child would otherw be adequately protected ." We cannot stress strongly enough that we feel thi s sect ion is necessary especially in view the fact, of course, we are in the International Year of the Child.

The matter of legal representati of childr en is a matter that has been sorrowfu lly neglected over years, and the childr en who � being processed through the system ought to be entitled to independent legal represe ntatior I would go one step further just on this point of legal representa tion and say that the secti that we have referred to, ought not to be confined sim ply to protection hearings. 1t is our vi' that that

section or a simila r

section ought to be enacted, whereby in custody proceed ings betwe parents under The Child Welfare Act, whether they be in Provincial Judg es' Court or the Co' of Queen's Bench, that a simi lar

section ought to be enacted so that legal represen tation for childr in all cases where their rights and interests are di rectly or indir ectly being affected by decisiol they ought to be legally represented. Our thir d major area of concern has to do with wardship orders, or for lack of a better ter we are going to propose to the Comm ittee that there be mandatory review of permanent ordt of guard ianship in favour of the society, the Di rector of Child Welfare or whatever the case rr be. Again, we do not make these re commendations in a vacuum; we have consi dered lit eratt on the subject and in particular, recommendations that were considered by Ontario. The present

section 30, is proposed to be amended but there appears to be in our view, a item missing. In

Section 31 of Bill 30, amending Sec tion 30 (1) , and this deals for the first part w tempor ary orders, it says that application may be made by the Dir ector, society or parent of 1 child. Since our view is from the point of view of a child, we feel that a child over the age of years ought to be included in that sec tion. lt ought to be open for a child over the age of 12 ye; to retain counsel, if com petent to do so, and make an application to termina te a temporary ore of wardship. We see nothing incons istent or out of the ordi nary in doing that and we strongly sub1 that that li ttle item, which we are sure is an ove rsight, ought to be inclu ded in that section. If we turn then to

Section 33 of the existing Act, which is dealt with in the Bill 30 by Secti 34,

Section 33 of the Act deals with reviews of permanent orders of guard ianship. The Act n reads that applications can only be made, I bel ieve, by the Di rector or the society. lt does 1 include an application that could be made by a parent, nor does it include an application that co1 be made by a child over the age of twelve. We feel that in partic ular, that

Section 34 of Bill : ought to include a further amendment, in that a child over the age of 12 and a parent ought have the opportunity to apply to termi nate a permanent order of guardianship. Now, the reas we suggest that is as follo ws: We further take the view that while it's true that in most cases where permanent orders guard ianship are made, the society will take charge of chil dren and then place them for adoptit 70

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 opefully successfully. We nevertheless must accept that a number of childr en - and not a small umber - end up being placed in one foster home and then another, and either do not get adopted r if they do, they thems elves as childr en having been in care prior to the adoption , are the futur e 1venile deli nquents. We feel that there ought to be provision whereby any permanent order of guardia nship be utomatically reviewed at the end of two years.

The matter would automatically be brought back ) the court but of course if Childr en's Aid or the society who has guard ianship, were to effect 1 adoption placement, then the matter would not be reviewed . We feel strongly, that on such an application which we feel should be broadened to include 1e parent and a child over 12, that on that automatic review the judge should be restricted to �rtain orders. We would not want to see the judge making an order revert ing tempo rary Jardianship back to a society.

What we would view as being appropriate is that the judge, on �aring of an automatic review, could continue the permanent wardship order. He cou ld terminate ,e Permanent Wardship Order, and return the child to the biological parents, or he could termi nate e Permanent Order and return the child to the parents under supervisi on. And if there was any ·der allowing access to the child dur ing tha t period of permanent wardship, we think that the judge 1ould, of course, be able to grant, vary or terminate an access order. This is not new to this field, I would respectfu lly submit.

As I ind icated, Ontario has en acted 11ila r provisions. The State of New York has also enacted provisions providing for the automatic view of permanent wardship. We do not feel that this would inter fere with any plans that the 1ciety might have for adopttion, as I indicated. If an adoption placement were effe cted, there would � no review. Ho wever, the childr en who are in care for a number of years and are not adopted, ere should be some process for review to make the society accou ntable for its plans. Those are the three major points we wish to make.

One being that the best interest test should ! defined to mean the least detrimental alternative in the ci rcumstances, and then reference being ade to the guidelines that have been specified in Bill C-30. The second point being that lega l presentation of childr en is imp lic itly a prime consideration by this Legislature, and we feel that ere should be stronger provisions to assure that children will be entitled to legal representation protection hearings in particular, and more generally in all matters where their rights and interests e affect ed.

And the third thing is that we submi t that there ought to be mandatory review of !rmanent Wardship Orders. There are just a number of mino r points that we wish to make. We feel that a judge ought be required to give reasons in all protection hearings. He ought to be requi red by this legislation give reasons for his removal of the child from the home of the parents, as to why the society 1r dship is preferred over that of the parents, and that reasons as to the plan submi tted by the ciety, ought to be included in the reasons, and any other relevant considerations that the judge 1uld have in his decision.

We have some concern as well about the fact that the Manitoba Youth Centre is being used a centre for the holdin g of childr en who are negle cted or runaways, etc. - childr en in need shelter. We feel that the Act, specifically the Defi nition

Section of Place of Safety, ought to be ined to specifically exclude the Manitoba Youth Centre. lt is with some concern that we have �rned that ... I. CHAIRMAN: Order please, Sir. I think I'll have to bring you to order on that point. We are aling tonight with Bill 30. If you could relate that subject to the bill, I might accept your 1ument. t. SWARTZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Bill 30, of course, deals with amendments to The ild Welfare Act. The Child Welfare Act, as it exists in the Defin ition

Section of a Place of Safety ; not been dealt with by the amendments. I take it that it is in order to sugge st that the Place afety be included into Bill 30 as an amendment. 1. CHAIRMAN: I think, if I read it correctly, you are speaking to what's in the bill as before Sir. 1 don't think you have an amendment that we can deal with at this particular time, just at's in the bill is what we're dealing with at the moment. :. SWARTZ: Very well. One last point, and thi s is somewhat mi nor as well. I was discussing :tion 34 of the prop osed amendments - that was dealing with

Section 33 of the Act which 1ls with Permanent Orders of Gua rdianship.

Section 34(

b) of Bill C-30 refers to striking out the ·d "shall" and substituting ther efor the word "m ay". If one looks to the Act,

Section 33(1), the ic of the

section seems to allow a judge to come to the conclusion that it would be in the best �rests of a child to termi nate a Permanent Order of Gua rdianship, and yet he cou ld then be 71

Law Amendments Monday, June 11 , 1979 given the dis cretion to not return the child to the parents. We don't understand why "shall" hi been made to be "may". We think it should remain as "shall". There should be a mandata requirement on the judge that if he comes to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of tl child, that an Order of Permanent Guardianship should be terminated, then that's what he sh1 do. We do not feel he should be given the discretion. lt's just logically incon sistent.

Those are our remarks and we thank the commit tee for li stening to them, and hope that tl three major areas of concern will be conside red in detail, and hopefully childr en in Ma nitoba v. be provided with prog ressive legislation whereby their rights and inter ests can more effect ively 1 represented. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr . Swartz. Would you remain and see if there's any questions, IV Swartz. Any questions for Mr . Swartz? The Honourable Attorney -General. MR. MERCIER: This is not in the form of a question, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps just tor tl information of the delegation, if he's not aware of it.

The Manitoba Law Reform Commission a presently studying the question of childr en's advocacy, and are receiving some prelimina represen tations from interested mem bers of the public. MR. SWARTZ: I thank you , and we will di rect our attentions to there. 1 just wish to also poi out - I happened to read today in Head notes and Footnotes, that Provincial Judg es Court requesting a list of attorneys who might be interested in represe nting childr en in matters such , these, but it is unnlear as to how they intend to create a mechanism whereby childr en can 1 repres ented. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of Mr.

Swartz? I thank you, Sir. MR. SWARTZ: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 48. The Clerk now will distribute a brief that was presented by Mr. G. Doer, President of MGEA. We move on then to Bill No. 56, and I call Alice Steinbart. BILL NO. 56 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FAMILY MAINTENANCE ACT ALICE STEINB ART: Yes, hello again. I'm speaking on behalf of the Coalition on Family Law, ar there is a brief being given out. The Coalition on Family Law wishes to commend you tor this legislation, Bill 56, dealing wi impr ovement of procedures for enforcement of mainten ance orders. We are pleased with yo concern in this area and with your awareness that this is a very imp ortant area. We are pleasE that you are taking action and that you are serious in your intent to impr ove this area of la' This legislation is a good first step.

We agree with your appointment of a designa ted attic who will be responsi ble for collecting and enforcing orders. We feel this will make an im porta di fference in the enforcement procedure. Ho wever, it still does not solve the problem of delay, getting the money into the hands of the woman on the date when she expects it. In tact, despi the desig nated officer being responsi ble for the enforcement of the order, it could take anywhe from one to three months and even longer before that money is received by the woman.

In tl meantime, she still has to pay rent, to buy the groceries and clothes, to pay tor the incidenta such as money tor her child at school for a project or a field trip. One solution to thi s proble is to amend

Section 25 of The Family Mai ntenance Act to read that the court shall require tl person against whom the order is made to deposit a bond or some other security with court an amount equal to maintenance for three months. Thus the woman would be able to rely on tl security deposit whil e her order for maintenance is being enforced. Sectio n 25 of the Act shou further read that in the event such a security deposit or bond would cause undue hardship, thr the court shall make the order on such terms as it thinks fit, including a suspension of the requireme to make such a deposit or bond.

So the court could order that the bond or security deposit or be paid after the husband receives the sale proceeds from the property settlement, if there is sur a sale, or the husband cou ld pay the security deposit over a period of months, gradually buildi1 up the fund in that way. A second concern we have with the legislation again deals with delay.

The Act provides th the designa ted officer may summons the husband into court for a show-cause hearing. lt is possit that at that point the husband will tell the judge that he is unable to pay because there has ber a change of cir cumstances, such as ill ness or loss of job or whatever. If the origi nal order can from a court other than Family Court, in other words if it came from County Court or Queer 72

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 ench, the judge -has no authority to deal with that order. What the judge will have to do is to jjourn the proceed ings and tell the husband that he has the right to go back to the other cour t 1 ask for a variation. In the meantime, the order is une nforced. The solution here is to have a nified Family Court so that whatever judge is sitting, has the right to deal with the matter then 1d there and not delay it.

Another concern we have deals with the show-cause hearing whereby the designated officer can 1ve the husband come into court to be examined in respect to emplo yment, income, assets and > forth. Our concern is, who will be doin g thi s examination? We expect it will· be the designa ted ficer, but this is not clearly shown in the Act itself. lt could be possible that the designa ted officer ould not be involved and, again, it would be up to the woman to produce her own lawyer for is examination. Another concern we have deals with the method of enforcement.

One of those set out in the :t deals with relief under The Judgm ents Act. There is a problem in The Judgm ents Act itself that it is badly drafted.

Section 3 of The Judgm ents Act allows a judgment creditor after a judgment IS been regi stered in the Land Titles Office for a period of one year, to commence proce edings force sale of land.

Section 9 of that same Act states that in respect to maintenance orders, e spouse who has the order has what is called a life annuity against the land. Some judges have terpreted these sections to be exclusive, so that a spouse who has a right under

Section 9 has > right to force a sale of land under

Section 3. These sections should not be exclusive. A woman 1ould have the right to force the sale of land under

Section 3, and The Ju dgments Act should l amended to reflect this. In addition, the exemptions generally in The Judgm ents Act should not 1ply to maintenance or ders. For example, a woman should not have to wait a year before she 1n force sale of land, nor should she be stopped from forcing sale of certain property, such as rm property, home proper ty and so on that is not of a certain value. All these assets should be 1bject to a maintenance order. Another concern we have deals with

Section 31. 1( 2), that's your Definition Sec tion. In that section, ere is a definition of "Order" but it does not include an Order under The Child Welfare Act. 1erefore, it might be possible for an order for child maintenance to be made which will not be 1vered by Bill 56. Another concern is the time period when thi s bill will come into effect.

We understand that the stem is to be computerized, which is a lengthy procedure, and that the system may not be brought o effect until possible January 1s t, 19 80. lt is imp ortant, of course, that the system be mputerized, but the delay will mean hardship for women and chil dren until the system comes o effect. We know you are most concerned about this area, and we expect that your concern 11 result in thi s system being imple mented not later than January 1s t, 19 80, and hopefully on er.

There is another item which unfortuna tely we have never mentioned . before, not to the comm ittee Jdying thi s ' case, nor to you, nor to the Attorney-General. The only reason I can think of is has gotten shoved off into what I call "The bottom of the iceber g", for the whole area of Family w is imm ense and what we have covered up to now is only the tip of the iceberg. The item which I wish to mention is what is referred to in law as "the one year rule".

This is principle of law that if maintenance is in arrears beyond one year, a court will not allow those ·ears over a year old to be enforced unle ss a wife can prove she she has been actively trying obtain those payments, both before they became a year old and has continued trying steadily, t intermittently, to force those payments. In other words, the cour t would allow her husband to abuse the normal delays built into our >tern of justice to defeat a wife's claim.

The reason given for the one year rule is tha t a wife ould not be able to build up a nest egg at the husband's expense. lt would be too harsh on l husband as several years of arrears could amount to thousands of dolla rs. lt could wipe him t or at the very best wipe out his nest egg , his savings. I think that should be "at the very least >e out his nest egg or his savings". There is no doub t about it, it possibly would. What about the reverse? Childr en are a joint ;ponsi bili ty. They are also a financial burden.

I know that my parents have never lived so well when my brother and I became financially independent. An income which was enough for my ·ents was strained by a family of four. If a woman is left alone to raise her famjly, she never Is a chance to build her nest egg. All her mone y is used in that day-to-day battle of making js meet on a strained income. Her husband's nest egg is buil t at her expense because he is 1 paying maintenance, and then it is protected by this one year rule. A woman often, after a separation comes onto the job market at a severe dis advantage.

She y have remained at home during the marriage, looking after the home and family. Therefore l has lost job skills, possible promotion, possibly even her basic skil ls, so that she cannot return that field, at least not without some retrai ning. She has definitely lost seniority rights, accumulation 73

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 of time towards longer holida ys and pension benefits. If she worked outside the home during t marriage, it may have been intermit tently as she took time off to have children. This also means that she lost seniority and fringe benefits. Even if her work was not interruptE she is probably in a lower paying job, a job which was not meant for the head of the househo and therefore does not pay enough to support the family.

There are major financial di sadvantag4 but despite this too many women have been left alone by husbands who do not pay maintenan and by our legal system with this harsh one year rule to support a family on an inadequate inc on The result is a struggle for the women and chil dren, not only because of the physical denia ls tt must go on when there is not enough money to provide a good environment to raise the childn but also because of the emotional stress, worry, strain of not having enough money to make en meet No doubt much of thi s stress is taken out on the chil dren.

The one year rule is not a rule passed by the Legislature; it is a judge-made law. The judg in their wisdom saw and under stood the effect a lump sum of arrears would have on a man a they were correct But the judges, through the lack of abili ty to see life through the eyes of a mott alone did not understand its effect on the women and childr en. They never saw that his nest e existed because she alone carried the financial burden of raising the childr en. They never saw t older woman whose studies now show to be amongst the poor est group of people i_n Canada.

Th never saw that a mother who spent her life and her money on raising the childr en condemned hers to poverty on retirement, for she never had any money to put by; every penny was used to ma ends meet lt is unfortunate that raising childr en can be, not just a joy but also a burden, and it is a burd that must be shared including if necessary by transferring his nest egg to her. lt is harsh on h of course, but if the one year rule continues to exist, then it is even harsher on her.

By enforci maintenance all the way back, both parents again resume the joint burden rather than one beari it all, and even then it would not be a joint burden because the wife would not receive the inten on the money never paid, only the mone y itself. The interest from having the use of the mon for all of those years, the husband retains. An interesting aside, I first came across this one year rule as a student and it struck me th as wrong, but I wasn't able to articulate why. lt just was wrong.

When I tried this concept out other lawyers I was given all the stock answers: to force a husband to pay years of arrears is har� it would wipe him out. I co uldn't answer that, as of course it was true, but it wasn't until recen in one of those flashes of insight that you get now and again, that I realized that no one ever look at it from the woman's point of view, and from that perspective every thing looks dif fer ent.

Frc that perspective we can see the woman's struggle to make ends meet, her anguish that her childr are suffering or being denied, her determination to do well for her chil dren, her bitterness at � husband and our legal system for their lack of concern and callousness and just plain stupid that they cannot see things as they really are. lt is one of our great disadv antages that our legal and political systems have locked worn out The 50 percent of our judges and lawyers who form the judge-made laws are not womE the 50 percent of our legisla tors who form our statute laws are not women.

We hope that by sim1 pointing out these facts to you, we will be able to have the woman's perspective put into law. Tl one year rule must be elimi nated. There is one other item I would like to cover. lt does not deal specifically with this bill but genera with the area of Family Law. We are pleased with the Attorney-G ener al's knowledge and conce with the problems in this area. This was particularly evident at the last Federal -Provincial Conferen when the federal government offered to transfer jurisdiction over di vorce to the provinces.

Manito was one of the two provinc es to object to this, and we belie ve it was because the Attorney-Gene, was more knowledgeable in this area than the other Attorne ys-General. They did not seem to realize the problems and the hardships such a split in jurisdiction wol entail.

We also want to commend the Attorney-General for the co-operation we have received monitoring the current Family Law legislation to see that it is in fact working as everybody intend it to work. lt has become evident to us, as we are sure it has become evident to the Attorney-Gene1 , that so far we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in the area of Family Law and that the are many areas which the Legislature has not dealt with yet MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Alice Stein bart? Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson.

I'd like to ask Ms Stein bart: what does a worn do if she doesn't get any money in the first three months? I think you point that out actually ' Page 1 of your brief. We are suggesting that there be a deposit of a bond or some other secur with the court in an amount equal to the maintenance for three months. In your experience, what is the case right now when people just don't get any money for t 74

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 rst three. months? Do they go on welfare then? IS STEIN BART: lt can vary. If the woman is already on welfare then of cou rse she just continues. she is a working mother and she's relying in part on her income and in part on the maintenance, 1e just tries to eke out on her income. She wouldn't be getting welfare because she's working. ut it does cause a lot of hardship. Maybe she migh t try and borrow from her parents or from iends or some thing to that effect. Or just simpl y tries to cut back on the family inc ome. R. PARASIUK: Yes. Do you have any idea why it was left out?

I know this has been dis cussed. ere you inv olved at all in the discussions leading up to this particular bill? My understanding was at there would be discussions with groups that were interested in the whole area of Family Law, , I assume that you must have been involved in some of those di scussions leading up to the drafting this bill. Were there any explanations given as to why a deposit or a bond system co uldn't have len proceeded with, because you do qualify this by ind icating that

Section 25 cou ld further be nended - that· in the event that this would cause undue hardship the court could take that into :count. S STEINBART: Wel l, it's obviously a political decision and I think the Attorney-General can answer 1tter as to why it wasn't put in. fl. PARASIUK: But in your discussions with the group dr afting this bill, you made those ggestions before. Did you or . . . S STEINBART: Wel l, we made quite a number of suggestions. There's no way. that they could cept all of them. This was one of the thi ngs that we suggested, yes. �- PARASIUK: Thank you.

I can get back to the Attorney-General on that later. On page 2 of your brief you comment about the difficulties that develop if you don't have a ified Family Court. That's somet hing that some people have been pushing for for some time and hink it's gone by the wayside in the name of restraint. At the same time in terms of the cost society, this can be a cost to those ind ividuals involved, and indeed I think it will probably be ;ost in legal terms as well, extra legal terms in terms of referring back and forth from one court another.

So there is a social cost that is going to be borne by society because of this cutback the name of restraint. How much time will some of these referrals take? You ind icate that - is that up to the lges? ; STEINBART: Wel l, to some of my clients I think they feel it takes forever. lt can really drag , and if there has been an enforcement procedure in Family Court and it has to go back to Queen's nch or County Court, it's really up to the judge or the husband to make the appl ication for variation j it can take a long time. 1. PARASIUK: What's a long time ? Three months, six months, nine months?

Any idea? 1 STEINBART: Well, I'm sure it could take at least three months, because the ball is in the ;band's court and he's the one that carries it and he's the one who decides when it's going be brought on . . PARASIUK: So while that's happen ing, the order is n't enforced? Is that correct? STEINBART: Under the present procedure if the Enforcement Officer is involved, no, it's not orced. That, under the present procedure, does not stop the wife from saying, "I'l l garnish on own" . . PARASIUK: But it's not enforced - the Officer doesn't enforce it? STEINBART: Not now . .

PARASIUK: Under this Act, would the Officer enforce it? STEINBART: I suspect not. I suspect that if the husband says that he wants to go for variation designa ted Officer will not do anything. 75

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 MR. PARASIUK: So then it's in the husband's interest to have a delay. MS STEIN BART: To delay, yes. MR. PARASIUK: So who will be pushing the judge to ensure that the matter is dealt w exped itious ly? The husband obviously won't. MS STEIN BART: No. MR. PARASIUK: The husband's lawyer obviously won't. MS STEIN BART: No. MR. PARASIUK: Can the wife's lawyer bring that - can the wife's lawyer put pressure on a judg Can anyone put pressure on a judge with respect to timing as opp osed to putting pressure a judge with respect to subsidie s?

S STEIN BART: I can't im agine - if the system goes into effect as ind icated in Bill 56 and then still not a unified Family Court - I can't imagin e any effective pressure being put on. MR. PARASIUK: So we could have delays - you know, we've had a delay for example in a re review case of something in the order of a year now, so it could take quite a long time. MS STEIN BART: Well, ever ybody's heard about how notorious law cases can be and how th can drag on. I don't know whether it would be a year. I would hope not. MR. PARASIUK: Okay.

Now, my final question concerns the one year rule which you say is r in legislation. it's something that the judges have deriv ed through custom. Is that corre ct? MS STEIN BART: Yes. MR. PARASIUK: And on Page 4 of your brief, you give reasons for the one year rule. Have the ever been explicitly stated by judges? In their judgment? Or is that again by custom? Custom . . . by osmosis, by judges as they become judges ... MS STEIN BART: I think it may have, in some cases, been explicitly stated that it would be t harsh. I think they may have gone as far as saying that. MR. PARASIUK: Yes.

Now, how can one get rid of it? Like on Page 7 you say the one year rr must be elimina ted. Is that possible just through a simpl e amendment to this particular legislati or would it require something more than that? MS STEIN BART: Wel l, they say in law that the Legislature can always do anything, that they supreme, so yes, if you wanted to put it into law, as long as it was dr afted very carefully se was made very clear to the courts or to the lawyers and the judges that this is what your intenti was, yes, you can do it. MR.

PARASIUK: Those amend ments or amendment that would be req uir ed to get rid of the o year rule, the place for that would be this legislation, is that what you ... ? MS STEINB ART: I think thi s is a good place for it, yes. MR. PARASIUK: What other places are ther e? MS STEIN BART: Well, it has to be in the Family Maintenance Act. I think that's where it sho1 be , and obviously this is the amendments to the Faly Mai ntenance Act. MR. PARASIUK: No, I thank you very much for the information on that latter point, becaus' think the point you made is pr etty valid., MR. CHAIRMAN: Any more questions? Thank you. 76

IS STEIN BART: ·Thank you. Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 IR. CHAIAN: I call Marcel Bari l, is it? Marcel Baril B-A-R-1-L. There is also a Ms Macrae and Is Barrett. If not, then that is all the briefs that are before the commit tee tonight. I will call Bill o. 6,

an Act to Amend the Condom inium Act. BILL NO. 6 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ACT R. CHAIRMAN: Clause by clause.

Section 1, (a. 1) -p ass - Mr. Parasiuk. R. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair person. I'd like to ask the Min ister if he has any amendments ' bring in. R. MERCIER : Yes. R. CHAIRMAN: Okay, everybody has copies of the amendments and that there's an amendment r

Section 2 (m. 1) . The Member for Pembi na. R. ORCHARD: Thank you , Mr. Chairman. Motion that Bill No. 6 be amended by adding, thereto, 1media tely after

Section 1, thereof the following section: Clause 1(m. 1) of the Act is further amended ' adding thereto, imm edia tely after the word "means" in the first lin e of Clause (

m) thereof the lrds and figures, "su bject to subsection 8 (7. 1) ." R. CHAIRMAN: . . . Expl ain. The Honourable Attorney -General. �- MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a general comment, the amendments that will be t forward that have been distributed, are all based on the presentation and brief that was presented us the other even ing by Mr . Calof, on behalf of the Manitoba Su bsection of the Canadian Bar sociation. No doubt all members of the commit tee have reta1n ed a copy of that brief to assist �m in perusing the amendments, Mr . Chairman.

I supp ose I should also say that all of those amendments have also been reviewed by Mr. Lamont, � Registrar-General of the Land Titles Office and Legislativ e Council and have received their proval. t CHAIRMAN: Then

Section 1.1 as amended - pass.

Section 2- pass. Su bsection 2.(3)- pass l Honour able Mem ber for Pembi na. l. ORCHARD: That the proposed new subsection 2(3) of The Condom inium Act as set out in ction 3 of Bill 6, be amended by striking out the figu res "6.5" in the first line ther eof and lstituting ther efor the figu res "6(5)" . -(I nterjection)- lt should be 6.5 as it is in the bill and amended to 6(5). L CHAIRMAN: Pass. Clause 5(1) , and we have an amendment to this next

section as well. The mber for Pembina. Oh,

Section 3- pass.

Section 4 - The Mem ber for Pem bina. I. ORCHARD: That

Section 4 of Bill 6 be struck out and the following

section be substituted refor: 4 Clause 5(1 )(

f) of the Act is amended by adding thereto at the end thereof, the words · interests or estates in the land in respect of which caveats, other than caveats claiming an �rest or estate in the land by virtue of a residential tenancy have been filed ." :. CHAIRMAN: Explai n. The Honour able Attorney -General. . MERCIER: Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment to Clause 5(1 )(

f) was dealt with in the sentation by Mr. Calof. The amendNent to Clause 5(1 )(

f) is being revised so that the consent � caveat who are claiming under a lease of a unit will not be required. There was an extensive 1lanation of that in the brief that was presented to us the other evening . . CHAIRMAN:

Section 4 as amended - pass.

Section 5- pass; 5(j)- pass; 5- pass.

Section 6, 1 Ho nourable Mem ber for Pem bina . . ORCHARD: I move that ·sect ion 6 of Bill 6 be struck out and the following

Section be ·stituted therefor: "6, Clause 5(1.1) (

b) of the Act as amended by adding thereto imme diately after 77

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 the word "occupa tion" in the 2nd line ther eof, the words "under a lease of any kind and it Wi still so an occupation on the date of the giving of the opti on." MR. CHAIRMAN: And the exp laining on it, The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Again, Mr. Chairman, these were all clearly explained the other evening in tl brief. MR. CHAISMAN:

Section 6 as amended - pass.

Section 7 -p ass.

Section 8 - is there a chan! there? The Honourable Mem ber for Pembi na. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that proposed new su bsection 5(6) of The Cond ominit Act as set out in

Section 8 of Bill 6 be amended by strikin g out the words "he may" in the i line thereof. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass as amended. -(I nterjections)- Well then 8( 1) as amended would be 1 fi rst motion, I guess. The Mem ber for Pembi na. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I say to the people who are in charge of drafting, that it is cumbers01 language, dispensing with consent, 5(6) Upon application, a judge of the court may dispense w the requirement of the consent of the person and thereupon the consent of that person is not requir for the registration of the declaration and plan where he finds (a), (b), and I don't know why y are making it more difficult for lawyers to practise law .... an

a) and a (

b) and then you he: a dispense starting a clause at the bottom ... MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the top of Page 2, struck out those words " may." MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for lnkster. MR. GREEN: I understand but if you look . . . Just follow the sections. Upon application a jud of the court may, where he finds, (

a) that a consent, etc ., etc., etc., (

b) that the encum brance, e1 and then after you've read that you come to, di spense with the requirement of the consent. Sho1 it not read as fol lows? Upon appl ication, a judge of the court may di spense with the requiremt of the consent of the person and thereupon the consent of that person is not required for 1 registration of the declaration and plan, where he finds, (a), (b) ... Do it the way you like. cumbersome language. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you repeat it to us? The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Look at 5(6) in the bill.

" Upon application, a judge of the court may" and n I'm suggesting you say,"d ispense with the requirement of the consent of the person and thereu� the consent of that person is not required for the registration of the declaration and plan wht he finds, (

a) that a consent of any person is unreasonably withheld; or (

b) that the encum brance, interest or estate, as etc. Now if you don't agree that that's better, then leave it the way it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Attorney -General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, we'll review it further before third read ing. MR. GREEN: I say that the Attorney-General should bring it in in either form that he thinks more acceptable, I don't care. To me it reads a lot easier the second way. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 5 Su bsection 6(a)-pass; (b)- pass as amended ; 5-pass. Sect 8-pass. The Honour able Member for Pembin a. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6 be amended by addi ng thereto, imm edia tely a1

Section 8 thereof, the following sections: Clause 6 (1) (

d) repealed. 8.1 Clause 6( 1) (

d) of the Ac repealed. Su bsection 6(2) repealed and substituting 8.2, subsection 6(2) of the Act is repealed � the following subsection is substituted ther efor: 78

"App roval of Plan. Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 6(2) a plan and any amending plan shall not be registered unless: (

a) lt contai ns", rather than contained, "lt contains the certificate of a land surveyor certifying that he was present at and personally superintended the survey represented by the plan or amen ding Jlan and that the survey and the plan or amen di ng plan are correct, and (

b) lt has been approved by the Examiner of Su rveys." III R. CHAIRMAN: 8. 1- pass; 8.2- pass; then 6.2(

a) and "contains" is changed from the word 'contai ned ", and (b)- pass; 6- pass; 6(7)- the Honourable Memb er for Pem bina. III R. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that proposed new subsection 6(7) of Th; Condom inium ll.ct as set out in

Section 9 of Bill 6 be amended (

a) by st riking out the words "all the", substituting ther efor the words "one or more" , and (

b) by ad ding thereto at the end thereof the words "in respect of the building." III R. CHAIRNAN: Oh yes, we've got a new

Section 9, so that will pass. Then 6, subsection (5)-pa ss; ) subsection (6)- pass; Now 6(7) as amended , (a)- pass and (b)- pass. 9 as amended- pass; )ection 10- pass - the Hono urable Mem ber for Pembi na. lnR. ORCMARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6 be amended by adding ther eto imdia tely after )ection 9 ther eof the following sections: Su bsection 8(7. 1) added. 9.1

Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding ther eto im media tely after Su bsection (7) thereof he following subsection: "E ncumbrance" defined for subsection (8) and (9). 8(7.1) subsections (8) and (9),"encum brance" means an encu mbrance as defined in

Section 1 •ut ex cluding a mor tgage registered against all the units and common interests. Subs ection 8 (8) repealed and substituted 9.2, subsection 8(8) of the Act is repealed and the following subsection is substituted herefor: Discharge 8(8) any unit and common interest may be di scharged from an encu mbr ance by payment to 'le claimant of a portion of the sum claim deteined by the proportion allocated to that unit in the leclaration of the contributions to the common expenses. NR. CHAIRSAN: Okay, Su bsection 8, subsection 7. 1 9. 1- pass; 8(7. 1) - pass; 8(8) 9.2-pa ss; 8.8 ubsection (B)-pa ss; 8 subsection 7. 1- pass; 9- pass;

Section 10- pass; (a)- pass; (b)- pass; ;)-pa ss; 9(4)- pass; 10- pass; Subs ection 17 (1) 1 1 -p ass; 17 (1) - pass; 11 -p ass;

Section 2- pass;

Section 17. 1(1.1 )- pass; 12-p ass; Su bsection 17 (2) 13 -p ass - the Ho nourable 1em ber for Pembina. IR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 13 of Bill 6 be struck out and the following sctions substituted therefor: Su bsection 17 (2) amended 13 Subs ection 17 (2) of the Act is amended (

a) by ad ding thereto, imm edia tely after the word "tr ustees" in the thir d line thereof, the words if any, or as may be otherwis e"; (

b) by striking out the words "if any" in the fourth lin e thereof; and (

c) by stri king out the word and figures "section 19 " in the fifth line ther eof and substituting 1erefor the words and figures "sections 19 and 20". IR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for lnkster. IR. GREEN: 17 (2) of the Act is amended by addin g ther eto, immed iateiy after the word "trustees" the thir d line thereof. Now, I'm looking at what I think is 17 (2), which is 13; is that right? 13 : the bill, 17 (2) of the Act, and I don't find any word "trustees" in the th ird line thereof. Maybe n in the wrong place. I'm looking at 13 , which is 17 (2) of the Act.

And it says, "by adding thereto, 1m ed iately after the word 'trustees' in the thir d lin e thereof" . Now, I'm looking at what I think the thir d line thereof, and it says, "Words and figu res

Section 19 and 20" . R. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Attorney -General. 79

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment will amend 17 (2), as it exists now in the Act, anc "trustees" - I'm looking at

Section 17 (2) of the Act now, as it MR. GREEN: I see; I don't have the Act; I only have the bill. MR. MERCIER: Yes. MR. GREEN: So what happens to . . . MR. MERCIER:

Section 13 in the bill will be struck out. MR. GREEN: Okay; I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 13 (a)- pass; (b)- pass; (c)- pass; 13- pass; 14- pass; 17 Su bsection 2.1-p ass 14- pass;

Section 15 (a)- pass; 15-p ass - the Ho nourable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6 be amended by adding thereto immed iately afte

Section ·1 5 thereof the following section: Su bsection 19 (1) amended 15.1 Su bsection 19 (1) of the Act is amended (

a) by striking out the words "and common elements" in the first line ther eof and substitutinc therefor the words "or the common elements or both ;" and ' (

b) by adding thereto, im med iately after the word "uni ts" in the fourth line thereof, the word� "other than bare land units and im provements there on.': MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Su bsection 19 (1) as amended 15 . 1( a)- pass; (b)- pass; 15 .1- pass 16 - pass; 17 - the Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the proposed clause 20(3) (b. 1) of of The Condomini urr Act as set out in

Section 17 of Bill 6 be amended by striking out the word "pertinent" in the fourtt lin e thereof and substituting therefor the word "appurtenant". MR. CHAIRMAN: it's already in the copy we have here. Oh, 4, yes. 17 as amended (b. 1) -p ass 17 -p ass; 18 - the Ho nourable Member for Pem bina. 18- pass; 19 (b. 1) - the Honourable Membe1 for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the proposed clause 22(3) (b. 1) of The Condominiurr Act as set out in

Section 19 of Bill 6 be amended by striking out the word "pertinent" in the fourtt lin e thereof and substituting ther efor the word "appur tenant". MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 19 as amended (b. 1) as amended - pass; 19- pass;

Section 20 - thE Ho nourable Member for Pem bina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 20 of Bill 6 be amended by adding thereto at the end thereof, the words "b ut

Section 7 is retroactive and shall be deemed to have been ir force on, from and after September 1, 19 76." MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairperson, I' d like to ask the Attorney-General why he would want to makE this legislation retroactive. "Section 7 is retroactive and shall be deemed to have been in forcE on, from and after September 1, 19 76." What's his rationale for that? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney -General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this relates to the original enactment of the Act and it goes bac� to the amendment in

Section 7 of the bill and the amendment we made in that case. The writter explanation that we have is that it was the common practice to register a declaration, pardon me it was the repeal of the existing subsection 5. 1(

d) be made retroactive to the date of enactmen to cover the situation where the statement that "the Condominium Corporation was the asigneE of all leases" was put in the Declaration sim ply to comply with the statute and the leases havE not been reassigned to the owner of the units who is collecting the rent. 80

Law Amendments Monday, June 11 , 1979 Again,. there is· a detailed explanation. lt was contained in the brief on behalf of the Manitoba

section of the Bar Association with respect to this item. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Yes, I mean, cou ld the Attorney -General, who is asking us to app rove something retroactively - and I apprecia te that there was a brief - but I didn't kno w all of the items of the brief were dealt with. Could you give us a for instance how thi s is a problem, for whom, and 1ow it affects somebody?

I gather that what has happened, is that in the original Act, there must 1ave been some flaw, which happens, and that if you don't correct it retroactively, that there will Je a period between 1976 and 19 79 that the flaw will still be there and it will be corrected as Jf now. Just tell us what is the flaw that we are correc ting. III R. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney -General. III R. MERCIER: Mr .

Chairman, the more detailed explanation of the Bar Association ind icated that leclarations registered after September 1s t, 19 76 and prior to the enactment of Bill 6, must contain 1 statement that the Corporation is the assignee of the lessor in respect of all leases of any kind >f the land that is a subject of the Declaration or any portion thereof and in effect on the date >f registra tion. In view of the deletion of subsection 5(1.1) (

d) which the comm ittee is in comple te tgreement with, the comm ittee recommends that the bill provide for the automatic deletion from 111 declarations registered dur ing the aforesaid period of the statement referrred to concerning tssignment of leases. IIR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster. IIR. GREEN: it's not a defect in the Act that's being corrected. Yo u'r e saying that people may 10t have filed a declaration as between 19 76 and 19 79 and you're relieving them of the res ponsibil ity 1f filing them, it appears. �R.

MERCIER: lt was my under standi ng that it was a bit of a flaw in that the Con dominium :orporation couldn't be the assignee of the leases and the declarations have been basically drawn �is way ever since and this corrects the situation. �R. CHAIRMAN:

Section 20 - The Ho nourable Memb er for Transcona. �R. PARASIUK: I have some questions after this. IR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 20 as amended- pass; Pream ble- pass; Title- pass; Bill be reported. he Honourable Mem ber for Transcona. IR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairman, when I commented on the bill in second reading, I raised the roblem of senior citizens, or older people, being dispossessed from the apartments that they were iing in because they have difficulty getting mortgages from the financial institutions, if they are xty or over.

And if someone buys an apartment and gets consent from 50 percent or more of 1e tenants to convert that apartment into a cond ominium, then that person can do so and proceed > try and sell off the units as quickly as possible. Senior citizens who have lived there for a number f years, find that they cannot get the financing to buy that unit and in a sense they become ispo ssessed from that apartment and may have difficulty finding other accommo dation. I brought thi s to the Mi nister's attention and I asked him if he would consider bringing in an nendment which would prevent that.

I pointed out that some corporations presently are doing 1at, the notable one being Daon Corporation, which is a very large land development house building ·operty management company. And they have as a matter of policy, the pol icy that they will not spossess elderly people. 1 think this is a hardship; this has been a hardship elsewhere. The Min ister has said he would ok into it seriously, and I would like to ask him why he didn't see fit to bring in an amendment ' that effect. R. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney -General. R. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, after second read ing, wrote to the Manitoba Association Senior Citizens, with respect to the matter that was raised by the Member for Transcona; that 81

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 was on April 25th. I have not yet received any reply from them. I also wrote to the President c the Mor tgage Loans Association of Manitoba. They wrote back to me ind icating that - and th President wrote back to me - ind icating as far as we can ascertain, mortgage lending practic does not inv olve age as a criteria, ther efore any suggestion that a senior citizen has had difficult in obt aining a mor tgage loan because of his age wou ld apparently not be correct.

I also had referred to him the policy that the Member for Transcona wrote about, whereby a elderly person or a couple may continue to rent an apartment due to any event that they cannc obtain a mor tgage. He has ind icated that a number of companies in the indus try follow this polic in attempting to assist senior citizen tenants and attempting to match them up with accommo datio that is available on the market. But he did ind icate firstly, Mr .

Chairman, that age was not a criteri1 so the basic premise of the argument of the Memb er for Transcona was not substantiated an my other di fficulty was that I did not receive a reply from the Association for Senior Citizens. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: He received a reply from the Mor tgage Association saying that age isn't a criteri� yet the ind ication is that companies do in fact follow a policy of trying to provide coQtinued tenanc for elderly people who cannot get mortgages. So it seems the. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR.

MERCIER: Well, I apologize if the member wasn't finished, Mr. Chairman. I migh t ind icat in many cases it's not the fact that senior citizens cannot qualify for a mortgage, but just at the stage in their life many of them - this is an opinio n -. that many in that age group don't war to get involv ed in the process of buying again; they want to rent and to continue to rent. And that' why many of the companies in the indus try follow the policy that the Member for Transcona referre' to. MR. PARASIUK: Wel l, I'm going to contact Daon Corporation myself and find out why they'v developed that policy.

My understandi ng was that there are instances when, because the futur income of a retired couple is di fficult to predict in terms of the disposable inc ome taking into accour inflation, that there has been a hesitancy on the part of mortgage companies to provide mortgage for senior citizens, even though the y say that age isn't a factor.

What they are taking into accoun is the future earning power of a senior citizen or a retired couple and they feel that the earnin' power won't be sufficient to warrant a mor tgage and those people find the mselves being move' out of an apartment that they assume that since they have been able to keep up the rent for fiv' or ten years, they surely should be able to keep up the payments. Unle ss of course, what take place in the conversion process, is that someone buys an apartment unit for say somet hing in th' order of $20,000, gets conversion approval from the tenants, and then puts the price up t1 $30,000.00.

At that stage, the senior couple could not get mortgage financing for - or perhap couldn't afford the mortgage financing - for a $30,000 unit, when they were able a month or tw' months before, to provide rent which was sufficient to pay off the amortization cost of a $20,001 mortgage.

That may be the problem; I will be checking with Daon Corporation for the specifics, and I thinl that it will be a problem for seniors. it's been a problem experienced in other provinces wher' the conversions of existing apartments into con dominiums especially places like Ontario, has bee1 much more prevalent than it is in Manitoba. That's just a process which seems to be starting ir Manitoba. it's probably been taking place over the last year-and-a-half, and I would expect tha the Mi nister will find problems of this sort in the future. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill be reported - Pass. Bill No. 7,

An Act to Amend the Jury Act.Are then any amendments for this? No; okay. BILL NO. 7 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE JURY ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: 1

Section 1- pass;

Section 2- pass (Sections 1 to 13 were reac section- by-section and passed) Title- pass; Pream ble-pa ss. Bill be reported. BILL NO. 13 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIG HWAY TRAFFIC ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 13,

An Act to amend The Hig hway Traffic Act. Are there any amendment for this bill? Okay, I have the amendments. (Sections 1 to 7 were read clause-by-clause and passed 82

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979

Section 8. Su bsection 41(1) (a)- pass - the Honourable Member for St. Vital. III R. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Mi nister, or whoever is speaking for the 111 ini ster on this, whether this is a new requirement or is it a matter of goin g metric on tread jepths. III R. MERCIER: Clause (1) ? III R. WALDING: 41(1) , pneumatic rubber tires. I'IR. MERCIER: Which one? IIR. CHAIRMAN: 8 and then 41(1) . IIR. MERCIER: Which section? IIR. WALDING: Su bsection 8 of the bill. �R. MERCIER: 8. IR. CHAIRMAN: On Page 2 of the bill. •R. MERCIER: The explanation, Mr.

Chairman, that I have from the Min ister is that a mini mum ·ead depth of 1.6 milli metres for ti res on mopeds or motor cycles is not reasonable and exceeds 1e federal standard for tread wear ind icators requir ed on such tir es. The amendment would bring ur standard in line with federal tire standards. IR. WALDING: I'd like to ask the Min ister whether there is a requirement in the Act at the moment >r tread depths, and is it in millim etres or is it in inches. IR. MERCIER: lt is presently in milli metres. The existing section, Mr.

Chairman, requir es all wheels of motor vehicles and trailers . . . 1t lquir es tires to have at least 1.6 milli metres of tread rem aining. This distinguishes between the 10 peds and motorcycles and other motor vehicles. IR. WALDING: Does the department feel that .8 of a milli metre, which is almost paper-thin, is Jfficient for some mo to rcycles which could be more powerful than cars and could certainly do mi lar speeds and carry considerable weight. They're not comparable to mopeds in any way. R.

MERCIER: As I have ind icated, the Mini ster advises that these sizes would bring the widths line with the federal tire standards. The present requirement of 1. 6 millim etres is not reasonable 1d exceeds the federal standard for mopeds or motorcycles. R. CHAIRMAN: 41(1) (a)- pass; (b)-pa ss; 41(1)-p ass;

Section 8- pass;

Section 9(a)-pa ss; )- pass; (c)-pa ss; 9- pass;

Section 10 - the Member for Rhin eland. R. BROWN: Mr . Chairman, I move that

Section 10 of Bill 13 be struck out and the following 'ction substituted ther efor: Su bsection 72(3. 1) amended Clause 10 Su bsection 72( 3. 1) of the Act as enacted by

Chapter 22 of the Statutes of Manitoba, 1 78 is amended (

a) by adding thereto imm edia tely after the word "mun icipality" in the fourth li ne ther eof, the >rds and figure "or in the case of The City of Winn ipeg in accordance with su bsection (1.1) ;" 1d (

b) by adding thereto immed iately after the word "mun icipality" in the fifth line thereof, the words >r the City" . �- CHAIAN:

Section 10 as amended - pass; 72 subsection (3. 1) (a)- -pa ss; (b)- pass; -p ass. (Sections 11 to 17 were read section-b y-section and passed) Sect ion 18 (a)- pass; 1- pass; (c)- pass - the Honour able Member for Rhin eland. �- BROWN: I move that clause 18 (

c) of Bill 13 be amended by ad din g thereto imm edia tely after 83

Law Amendments Monday, June 11 , 1979 the word "in" in the first line thereof the words and figure "the second lin e of ". MR. CHAIRMAN: (

c) as amended - pass; 18- pass. (Sections 19 to 28 were read section-by-sectiol and passed) Sect ion 29 - the Ho nourable Member for Rhi neland . MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 29 of Bill 13 be struck out and the followin<

section be substituted therefor:

Section 306 amended. 29

Section 306 of the Act is amended by adding thereto imme diately after the word "car" wher it appears (

a) twice in the sixth lin e of subsection (1) thereof; (

b) in the eighth line of subsection (1) thereof; (

c) in the second line of subsection (2) ther eof; and (

d) in the first and sixth li nes of su bsection (3) thereof; in each case, the words "truck or mo to rcycle". MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 306 of the Act, as amended, 29(a)- pass; (b)- pass; (c)- P.ass; (d)- pasl 29- pass; 30- pass; 31- pass. Pream ble- pass; Title- pass; Bill be Reported -p ass. BILL NO. 17 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC PRINTING ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 17,

An Act to amend The Public Printing Act. Are there amendmen1 for this bill? A MEMBER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wel l, it doe sn't come down until 11. There is only one amendment, 11 (2), s we can start on the bill. (Sections 1 to 5 were read section- by-section and passed) Sectio 11 (1 )-pa ss; 11 (2) - the Ho nourable Memb er for Rhineland . MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the propo sed clause 11 (2)(

c) of The Public Printing A( as set out in

section 6 of Bill 17 be amended by addin g thereto, at the end thereof, the wore "or an officer of the assembly desig nated by the Board of Internal Economy Comm issioners fc the purposes of this section". MR. CHAIRMAN: 11 (2)(a)- pass; (b)- pass; (

c) as amended- pass; (2)- -p ass; 11 -p as 6- pass. (The remainder of Bill 17 was read section-b y-section and passed) Title- pas

Preamble- pass; Bill be Reported - pass. BILL NO. 25 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN TISSUE ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Are ther e any amendments for this bill? None. 1- pass - the Honourab Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, isn 't there a typographical error in the first line? lt should t "H uman", not "Mu man". MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, shall we corr ect that? Do I have leave from the Comm ittee to correct th; error? (Agreed) (Bill 25 was read section-by-sektion and passed) Pream ble- pass; Title- pass; 8 be Reported - pass. BILL NO. 27 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LIQUOR CONTROL ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there amendments for this? There are, okay. Bill No. 27,

an Act to Amer The Liquor Con trol Act. (Sections 1 to 4 of Bill 27 were read and passed .) 5 - the Ho nourab Memb er for Rhi neland. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 5 of Bill 27 be struck out and the following sectic substituted therefor:

Section 71 as amended. Clause 5,

Section 71 of the Act is amended by striking out the words "not exceed ing one qua of spirits, one quart of wine and two gallons of beer" in the second and thir d li nes of Clause ( 84

hereof. III R. WALDING: Ex plain. Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 III R. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney -General. JIR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, the present

section 71 (

b) provides that any person may have, keep tnd consume as provided herein liquo r that he has on any one occasion brought or caused to ,e brought into the province from a place outside the province and (

b) that he has legally purchased ,r acquired in any part of Canada other than Manitoba. We would be stri king out the balance of hat

section which reads "no t exceed ing one quart of spirits, one quart of wine and two gallons 1f beer". �R. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. tR. WALDING: Mr . Chairman, I'm not clear on the intent of the change that the Mi nister is reposing from the amendment in the bill. IR. MERCIER: Well, the effect, Mr . Chairman, is to remove the limi tation on the amount of liquor 1at a person may purchase outside the province of Manitoba and bring into Manitoba for his or er own personal use. IR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, it was my under standing that that is what

Section 5 of Bill 27 said r intended to say. Now is that not the case? IR. MERCIER: lt has the same effect, really. The di fficulty with the wording before was that it :>uld have conflicted with

Section 16 7 of the Act, where it refers to really unlawful possessi on of cohol purchased from various lic ensed vendors. This will have the same effect. it's just really a !wording of it, a dif ferent approach to it, so that it doesn't conflict with another

section of the et. The intent is to change the law so that again, as I say, a person may purchase liquor outside ' Manitoba and bring it back into Manitoba for his or her personal use. R. WALDING: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there was a problem in this secti on, that it would !em to inter fere with interprovincial trade and that that was a subject where the federal government 1d jurisdiction and that it claimed that a province didn't have the right to restrict interprovincial ade or movement. I want to just ask the Mi nister if he can confirm that this affects the international xder as well as the interprovincial border. R. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, (

a) and (

c) of this

section still remain and they're the ones that fer to the kind and quantity of li quor that a person may be permitted to impo rt into Canada td there's reference to the duty that must be paid under federal legislation. This amendment does >t affect the amounts of alcohol that may be im ported from the Uni ted States into Manitoba. R. WALDING: Just to confirm then, it has to do with an indi vidual imp orting spirits from tskatchewan or Ontario. �- MERCIER: lnterprovincially. :1.

WALDING: Can I just ask the Min ister to confirm that this applies only to indi viduals and is for liquor for their own consumption. lt would not, for instance, include any retail outlet from rchasing beer from out of province. �- MERCIER: No, there are other prohi bitions in the Act that would prohibi t liq uor to be brought for anything other than personal use. �- CHAIRMAN: Okay,

Section 71 as amended 5 -pa ss. (Section 6 to 18 of Bill 27 were read 1use by clause and passed.)

Section 19 (i)- pass - the Honourable Member for Rhineland. t. BROWN: 1 would like to move that the proposed subclause 13 3 (1) (e)(

i) of The Liquor Control t as set out in

Section 19 of Bill 27 be amended by striking out the figures 1: 00 in the first � thereof and substituting ther efor the figu res 2:00. 85

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hono urable Attorney -General. MR. MERCIER: I'll just look up the particular section, but I would think there's been an error i that probably the premis es can remain open till 2: 00 o'clock in the morning rather than 1: 00 o'cloc in the morning. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Can the minis ter tell us which premises he's referring to that may stay open un1 2: 00. MR. MERCIER: As soon as we get the Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Rhin eland. MR. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, it was pointed out to me that I read that proposed subclause 13 which should have been 13 3( 1 )(e)(i). I would like to correct that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We don't have The Liquor Act here? Have any of the memb ers got Th Liquor Act in their possess ion? MR. WALDING: Can the min ister tell us what Clause 13 3 presently says in regard to the 1: 00 o'c loc closing. Is it 1: 00 o'clock now in the Act, and the minis ter is allowing them an extra hour? MR. MERCIER: it's 2:00 o'clock now. MR. WALDING: lt is 2. MR. MERCIER: it's 2:0 0 o'clock. MR.

WALDING: This merely confirms the time that is presently in the . section, is that righti MR. MERCIER: Yes. MR. WALDING: Okay, pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: So that's 19 (

i) as amended - pass; 19-p ass; 20-pa ss; 13 3(4)- pas: 13 3(5)(a)- pass; (b)- pass; 13 3(5)- pass. Is there amendments in 16 and 17? A MEMBER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. Can we have leave to back to 16 and 17, I'm sorry. The Honour able Memb E for Rhin eland. MR. BROWN: Mr . Chairman, I move that the proposed Su bsection 12 5(2) of The Liquor Contn Act as set out in

Section 16 of Bill 27, be amended by adding ther eto im med iately after the war "cabaret" in the third line thereof, the word "and". MR. CHAIAN: Okay, by leave then, that's 12 5. We passed 2(a)(

b) now that'll be 12 5(2) � amended - pass. The Hono urable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: I'm just trying to follow the amendment, and find the word "cabaret" in th MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we have another one, 12 5(2)(3). The Honourable Memb er for Rhin elan1 by leave. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the propo sed Su bsection 12 5.2 (3) of The Liquor Contn Act as set out in

Section 17 of Bill 27 be amended by stri king out the words '' The size of eac bottle and the purchase price of each item" in the fourth and fifth li nes ther eof and substitutin therefor the words "And the size and purchase price of each xottle of liquo r." 86

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: · Any questions on that amendment? The Honourable Attorney -General. VIR. MERCIER: Provi ding the price is right. Grammatical change, Mr. Chairman. VIR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. As amended with leave -p ass - the Honourable Member for St. vital. VIR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a matter of grammar, it's replacing as 1 read t, the word "i tem" with "b ottle of liquor". W'IR. MERCIER: I'm not sure what the member's concern is about . it's intended to be a grammatical :hange, to correct it.

The size of each bottle ... yes, instead of "item" you have "b ottle" . Because t's clear, it will require the holder of this new form of licence to displa y the price list, showing he size and purchase price of each bottle of li quor. Well, if you like the lic encee to show the purchase •rice, I suppose it would be showing the kinds of liquor that may be purch ased on the premises, he size of each bottle and the purchase price of each item. Does the member want it to refer D the fishing tackle and fish ing hooks, I suppose, that they may have for sale? �R.

WALDING: Wel l, I suppose if the Commission approved that price list, that would be required, •Ut I notice that it's required to be approved by the Comm issi on. IR. MERCIER: Here we're concerned only with the purch ase, the price lis t of the bottles. IR. WALDING: Wel l, I understand about the changes, Mr . Chairman. lt seems so insignif icant I •onder why the min ister would want to make it the subject of an amendment, that's all. IR. CHAIRMAN: Bi ll1 25-2(3) with leave as amended - pass. Now

Section 21 -pa ss; 22- pass; 3- pass; 16 5(3 1)- pass; 23- pass; Subs ection 16 6(4) as amended; 24(a)- pass; (b)- pass; 4- pass; 25(a)- pass; 25(b)- pass; 25- pass; 16 6- pass; 26- pass; 27- pass - the Ho nourable lember for Rhineland. R. BROWN: I move that Bill 27 be amended by adding thereto immedia tely after ... Oh, I'm my, I'm a little ahead of you. R. CHAIRMAN: So that's

Section 27- pass; 27 (191) -p ass; 27- pass; 19 2 (1) - pass; 192- pass; 12( 1 )- pass; 28- pass; 19 0(29)- pass; 30- pass - the Ho nourable Memb er for Rhi neland. R. BROWN: 1 move that Bill 27 be amended by adding ther eto immedia tely after

Section 30 ereof, the following section: Su bsection 19 3(2) repealed and substituted. 3. 1, Su bsection 19 3(2) the Act is repealed and the following subsection is substituted therefor by corporations; 19 3(2) :very corporation that offe nds against any provision in a

section set forth in Su bsection (1) and bject to the same exce ption, is guil ty of an offense and shall on

summary conviction be ntenced (

a) in the case of a first offense to a fine of not more than $1 ,000 and (

b) in the case of a second or a subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $2,000 ." :t. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? The Honourable Member for St. Vital . :t. WALDING: Si nce we don't have 19 3(2) in front of us, perhaps the Mini ster would tell us what now provides for and what the proposed change is. t MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it's an increase in penalty. The existing

Section 19 3( 1) in

Section of the bill refers to every person not being a corpora tion, so the effect of this is to now add � penalty provisions for corporations. 1t was just overlooked. Does that answer the question? I. WALDING: No, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't tell me what the present penalties are and ... 1. MERCIER: Existing penalties are to fine not more than $300 for the first offense, to a fine not less than $300 or more than $500 for the second offense, to a fine of not less than $500 the third offense or for any offense subsequent to the third. This incr eases the maximum fines a case of a first offense from $300 to $1 ,000 and for second and thir d offenses from $300 or lO to a maximum of $2,000.00. 87

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I understand that

Section 30, having to do with 19 3 (1) increas the penalties quite substantially for ind ividuals and also tidi es up a matter of a mandatory or jail sentence for lack of abili ty to pay. I'd like the Mi nister to tell us whether 19 3(2) is being increas by the same proportion and does he see anything odd that here we have corporations w pre sumably have a much larger abili ty to pay are subject to the same fines as an individual. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, the mem ber raises a good point, that it appears to have be overlooked in the review of the penalty provisions.

I would be prepared to review that further pri to introduction for thir d reading, and bring forward a minimum fine penalty, particularly with respe to second offenses. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be a better idea, we're going to be back here, you do need the Act tonight, would n't it be better - rather than bringing in a report on thir d readir to come back next time, put this bill aside and the Attorney-General can look a,t it. MR. MERCIER: it would make it much easier to do, rather than an amendment at thir d readi is a little bit more compl icated. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the

section .i s headed "P enalty for breech of sunc

section s". When I looked into this, it was pointed out to me that there are more major sectia and more major breeches of the Act where the penalties are more substantial. I'd like to ask t Mi nister, if he doesn't know now he can perhaps look into it, whether thi s 19 3(2) is also referri to breeches of sundry sections, and whether there is a group of other offenses under the Act whi perhaps carry more dr astic penalties for corporations. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Attorney-General. tt04 MR . ME RCIER: Mr.

Chairman, we'll review that particular matter and bring that informati back when we deal with this Act again. We'll go through the rest of it and leave that sectio MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we leave then the

section - that sect ion - we'll proceed with Secti 31- pass;

Section 214 , subsection (2)-pa ss;

Section 32 - pass;

Section 33- pass, and we'll he the bill. BILL NO. 45 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 45, the Teachers' Pensions Act. Are there any amend ments for this At If not, Section (1)-p ass; 32. 1 subsection (1) (a)-p ass; (b)- pass; (1) - pass; 32. 1 -pa ss; subsecti (2)- pass; subsection (3)- pass; (4)-pass; (5)- pass; (6)- pass; Title- pass;

Preamble- pass; I be Reported. BILL NO' 46 - THE CIVIL SER VICE SUPERANNUA TION ACT AMENDED MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 46, The Civil Service Superannuation Act. Are there any amendme to this bill? If not, we shall proceed page by page. Page 1- pass; Page 2- pass; Title-pa Pream ble-pa ss; Bill be Reported. No. 30,

an Act to Amend the Child Welfare Act. -(I nterjection Oh, I'm sorry. We do have No. 50. BILL NO. 50 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TELEPHONE ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 50,

An Act to Amend the Manitoba Telephone ACCT. Page by pa Page 1-p ass;

Preamble- pass; Title- pass; Bill be Reported. Bill No. 30,

An Act to Amend · Child Welfare Act. Are there any amendments to this . . . ? The Honour able Attorney-Gener� MR. MERCIER: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we skipped over the Child Welfare Act until the E and dealt with the remainder of the bills which I don't think are in any way contentious. If th1 agreeable? (Agreed .) 88

BILL NO. 36 Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 THE REAL EST ATE BROKERS ACT AMENDED �R. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 36,

an Act to Amend the Real Estate Brokers Act. Page 1- pass; 'itle- pass; Pream ble-pa ss; Bill be Reported. BILL NO. 38 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TRUSTEE ACT IR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 38,

an Act to Amend The . Page 1- pass; Page 2- pass; Page 3- pass; reamble- pass; Title- pass; Bill be Reported. BILL NO. 47 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT IR. CHAIRMAN: (Bill No. 47 was read page by page and passed .)

Preamble -p ass; Title -pa ss; ill be report ed - pass. BILL NO. 48 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT IR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1 - pass; Page 2 -p ass - the Honourable Member for Logan. R. JENKINS: Page 2, Mr. Chairman, on Clause 5, the repeal of thi s sect ion deal ing with appeals , the Minis ter. In di scussion of this bill at second read ing we oppo sed this clause and we still >pose it and mainly on the grounds, Mr .

Chairman, that we feel that the Commission the way is set up now and the Min ister had said in Comm ittee that he would agree to permannent >pointme nts to the Civil Service Commission, which hasn't come about as yet, and we feel with e result that the Commission at the present time is under a clo ud, and as a resu lt, Mr. Chairman, � are not prepared to support Clauses 5 and 6 under those cir cumstances. R. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Mi nister of Labour. R. MacMASTER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think that the deletion of the appeal to the political person 'ing the Mini ster, is advantageous in the eyesight of the emplo yees. it's advantageous in the esight of the Civi l Service Comm issi on, and as the political person being referred to myself, I lieve that it's advantageous that it be deleted and that reference do not be made, and that the peal to the political person being the Minister, that that should be deleted. I think it restores >re merit, cred ibili ty, whatever term you want to use to the Civil Service itself, where that's the d of the line and that's where it should be.

I know that the Manitoba Government Emplo yees' sociation are qui te anxious to have that particular

Section repealed. t. JENKINS: Mr.

Chairman, what the Min ister is saying may have some merit but based on the rformance of the government and the fact that the Civil Service Commission is under suspicion this time, and I threw out a suggestion to the Mini ster dur ing his estimates that if he really wants make some changes to the Civil Service Commissi on, I really think he and the Treasury Bench >uld really take a look at the Civi l Service Act and the Commission and the way it is set up, :ause under the circums tances the Mi nister has had now at least about a month in which to ke those appointments to the Commission that are of a tempo rary nature of a permanent nature, j nothing has been forthc oming.

And so under the cir cumstances I feel that the Commission >perating under a cloud of suspicion and so the appeal mechanism, especially since this deals h people, who are not covered by the coll ective agreement. For those who are under thecol lective eement who are covered by MGE A, they are covered under the colle ctive agreement. These people who are not covered by the coll ective agreement.

Therefore I think until the government ms up its act as far as the appointments to people on the Civil Service Commission, therefore are not prepared to support the amendments as proposed by the government at thi s time . . MacMASTER: My understanding of the debate dur ing the estima tes was this, in fact it's stantiated in Hansard. There's no suspicions, there's no di scredit given in any way to the racter of the people who sit on the Civil Service Commission.

The debate by the Member for an was of method - methology in which we chose to appoint those people, but not the character :he cred ibility or the abili ty itself of those particular people to perform, and I would suggest taking the political end of it out of it, in this particular case the Mini ster of Labour out of s a great advantage to the people who may be using that particular section. JENKINS: I just want to make it clear, I'm not saying that the people who are on the 89

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 I said that the suspicion that is cast upon those people and I think if you will check Hansard the suspicion that was cast upon those people was cast upon them by the government who appointee them to temporary, and the Mi nister has had sufficient time, I think, in which to make thosE appointments permanent.

I would also suggest to the Mi nister that he take cogn izance of the fact too, that I suggestec a dif ferent method of appointing the members to the Commission - that we use the method tha we use for appointing the ombudsman, that I think that that would make the Civil Service Commissior actually apolitical or beyond the realm of political suscep tibi lity or suspicion whatsoever regardles: of who appoints them.

If they are appointed by the Legislature or legislative com mittee, made u1 of all parties in the House, I think it would be to the credit of the government and to the credi of the Civil Service Comm issi on. As it operates at the present time the Min ister has had sufficien time and I think that he should be forthco ming with those permanent appointme nts and until sucl time we are not prepared to go along with the amendments as they are. MR. CHAIRMAN: ection 5, 13 (8) -p ass? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 10; nays 6. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion carried. 13 (8) -p ass;

Section 5 -p ass. I (The remainde of Bill 48 was read

section by

section and passed .)

Preamble -p ass; Title -p ass; Bill be repartee BILL NO. 51-AN ACT TO AMEND THE COUNTY COURTS ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: (Bill No. 51 was read page by page and passed.)

Preamble- pass; Title-pa s� Bill be reported -pa ss. BILL NO. 55 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: 55,

an Act to Amend the Insur ance Act, and we have an amendment to Sectio 208, so 1, subsection (40)- pass; 1.- pass;

Section 208- 1( 2) - I gue ss it's 2 that's amended, isn it? -(I nterjection)- Oh yes, 1. The Ho nourable Mem ber for Rhineland. Oh, sub 2. The Honourabl Memb er for Rhi neland. 208. 1(1) (a)- pass; (b)-pa ss; 1.- pass. 20 8.1 subsect ion (2). The Hono urabl Mem ber for Rhi neland. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that proposed new subsection 20 8. 1( 2) in the Insur ance Ac as set out in

Section 2 of Bill 55 be struck out and the following subsection be substituted therefo " Liability of group insur er on term inatio n". 20 8. 1(2) "Where a contract of group insu rance or benefit provision therein is terminated, the insurer continues as though the contract or bene1 provision had remained in full force and effect, to be lia ble to or in respect of any group persc insur ed under the contract, to pay benefits thereunder relating to (

a) loss of income because of disab ili ty; or (

b) death; or (

c) di smemberment; or (

d) accidental damage to natural teet h; arising from an accident or a sickness that occurred before the termination of the contract c benefit provision. If the disabili ty, death, di smemberment or accidental damage to natural teeth reported to the insurer within the prescribed time peri od". MR. CHAIRMAN: 208. 1 (2)(

a) as amended- pass (The remainder of Bill 55 with amendments was read

section by Title- pass; Pream ble- pass; Bill be Reported. BILL NO. 56 - THE FAMILY MAINTENANCE ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: The Family Mai ntenance Act, Bill No. 56. Are there amendments? Bill No. 5

Section 26( 1) , subsection (1) -p ass - the Hono urable Mem ber for Rhi neland. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 56 be amended by addin g thereto immed iately aft

Section 1 ther eof the following section:

Section 31 as amended 1.1,

Section 31 of the Act as Amended 90

Law Amendments Monday, June 11, 1979 (

a) by renumbering the present subsection (2) as subsection (3) thereof; (

b) by striking out the word and figures "Su bsection (1) " in the first line of Su bsection (3) ther eof • renum bered and substituting ther efor the words "this sectio n"; and (

c) by adding thereto immed iately after subsection (1) thereof, the following subsection: Appointment of receiver without formal application. 31( 2) Where a person is before court for any purpose under this Act xut other than pursuant an application under subsection (1) , the court, is satisfied that the person is in default in respect an order or interim order for payment made under this Act, may there and then and 1twithstandi ng the requir ement for an application under subsection (1) appoint the receiver for 10m provision is made in that su bsection. -(In terjection)- R. CHAIRMAN: No, no.

Yes we should have. 26 (1) we did pass, and then when the amendment me in -(I nterjection)- Oh, 26(2), I'm sorry. 26(3) and (4)- pass; now 26, Section (1) -p ass - 3 Honour able Attorne y-General. -(I nterjection)- =1. WALDING: lt says in the amendment that it's

Section 31 that's being amended. Bill 56 doesn't 'er to

Section 31. -(Int erjection)- lt would surely come under

Section 2, would it not? �- CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Attorney -General. �- MERCIER : In the right order, Mr. Chairman? 26 (1) , (2), (3), (4) su bsection 31. That should correct. t CHAIRMAN: Okay. After 26. And that is

Section 1, is it? That should be correct. The 'nourable Attorney -General. t MERCIER: Are you satisfied that the

section is in the right order? With respect to the 1endment itself, Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this matter further with the existing enforcement �tion it was felt that it would be a sim ple process to insert this

section to allow the court to :>oint a receiver without the need of a formal application, that it will im prove the process, if neone is before the court on a Show Cause hearing, the court will under this

section have the hority to appoint a receiver without going through another separate application for same. We )ected that we will avoid delays, and will be used in situations where a person is in default. I. CHAIRMAN:

Section 31 as amended, 1.1 (a)- pass; (b)- pass; (c)- pass; 1.1 -pa ss; (2)- pass; 1 subsection . 1. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr . Chairman, you have to pass the amendment that you have e, the appointment of the receiver without formal application, because you don't have it within present Act that you're amending here. . CHAIRMAN: 31. . . . ? JENKINS: No, 31( 2). CHAIRMAN: 31.1 (2)- pass; 31.1 (2)(a)- pass; (b)- pass - the Honourable Meer for neland . . BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move THAT proposed clause 31.1 (2)(

b) of The Family Maintenance Act as set out in

section 2 of Bill be struck out and the following clause substituted therefor: [b ) "order" means, as the case may require, (

i) an order or interim order for payment made under this Act

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-3-la3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 3rd hansardpdf la3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6328bd42c3b4d07c31d420872fc77aa69fa0db97

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