Manitoba Hansard — 14 June 1995 (Sitting 17A, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-17a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No.17A -1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 14, 1995

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Party N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

1605 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 14, 1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon.

Vic Toews (Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling the Supplementary Estimates for the Civil Service Commission. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill16-The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister ofNatural Resources (Mr. Driedger), that leave be given to introduce Bill16, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modi:fiant la

Loi sur le Code de la route, and that the same now be received and read for a first time. Motion agreed to. *

(1335) Bill17- The City ofWinnipeg Amendment Act

(2) Bon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that leave be given to introduce Biil 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill18- The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act Bon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that leave be given to introduce Bill 18, The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'habitation et de renovation, and that the same be received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, could I ask for leave to please revert to tablings, so that I may table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Energy and Mines?

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines have leave? [agreed] Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have with us this afternoon forty-five Grade 5 students from Margaret Park School under the direction of Mrs. Diane Minaker. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

1606 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 We also have thirty-seven Grade 5 students from Strathmillan School under the direction of Mrs. Barb Lucier and Mrs. Leslie Wright. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). We also have eighteen Grades 7 to 9 students from Duck Bay School under the direction of Valarie Gibouche. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). We also have forty Grade 9 students from Ken Seaford Junior High School under the direction of Mr. Rick Kraychuk and Mr.

Gerry De-Dennis. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets Operating Losses Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. On June 27, 1994, the government indicated that they would be forwarding some $5.37 million to cover the operating losses for the privately owned hockey team in the province. Today we have been informed that the losses for the hockey team will be close to $13.5 million.

This is in spite of the fact, Madam Speaker, that the hockey team was in a lockout situation and did not play 40 to 50 percent of the season. I would like to ask the Premier, could he confirm the loss number in terms of the hockey team for the present hockey season year? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, I cannot, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, one would think that if one was developing a so-called long-term plan for the existing proposal, one would know what the existing losses would be. *

(1340) Endowment Fund Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that in Hansar d, in the Estimates that we have just completed for the Premier, on June 1, 1995, the Premier indicated that $60 million would be placed in a so-called endowment fund.

I would like to ask the Premier, given the 40 percent increases in expenses of the hockey team in a strike and lockout year, $10 million of which is on the salary line of this hockey team, how long does the Premier budget that this endowment fund will last with losses that could be projected over $20 million in the next season? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the reason I could not confirm the figure that was being speculated by the Leader of the Opposition was that their year end has not yet been reached.

It is June 30, and all of the numbers and figures that go into the preparation of that or the arriving at that number obviously are not yet available to anyone. With respect to the second question, Madam Speaker, clearly, the group who is acquiring ownership of the team is not projecting $20-million annual losses or they would not be going into this venture on that basis. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I asked the Premier, because he indicated a $60-million endowment fund would cover the losses of the team in the future.

Madam Speaker, we have a situation where the projected losses that have been reported to City Hall are above the projected losses that were announced in the government's own press release last year in June. We have a situation where these losses, these 40 percent increases in expenses on the salary line, took place in a strike and lockout year.

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1607 I would like to ask the Premier to table the so-called business plan, if they have one, that deals with the projected losses and the endowment fund of $60 million. Will two-thirds of that endowment fund be spent before the new projected arena is even open, Madam Speaker? Mr. Filmon: No, that is not anticipated, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, I would like the Premier to table the so-called business plan, and, of course, we have been asking for the government to be open with the people of Manitoba for a long time, and it would certainly help today if he would start doing that. Charitable Status Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a new question for the First Minister. In the Premier's Estimates, on June 1, 1995, the Premier indicated that he was opposed to a charitable status being arrived at by Revenue Canada. He repeated that answer in the Legislature on June 12. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson) has indicated that that amount of money could cost the provincial taxpayers, on top of the arena money, up to $9 million at minimum. I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that one of the conditions of MEC is the so-called charity status from Revenue Canada, what conditions has the Premier placed back on MEC on his condition that no charitable status would be given? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the decision as to whether or not any type of tax treatment is granted to any portion of the investments in the Spirit ofManitoba Inc. or MEC is the sole prerogative of the government of Canada. I have repeatedly said that, as has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to the Leader of the Opposition. He ought not to indicate to anyone that it is our decision. It is not. Mr.

Doer: It is the sole decision of the government to go from a $10-million commitment to a $37-million commitment on the arena It is the sole commitment of this Premier to place the shares into this new entity. Has the Premier placed any conditions on the $37 million or the share conditions? Has he made any of those investments of the public taxpayers conditional upon this management group not obtaining a Revenue Canada decision to deprive the Manitoba taxpayers of another $9 million? In other words, is he putting conditions forward on our money in these negotiations? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, we cannot stop the federal government from making a tax ruling. * (1 345) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, given the Premier is opposed to a charitable status for Revenue Canada-can you imagine? We will have Hartley Richardson as a charity today, Peter Pocklington as a charity tomorrow, and God knows who else the next day. I mean, this is not free enterprise.

Given the fact the Premier is opposed to this condition, will he state that our $37 million and our other shares that we are putting into this team is conditional upon this management group not applying for a Revenue Canada status to be a charity here in the province of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: I cannot believe that this opposition party will go to any lengths to prevent the Winnipeg Jets from staying in Manitoba They are absolutely incredible, absolutely incredible, that they would go to any lengths.

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of New Democrats just drips from his voice, when you consider that colleagues of his in the Pawley government went out of their way to obtain opportunities for tax shelters over and over again, milking the taxpayers of Manitoba and Canada time and time again.

1608 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 Point of Order Mr. Doer: Yes, Madam Speaker, the Premier is the same as all members in this Chamber, and when the Speaker stands, which you have done for the last 10 sentences of the Premier, the Premier is required to sit down. Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the Leader of the official opposition, indeed, the Leader did have a point of order.

The Speaker, indeed, was on her feet to address continuous disruption, what appeared to be disruption in the proceedings, and I would request the co operation of all members in adhering to the rules of the House. *** Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker- Mr. Filmon: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I was not finished- Some Honourable Members: Sit down; sit down. Point of Order Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, with respect, I was attempting to finish my response, when I was interrupted by the rude disruption on the other side.

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, indeed, was interrupted by myself when I ruled on the point of order. The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response. *** Mr. Filmon: I just want to point out the extreme hypocrisy of New Democrats whose members continuously utilize tax shelters, not only for their own purposes, but they set up Manitoba Properties Inc. as a tax shelter to allow wealthy Manitobans to be able to abuse the tax system both in Manitoba and Canada. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I would once again remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words most carefully. * (1 350) St. Boniface General Hospital Staffing Reduction Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, today St. Boniface Hospital announced the cutting of another 22 positions due to government funding cuts. This is in addition to several hundred cuts in November, '92, 141 in April '93, and the elimination of all the LPNs from the hospital. Of course, we always hear the same phrase-patient care will not be affected by this.

My question to the minister: Can the minister explain how this action will reduce surgical waiting lists, since we will see the loss of a further additional nine surgical beds? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, these are not my words but the words of Mr. Jack Litvack from St. Boniface Hospital, those being that the closure of these beds will not impact the quality of care provided to the patients or the surgical caseload performed at St. Boniface General Hospital.

Honourable members opposite, I recall many references to the advent of not-for-admission surgery and day surgery in our hospitals in Manitoba, and that is exactly what St. Boniface Hospital is referencing, as well. You know, last summ er, it was announced that there would be a total of 403 position-deletion notices at the two teaching hospitals. This is now June and the number oflayoffs, Madam Speaker, has been two, and they have been voluntary layoffs. Mr.

Chomiak: How does the minister explain what this action will do to reduce waiting lists for surgery, since tomorrow, the government's election waiting list reduction program ends at all of the hospitals?

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1609 Mr. McCrae: I can only refer the honourable member to the announcement made by Mr. Litvack of St. Boniface General Hospital, Madam Speaker, and the point is that not-for-admission surgery, day surgery, has replaced a lot of the inpatient stays that have characterized the past in our acute-care sector.

The shift to newer and less intrusive technologies in dealing with operative procedures, as well as other restructuring efforts on the part of the staff at these hospitals, Madam Speaker, have contributed greatly to better patient care and have also contributed to a more efficient operation of our hospitals. Health Care System Community-Based Services Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister is, where are all the positions that are supposed to be created in the community to replace all of these closures and all of these job losses, particularly when one considers that this year the budget for Home Care workers is down $1.8 million. Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): I am glad the honourable member raises these questions, because it gives us an opportunity to remind the House and to remind the people of Manitoba of the hundreds and hundreds of new personal care home beds opened in Manitoba in the last seven years, the hundreds and hundreds of jobs that have been opened by virtue of that. In the last five years alone, we have added some 750 people to the rolls of those who provide service under our Home Care program.

We are pleased again to reannounce today, since the honourable member asked, the advent of nurse resource centres in places like St. Vital, Thompson, Manitoba-! know the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would be interested in this-at a soon-to-be disclosed location in the Norman region and another soon-to-be-disclosed location in the Parkland region of Manitoba.

All of those initiatives provide a more appropriate type of health care and health delivery system in our province and very fortunately, too, put many, many health care professionals to work in our province. * (1 355) Canadian Wheat Board Monopoly Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, farmers in western Canada spoke out very clearly last fall when they voted for the Wheat Board Advisory Committee, stating that they wanted the monopoly of the Wheat Board to be maintained. However, leaked reports from the Canadian-U.S.

International Joint Commission on Grains indicate that one of their recommendations will recommend opening up the Wheat Board to the marketplace. This is a very serious concern for farmers and farm organizations, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture how he feels, if he is as concerned as farmers about this recommendation. Bon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I regret I missed the first part of the question. I wonder if I could ask her to repeat it, please. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, to quickly repeat the question. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation made by the Canadian-U.S. International Joint Commission on Grains indicating that they recommend the opening of the Wheat Board to the marketplace. This is a concern to farmers, and I want to ask the minister if he is concerned about-if this recommendation is implemented, what the impacts will be on farmers. Mr. Eons: My impression is that the Wheat Board was always very much in the marketplace, not only in this country but in the United States, but, quite frankly, doing an admirable job in places like Brazil and Algeria and China and in Russia.

1610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 Regarding the reference to the commission that the honourable member for Swan River speaks of, my best information is that the full contents of that report have yet to be made public. They are reporting to their respective governments, and I am awaiting the publication of those comments. They have not crossed my desk yet. Ms.

Wowchuk: Since this recommendation will result in the monopoly of the Wheat Board being destroyed and will have a devastating effect on farmers, I want to ask the minister what action he is prepared to take to ensure that these recommendations do not become a reality and that the monopoly of the Wheat Board is retained. Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I regret that the honourable member from the opposition-and, regrettably, it reflects the ongoing view of the New Democratic Party, the official opposition in this House, but the issue surely is not of a hang-up on words like monopoly or indeed even single-selling desks.

The issue is what opportunities do our Manitoba farmers have in marketing their products in the best possible way with the best possible returns to themselves for the maintenance of economic farm units and for the general well-being of the economics of this province. So, Madam Speaker, these are issues that face the Wheat Board. I have a great deal of confidence in terms of how the Wheat Board has reacted in the past to some of these challenges, and I suggest that they will be doing some very innovative things in the future. Ms.

Wowchuk: Will the minister state clearly today that he supports the Wheat Board as it is, that it has monopoly over the sale of wheat, and will he state that he supports farmers, because this is what farmers want. They want the monopoly to be retained for the Wheat Board on- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Swan River that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble or a postamble. Mr. Enos: Madam Speaker, on a matter that is, indeed, extremely serious, Manitoba grain producers face an unprecedented increase in their costs; that is, the movement of grain into export position, brought about by the Liberal government in Ottawa, I might say. Canada's longest-standing support program for agriculture is coming to an end this August 1, 1995, a $700-million support program known as the Crow.

Now, Madam Speaker, what the Canadian Wheat Board will have to react to and what Manitoba grain producers will react to is to seek out and search out those markets that best maintain their viability. I can tell you that the most attractive market is the one that is closest to us, namely the American market, and that is going to be an issue that the Canadian Wheat Board will have to deal with. Where do I stand? Whom do I support? I support the farmers whom I have the privilege of representing. *

(1400) Clean Environment Commission BFI Landfill Site Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the City of Winnipeg has made it abundantly clear for a long period of time now to the province that it has many serious concerns over the proposed BFI landfill site in the R.M. of Rosser. Environmental issues, governance issues and financial issues are all of concern.

I would like to ask the Minister of Environment today if there are Clean Environment Commission hearings scheduled to deal with the specific issue of the BFI landfill site, and if there are, will he table the terms of reference for those Clean Environment Commission hearings? Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): The answer is yes, and I will. Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, will the Clean Environment Commission hearings include concerns

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1611 that the proposed landfill site in Rosser was rejected by the city 20 years ago because it sits on a major aquifer whose potable water supply would be seriously jeopardized by such a landfill located in that location? Mr. Cummings: Any of those environmental concerns-and certainly if what the member says is correct, that would be a concern-will be carefully examined in any hearings held by the Clean Environment Commission. Ms.

Barrett: Madam Speaker, will the minister-since I do not have the terms of reference of the Clean Environment Commission hearings-ensure that, should the Clean Environment Commission hearings not deal specifically with the BFI landfill site, he will request and require a further Clean Environment Commission set of hearings to deal specifically with the BFI landfill site? Mr.

Cummings: Madam Speaker, in discussions with the city, which became public about two to three months ago, I stated very clearly and publicly in response to the city's concerns and to BFI's concerns that we would be structuring a process that will allow for, first of all, some preheating input regarding the debate about whether or not the city should have a monopoly over waste within its boundaries, whether or not the capital region is appropriately served, and even areas beyond the capital region, whether or not they have appropriate and reasonably costed availability of landfills.

We must not forget that there are a lot of jurisdictions outside the city of Winnipeg which, in fact, are, because of environmental regulation, actively searc hing for additional sites. Madam Speaker, I would also add that, once that information has been put together, there will be Clean Environment Commission hearings on the specific site. Post-Secondary Education Funding Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, this week, the Faculty ofEngineering at the University of Manitoba acknowledged that they might be the first to cut an entire program due to funding reductions.

The end of the geological engineering program at the University of Manitoba comes because this government underfunds post-secondary education. The recently released '93-94 report to Parliament on federal and provincial support to post-secondary education offers us an opportunity to compare Manitoba's commitment to post-secondary education funding with other Canadian provinces. The report shows that Manitoba spends less per person on post secondary education than every other province in Canada except Saskatchewan. Madam Speaker� Order, please. Will the honourable member please pose his question now. Mr.

Kowalski: Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Given this government has repeatedly acknowledged that in today's economy, education is the most important engine of economic growth, how does the Premier justify funding post-secondary education well below the national average? Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh). Mr.

Kowalski: Madam Speaker, once again to the Premier, will he consider this, in light of today's announcement and given that a highly credible report indicates that had we done in '93-94 what other provinces have done, we would have had additional spending of$18 million to post-secondary education? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand how a question like that could come from a member of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, a Liberal Party that stood up and said they supported all of the cuts to post-secondary education and universities in this country that are going to take place under the federal Martin budget, that are going to devastate universities right across Canada, including those in Manitoba, huge cuts to those universities, and he and his Leader stood up and said that it was fair.

1612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 I cannot believe he has the audacity to now talk about lack of funding for universities. It is unbelievable. Mr. Kowalski: Madam Speaker, is the Premier aware that when EPF funding is factored out, the portion remaining, which is the provincial contribution, has declined by $10 million between '92 and '94? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I am aware that the federal government is proposing significant and major cuts to funding for post-secondary education in this country and in Manitoba in the future.

I would urge the member for The Maples to set aside his partisan interests and join us in demanding that Ottawa reverse those cuts and in urging Ottawa to put more money into post-secondary education in this province. Winnipeg Arena Pan Am Games Funding Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I have raised before in the House concerns about the Pan Am Games advancing $5 million towards the new arena I would like to ask the Minister for Sport or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to confirm if the Pan Am Games will be advancing $5 million towards this new agreement for the new arena. Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, there is no new arena being constructed at the moment. Until some time that an agreement is reached between private sector owners and the Winnipeg Jets and a whole host of other major issues are resolved, one will not be constructed. But that aside, the Pan American Games Society indicated to, I believe, the MEC people that in the event they proceed with this arran gement, they would have $5 million available from:

a) about half of that money will not need to be spent on the existing Winnipeg Arena to provide the upgrades necessary for the Pan Am Games; and

b) the other half, approximately, of the money would not be needed for the University of Manitoba fieldhouse because they would not need to construct 7,500 seats; they could do with about 3,500. So those two sums of money would then be available from their Capital fund to contribute to a new arena. Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, does the government know if the plans for the Pan Am Games include requirement for use of both the former or existing arena, as well as a new arena sited at The Forks? Can the government confirm if that is the case? Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I cannot. Future Status Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government if they can confirm if the new proposal for the new arena includes a provision to eliminate the old arena or eliminate competing interests for the use of the old arena. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, a similar question has been asked before, I believe from the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). Those kinds of discussions will be taking place with Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation, who are curr ently the landlords, so to speak, for the current Winnipeg Arena and the football stadium and so on.

The City of Winnipeg has representation on that board, and they will be looking at all alternatives in terms of future uses of that facility, if a new entertainment complex is, in fact, built here in Winnipeg, Madam Speaker. * (1 410) AIDS Prevention Strategy Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health. At a major conference on AIDS held in Winnipeg last week, a new study found that death from AIDS in Canada costs so much in lost productivity, that only heart disease and motor vehicle accidents take a higher toll.

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1613 Last summ er, the Krever inquiry made clear that this government's record with regard to people living with HIV AIDS over the past seven years has been almost nonexistent, and despite a series of meetings, Manitoba remains one of two provinces in Canada without an AIDS strategy, while an increasing number of Manitobans get sick and die.

My question to the Minister of Health is, given that Manitoba data indicates that if the annual increase in infective individuals continues at the current pace, the number of infected individuals will double in the next five to 10 years with each death representing a more than- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain the honourable member for Osborne has a question. Ms. McGifford: What possible justification can the government have for taking so long to implement a comprehensive AIDS strategy? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Bealth): Madam Speaker, the very, very lengthy

preamble to the honourable member's question contains some very important information and a very serious situation to be dealt with, and that is why it is important to deal with it seriously. We are doing that through our consultations with care providers and victims of this disease, as well as other people who have expertise in this area through our round-table process, which will lead to the development of our second five-year AIDS strategy for Manitoba. Ms.

McGifford: Will the minister reconcile his government's cuts to AIDS services in Manitoba, especially since studies show that Canadians are willing to pay for prevention programs which save lives by gradually changing attitudes and behaviour? Mr. McCrae: One of our partners in education in this area and in assistance to AIDS victims is the Village Clinic, Madam Speaker. When the federal government pulled out of the funding of that particular institution, our government came along to fill in the blanks, and I do not call that cuts in spending. Ms.

McGifford: Given the major AIDS conference in Winnipeg last week juxtaposed to the government's passion for an arena and its equivocation on an AIDS strategy, will the minister explain the distance between public posturing and actual accomplishments regarding an HIV strategy? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, foolish rhetoric will not solve the problems or get the job done. Working together will. Water Management Responsibility Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

As the minister certainly appreciates, this year's record flooding has had repercussions on many regions of Manitoba. Southwestern Manitoba, western Manitoba north of Brandon and the Interlake, particularly the Lake St. Martin area, have all been hard-hit. The flooding of the Saskatchewan River may mean that communities such as The Pas will also be affected. Events of this year further emphasize the importance of water management in this province. Can the minister explain to this House, who is directly responsible for carrying out water management activities in the regions of Manitoba? Bon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Nat ural Resources is responsible for water resources. Regional Managers Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Just to clarify then, how is this enforcement of The Water Resources Administration Act carried out without managers in each of the regions? Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): I cannot quite follow the question, but I want to tell the member that we have five regions in the province, regional offices, and we have directors in

1614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June l4 , 1995 those regional offices. They basically are the people who administrate all the categories in the various regions, whether it be water resources, whether it be parks, forestry or commercial fishing. Mr. Struthers: Can the minister explain what the rationale is for having regional managers for branches such as Forestry and Wildlife but not for Water Resources? Mr.

Driedger: Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to my Estimates, where possibly we can go through the structure of the department in a little bit more detail because, obviously, the member did not catch that my regional directors in the five different regions are the ones who, basically, administrate Water Resources, Forestry, Fisheries, et cetera. I am prepared to go through that in more detail and give an outline of exactly how the department is formed when we get into Estimates. Provincial Road No. 320 Maintenance/Upgrading Mr.

Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways. As the minister is aware, there are numerous provincial roads in Manitoba in poor condition due to the lack of proper maintenance over the last six years. Provincial Road No. 320 which is a river road north of Selkirk was in such poor shape last month, that the school bus would not go down part of the road for nearly two weeks. My question for the minister: Is the minister now prepared to order his department to put enough gravel on Road 320, so that residents and tourists can travel this important road? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the government of Manitoba spends about $50 million a year on road maintenance across this province. The member must realize-the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) just raised the issue of excess water in various regions of the province-there was a wet summer last year, particularly in the North. The department has responded to weather-related problems on roads all over the province as best they can.

You cannot immediately put gravel on a road that is too soft to drive on, but the department responds within a reasonable time to improve their driving conditions for all Manitobans on all roads. Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. What is the timetable then for grading repairs and gravel work being done on this road? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome that member to come to Estimates, and we will go through all that fine detail that the department used.

Yes, they have a guideline that they use for various roads relative to the amount of traffic, relative to the road condition, and that all exists and will be discussed in the departmental Estimates. Northern Manitoba Economic Development Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, earlier today I, along with many members of our caucus, went to the meeting of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. One of the main concerns was in terms of economic development, particularly amongst northern chiefs representing their communities.

Since it is now two years since the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission released its report which called for action within three months, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission report when we will see action on the very specific recommendations of the report, beginning, for example, with the need to improve northern infrastructure through improved sewer and water and increased attention to northern roads.

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1615 Bon. Darren Pramik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thompson for that question. As the member is aware, he spent some time at the meeting which we sponsored in Thompson last winter to bring together the various political groupings of political leadership to try to forge some organization that could work as a co-ordinating body in the province.

That grouping of MKO, the urban industrial communities and NACC is still in the process of trying to put together a working arran gement that they will be comfort able with to advance many of these issues. I think that is a first step. With respect to many of the specifics, I am sure in Estimates we can get into many of the projects that this government has taken on over the last seven to eight years in improving the economic opportunities in northern Manitoba Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary: When will the Minister of Northern Affairs respond to the clear concern for northerners expressed at the very conference he referenced that the provincial government itself should act on the many recommendations that are solely within its jurisdiction, including such things as sewer, water and northern roads? When is the provincial government going to act? Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, I can tell the honourable member he should be aware that across northern Manitoba over the last number of years, in terms of the Northern Affairs' budget for northern communities, we have been building, year by year, water and sewer projects. I reference Brochet being a community that has received a water project for the first time in its history, that for 20, 30 years did not have it while others have had it, the bringing of hydro to Herb Lake, the host of other projects that we have done.

I would not for one moment want to leave upon the record the image that the member paints of nothing having been done. There has been a lot done in nort hern Manitoba over the last number of years, and we will continue to work year by year, budget by budget, at improving infrastructure throug hout northern Manitoba. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister is, when will this minister stop serving up this same tired rhetoric to northern Manitobans and bring in direct action, not the kinds of cuts we have seen from this government to such areas as northern highways and other important areas? When are we going to see action on the recommendations of the $1.3-million Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission report? Mr. Pramik: Madam Speaker, the member talks about rhetoric. Ask the people of Brochet about rhetoric.

They had it from the member and his colleagues for how many years, and it was this government that brought water to the people of Brochet. It was this government that supported the people of Flin Flon with the revitalization of the smelter, and I can go on and on and on. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bill 2 for second reading, followed by Bill 3 in second reading. SECOND READINGS Bill 2- The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Bon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings), that Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur l'equilibre budgetaire, le remboursement de Ia dette et Ia protection des contribuables et apportant des

1616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 modifications correlatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here today and speak to one of the most important pieces of legislation which has been put before this House in recent times. The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection Act is of historic importance, because it will help us to preserve all the vital services government provides, from health care and education to highway maintenance and parks.

It will enhance Manitoba's economic prospects and the opportunities available to our youth, and it will ensure that government remains affordable to the taxpayers of our fine province. Madam Speaker, this sounds like a lot to expect from one act. The fact, however, is that Manitoba's $7 billion of general purpose debt is a serious threat to our public services today and our prosperity tomorrow. The massive interest payments on the debt drive a large wedge between the amount of taxes which our citizens pay and the quantity of services that they receive.

If the debt is allowed to increase continually, that wedge will get even larger. In other words, taxes will have to go up while services will have to be restricted. People will pay more and get less. A continually rising debt burden would seriously impair our economic future. As is well understood, high taxes tend to choke off economic growth. At the same time, high public debt service costs waste resources that could be better invested in health care, education and infrastructure, thereby limiting the contribution which such investment makes to economic growth.

Finally, rising interest payments represent a large outflow of purchasing power from our economy, since a large part of the debt is necessarily held by investors outside of Manitoba. This year, Manitobans have to pay $648 million in interest payments on the general purpose debt-$648 million. Imagine for a moment that the debt had not been allowed to grow out of control in the early '80s. Imagine that the debt had been held at $1 billion and that the interest payments today were only $90 million annually, as they were back at the beginning of the 1980s.

Manitobans could be receiving the same level of services but with a tax burden that would be lower by almost $560 million. This saving would be equivalent to having a retail sales tax rate of 1.8 percent instead of 7 percent, or it would be equal to a 43 percent reduction in the average Manitoba personal income tax bill. With a much lower debt load the province would also be much less vulnerable to unexpected increases and interest rates. Such increases have been experienced several times in recent years, and they introduce an extra element of instability into government fmances.

Madam Speaker, they are also very costly. With a very small or a zero net debt, we would be virtually impervious to the effects of higher interest rates, and this would make the services government provides much more secure. Thus, this legislation has three goals: To balance the budget and thereby· stop the debt and debt-service payments from growing, to put in place a plan to pay down the debt, and to hold the line on the major taxes.

However, the underlying objective is to put an end to unproductive expenditure on interest payments so that Manitobans can receive the public services that they expect with a reduced tax burden and thereby enhance the province's overall economic prospects. Put much more simply, the purpose of this legislation is to secure our future. By legislating penalties for a failure to balance the budget, minimum requirement payments against the debt and a requirement that major tax increases be approved by the voters, the taxpayers have greater assurance that their governments will always be fiscally responsible.

As well, legislation is naturally more visible to the public than are policies adopted by decisions of cabinet alone. We believe that broad, public knowledge of our plans will generate broader understanding of and support for debt reduction and taxpayer protection. This

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1617 understanding and support will make it even more likely that future governments of this province will always be fiscally responsible. Madam Speaker, honourable members will recall we introdu ced Budget Paper A in the March budget to explain the reasons for introducing the legislation, how it will function and comparing it to legislation in other provinces. Honourable members may fmd it useful to revisit this budget paper. Without going into as much detail, I would like to summ arize the key features of this bill.

The bill has three main divisions concerning respectively a balanced budget requirement, debt repayment and taxpayer protection. Under the balanced budget requirement the government must ensure each year that spending is no greater than revenue. This requirement comes with several important provisions. Firstly, expenditure is defined to include both current and capital spending. In many United States states with balanced budget requirements only current spending needs to be balanced with revenue.

Including both current and capital ensures that the government cannot circumvent the intent of the legislation by redefming certain items to be capital expenditure. As well, the government must not incur a deficit. In some United States states the government must submit a balanced budget plan but does not contravene the law if it actually runs a deficit. The key in Manitoba is results not intentions. *

(1430) Another issue is exceptions to the balanced budget requirement are strictly limited to war, disaster and a one-year drop in revenues of 5 percent or more. To put this last exception in perspective I would point out that there has been only one instance in memory of a revenue decline of that magnitude, and the decline was precisely 5 percent. That occurred in 1992-93. Also, Madam Speaker, if a deficit is incurred and none of the three allowable exceptions apply, all members of cabinet will pay a penalty equal to 20 percent of their ministerial compensation.

There must be an offsetting surplus in the following year. If a deficit is incurred for a second consecutive year, the penalty doubles to 40 percent. Also, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund plays an important role in this legislation by providing flexibility to deal with unexpected fluctuations in revenue or necessary expenditure and still achieve a balanced budget. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance must endeavour to maintain the fund at a level equal to 5 percent of annual expenditures. Also, changes in accounting policy cannot be used to subvert the intent of this legislation.

I want to touch on debt repayment for a moment. The balanced budget provisions ensure that the debt will stop growing. The debt retirement provision set out a plan to retire the existing debt over a 30-year period. In principle we could simply require that a certain amount of the debt be repaid every year. In practice that might not be possible. Most of our debt is in the form of bonds which have a fixed maturity date. The province generally does not have the right to redeem bonds prior to maturity, and there may be years, especially as the debt gets smaller, when no bond issues will come due.

It might therefore be impossible to retire debt in those years. To avoid these kinds of problems the bill establishes a debt retirement fund. A minimum amount of money must be paid into the fund every year. At least once every five years all of the money in the fund must be applied to pay down the debt. The annual payment into the debt retirement fund will be $75 million plus a share of the interest cost savings achieved as debt issues are retired. This share is set at 7 percent of all amounts which have been paid out of the fund to retire debt.

For example, if $75 million is paid into the debt retirement fund each year for five years and is invested to earn interest at 8.5 percent, then $444 million will be available to apply against the debt at the end of the five-year period. This would reduce annual debt service costs by about $40 million.

16 18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14 , 1995 Starting in year six the annual transfer to the fund would increase by 7 percent of $444 million or $31 million, which is less than the amount of interest being saved. Thus the amount which is paid against the debt will increase over time, but the actual burden of making debt retirement payments once the savings in debt service costs are factored in will not exceed the initial $75 million per year. If the annual payment were held to just $75 million, it would take 83 years to pay off the debt.

With the additional payments included, it takes just 30 years, Madam Speaker. This legislation also specifies how budget surpluses are to be applied. If the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is not at its target level, any surplus must be used to bring the Stabilization Fund up to its target level. If the Stabilization Fund is at its target level, surpluses are either transferred into the debt retirement fund or left on the books as a surplus, which reduces short-term cash management borrowing requirements. Either way the effect is to reduce the province's net debt.

Our hope is to use such surpluses to retire our debt in less than 30 years. I would like to conclude my discussion of the debt retirement provisions by emphasizing that they are entirely realistic and achievable. All that is required is that we make no new additions to the debt by keeping the budget in balance and that we make an annual transfer of $75 million into the debt retirement fund. All of the rest of the money for paying down the debt is obtained from interest cost savings as the outstanding debt declines.

The power of compound interest contributed to the rapid growth of the debt, but it will also contribute to its rapid decline as well, Madam Speaker. With regard to taxpayer protection, the taxpayer protection provisions prevent increases in income tax, sales tax and payroll tax rates unless the taxpayers give their approval in a referendum. In effect, the legislation extends the freeze on major tax rates that Manitobans have enjoyed since 19 87. The bill provides some flexibility to adjust tax rates without increasing the overall tax burden.

For example, the federal government could reduce transfers to the provinces but offer compensation in the form of increased tax room. This means that Ottawa would reduce its income tax rates and allow provinces to increase nominal tax rates to accept the federal room with no net increase in the amount of tax paid by taxpayers. This bill provides sufficient flexibility to accept such tax transfers. In addition, revenue-neutral rebalancing of Manitoba taxes is permitted.

For example, the corporate income tax rate could be increased if the payroll tax were decreased and the government obtained no extra revenue from the change. This exception recognizes that there may be reasons to alter the mix of taxes over time. Madam Speaker, I have described the main provisions of this bill. In addition, the bill specifies that public hearings must be held by a standing committee of this House before any legislative proposal to amend or repeal the legislation can be passed. There must be at least one week's advance notice that hearings are to be held. The purpose of this

section is to ensure that the public is given adequate opportunity to scrutinize and comment upon such proposal. Madam Speaker, the final sections of this bill effect amendments to The Fiscal Stabilization Fund Act to establish the 5 percent target level and to permit withdrawals from the fund, as may be required during the course of a fiscal year to cushion unforeseen fluctuations in revenue or expenditure. Currently, only an amount identified in the revenue Estimates at the beginning of each fiscal year may be withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, the proposed legislation I have just described is a carefully balanced package, which will guide fiscal policy in this province for many years to come. It sets out a very rigorous requirement for annual balance between spending and revenue, but it recognizes the vagaries of government finance by providing for the continuation of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and by permitting the balanced budget requirement to be overridden in three emergency circumstances. It backs up the injunction

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1619 against deficits with financial penalties for ministers. It sets out a reasonable and achievable plan to pay down the general-purpose debt, thereby providing for a reduction in the dead-weight interest burden borne by Manitoba taxpayers. Madam Speaker, it ensures that budget balance will be continued by holding spending in line with what Manitobans can afford. It ensures that major taxes will not be increased without the express approval of the citizens of Manitoba in a referendum.

It is nothing less than a means to ensure the bright and strong future of this province. I encourage all honourable members to give it their enthusiastic support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill �The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 3, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey), The Maintenance Enforcement (V arious Acts Amendment) Act; (L oi sur I' execution des ordonnances alimentaires - modification de diverses lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I know there are a number of my colleagues who wish to speak to this piece of legislation this afternoon, so I am going to attempt to be brief in my comments.

Madam Speaker, Bill 3 has some positive elements in it and others will speak to those elements, but I would like to put on the record some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have with this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, this bill is another in a long line of examples of the provincial government abrogating leadership, and I will show why, I believe very effectively, this government has shown a lack of leadership in dealing with this very important issue. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might request that all the members who are having private meetings do so outside the Chamber.

I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Wellington. Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, there are varying degrees of effect that lack of leadership on the part of the government has had for the people of Manitoba, but in the case of Bill 3 and the issues that it purports to deal with, I think the enormous negative consequences for women and children in this province cannot be overlooked. Bill 3 does make some steps forward in requiring the payer of maintenance enforcement to actually pay the monies owed, and there are some specifics, as I stated earlier, that are positive.

However, I think there are some major negative impacts. * (1 440) Before I talk about those, I would like, however, to briefly put the maintenance enforcement issue in the context of the current situation here in Manitoba. These are statistics that are from the end of July last year, so they may have changed in some small degree since then. There were a total of almost 11,500 active cases in the Manitoba Maintenance Enforcement Program at the end of July of last year. In total, $28 million was owed to women and children in this province by men.

I used the gender because 98 percent of the payers in maintenance enforcement cases in Manitoba are men. Consequently, 98 percent of the payees in maintenance enforcement cases in Manitoba are women. I will use those statistics in that context. Where the payer, the man, lives out of province, there is $12.5 million in arrears. Where the man lives

1620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 in Manitoba and the woman lives out of province, there is $4.5 million in arrears. This is an interesting one because this deals with one element of the government not assisting to the extent that they could another department of government. Madam Speaker, $8 million is owed to Income Security by men in the province of Manitoba. What that means is that women have received maintenance orders. They have not been collected. They have not been paid.

The upshot is that the mother and children have been forced to go on social assistance, and $8 million is owed by men to women who are now on social assistance. If those men paid that money, there would be $8 million less in the accounts of social assistance payments. There are $7.7 million owing in arrears of what are called regular cases, which are that both the payer and the payee live in Manitoba. In total, at the end of June, 1994, there was $28 million owed by men to woman and children in this province. The total collected was only $16.78 million.

Maintenance Enforcement officers recovered over $2 million in income security payments owed to the province during the last fiscal year, and at a cost of just over $1 million in staffing and other program costs to the Maintenance Enforcement department. This is an area that we on this side of the House have been raising for years. It seems very strange that the government would not put the resources into the Maintenance Enfor cement department necessary to recover the money that is owed, if nothing else, in income security payments. But that has not happened.

So as we can see, Madam Speaker, the situation in the Maintenance Enforcement branch is extreme, to say the least. It is not just maintenance enforcement that is part of the problem. We all know that Manitoba is the child poverty capital of Canada, and to say something yet again, the government seems to need constantly to be reinforced on this issue. Children are poor because their parents are poor, not because they themselves are poor but because their parents are poor.

In the case of the families that are in trouble with the Maintenance Enforcement Program, in Manitoba, one- half of the families that have maintenance enforcement agreements in the province of Manitoba have a total income, that includes income from all sources, including whatever maintenance enforcement they are getting, last year of $10,000 or less per annum. These are not just individuals; these are families. So you can see how important it is that we do ever ything in our power to make the Maintenance Enforcement Program in the province truly effective.

Our position is that Bill 3 does not go nearly far enough. What has been the government's response to these statistics and to the problems that are clearly being faced by the women and children in Manitoba? We believe that their response in Bill 3 and in other areas has been too little too late. There is still too much onus put on the recipient parent, i.e., the woman, and far too little responsibility placed on the paying parent, or the man. The government has refused yet again in Bill 3 to go as far as we feel they should in requiring payment on behalf of the father.

I would like to speak only about a few of the shortcomings that we see and talk a little bit about what could be done. First, we feel that the concept of default in this legislation should be defined far more broadly than it currently is. Default should include the concept of late payments, the concept of partial payments, as well as the idea of no payment at all. Every family in Manitoba has the right to up-to-date, full payments as mandated by the courts. Women should not have to scramble to get from their ex-spouse the money that is duly owed to them.

So the default should be broadened to include partial and late payments. If we actually included partial and late payments in the concept and definition of default, the actual percentage of defaulting parents would be in the neighbourhood of 75 to 80 percent. That is an unacceptable percentage. The second thing is the system is still reliant on being reactive rather than proactive. It still requires to far too great an extent the woman to initiate actions to get what is rightfully hers and her children's. It does not reflect the actual reality that faces far too many women in this

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1621 province, the reality that they may be with a great deal of legitimacy afraid to contact their ex-spouse, fear for their own safety, fear for their children's safety. They often do not know where they are and curren tly my understanding is that it is their responsibility to find out where their ex-spouse is. It seems to us that it is the state's responsibility to ensure that women get what is owed to them and that the men pay what they are supposed to be paying. It should not be the responsibility of the woman.

We have known of cases where men have said, if you try and collect the maintenance enforcement that is due to you, I am going to take you to court, and I am going to get custody of these children and you will never see them again. Those are threats that have far too often played out in actual reality in this province and across this country. These are not idle threats, all of these reasons. Women are having the onus placed far too much on them. The third problem, Madam Speaker, is in the specifics in leading up to the drafting of Bill 3.

Our understanding is that the consul tation the government undertook before putting forth Bill 3 was not nearly broad enough nor inclusive enough. It seems that one could say this government does not understand or perhaps maybe wilfully refuses to unde rstand the true role of consultation, not just in the context of this bill but in many other pieces of legislation and actions on the part of the government. They either consult, consult in order to stall action, or they do not consult at all or they consult so narr owly that they are going to get the response that they want to get in the first place.

Madam Speaker, last fall and early winter, three members of the NDP caucus-the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) put together an NDP task force on domestic violence. With a very small percentage of the resources, both people resour ces and financial resources that the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey) has at her disposal, we went out and spoke with well over a hundred individuals and groups in the city of Winnipeg, in Brandon, in Dauphin, in Flin Flon and The Pas. * (1 450) We talked with people who provide services to women and their families. We talked to men who have on their own recognition misused the system.

We have talked to many women who have been recipients or, too often, not recipients of service by this governm ent dealing with issues more broadly than maintenance enfor cement, but one that was very clearly maintenance enforcement was one very clear message on the part of the people that we talked with, that the current situation is unt enable. There were many good ideas that came out of those consul tations, what I believe to be legitimate consultations, that are not seen and not shown in Bill 3 before us. The governmen t held what I consider to be half hearted consulta tions.

My unders tanding is that they were by invitation only and virtually no recipients of maintenance enforcement or other serv ices of the governm ent were invited to those private hearings. How can you say you have consulted when you have not talked with people who are actually participants in the system? Unfortunately, Bill 3 reflects the inadequacies of the process I have outlined.

Instead of reflecting the principle that should be the No. 1 principle in maintenance enforcement, that the costs of raising children must be considered first and foremost by the courts when awarding maintenance, and by the Maintenance Enforcement

section of government when enforcing maintenance, Bill 3, continues to perpetuate what my caucus colleague from St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has called the free market approach, whereby organizations such as the Workers Compensation Board, any trade credi tors and even banks have priority over the resources of paying parents over children. This is not progress. This is a revision of the idea that children are chattel and are possessions and that they are not the prime responsibility of both parents, both the custodial and noncustodial parent. Nothing in

1622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 Bill 3 addresses that prime principle to any adequate extent. What we need, Madam Speaker, is instead proactive legislation, such as is currently in place in Ontario and is soon to be implemented in Quebec, where there is automatic pay cheque deduction of maintenance payments. Automatic. You do not have to have defaulted, however narrowly or broadly that is defined, in order to have the amount of maintenance payments deducted from your pay cheque. It is automatic.

This has been shown to greatly cut down on maintenance arrears, with attendant cost savings to the system as a whole, incl uding the reduction and the need for families to go on social assistance, and that is to say nothing of the heightened quality of life for the custodial parents and their children when they do not have to take the first responsibility in locating their ex spouse, when that money is automatically forwarded to them, and they are not responsible for ensuring that that takes place.

We are greatly concerned that this Progressive Conservative government is beginning to go down the road, soon to be followed by the new Conservative government of Ontario. In the Ontario P.C. Common sense Revolution document, which was the platform document from the recent provincial election, Mike Harris states, and I would like to quote here: The current mandatory program of deducting child support from parents' pay cheques has created an overburdened bureaucracy that fails to help all neglected parents and children. Madam Speaker, that is not the answer to our maintenance enforcement problems.

To say that an automatic pay cheque deduction, which enables families to live in more financial security, has the result of an overburdened bureaucracy is unconscionable from our point of view. It again is another example of Conservative blaming the victim. The government's own statistics have shown that the understaffed Maintenance Enforcement division has been able to gather back more money owed by ex-spouses than is paid out in their own salaries and support costs. That more than pays for itself.

So even if you are looking only at the most narrowly defined cost-benefit analysis, adequate maintenance enforcement works. We say that the current Ontario provision of automatic pay cheque deduction would only enhance the ability of the Maintenance Enforcement division to do its job. We are also quite concerned that this mean, narrow, nasty vision of society that is being perpetrated by the new government in Ontario is going to continue to be perpetrated here. Last Thursday, the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) and other members of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative caucus stated quite delightedly that the Ontario election day should be considered freedom day. I must have heard it 15 or 20 times last Thursday and Friday. Well, if the signals in Bill 3 are to be believed, Manitoba may well have its own freedom day, not for the women and children who are owed $28 million by defaulting spouses, but for those very defaulters themselves, where they are not going to be required to pay because the provisions of Bill 3 do not go far enough.

Just one more area, Madam Speaker, that I would like to speak to that is a major area of concern. Currently, a woman appears before the deputy registrar who makes a determihation about the amount and time of payment for maintenance. She has with her, to act on her behalf, a designated officer from the Maintenance Enforcement branch. If the woman does not like any component of the award, either the amount or the periodic payment process, she can instruct the designated officer to appeal that ruling to the judge or master. Under the provisions of Bill 3, that right of appeal has been removed.

Now the complete power to decide if an appeal will be made rests with the designated officer only. If this is an accurate representation of this provision of Bill 3, it is a major change to our legal system and the rights that people have under that system. My understanding under our criminal legal system is an individual convicted of the most heinous of crimes has the inviolable right to appeal that conviction all the way to the Supreme Court if he or she so wishes.

If his or her lawyer does not agree with that decision, the individual has a right to another lawyer, but ultimately and basically any individual has the right of appeal to

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1623 the highest court in the land. Not so with the provisions of Bill 3, and I am going to use an extreme example here.

My understanding of the legal system in Canada is that Cliff ord Olson can and has appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, while a woman under Bill 3 who goes to her designated officer, saying, I do not like this provision of my maintenance agreement, has no recourse further in the system if her designated officer says, well, I am sony, ma'am, that is the best we can do; I do not think you are being short changed; I think things are just fine. She cannot go any further. Where is any semblance of natural justice here?

This is a total revision of what should be in place. · The government claims that this will simplify the system. Well, it most certainly will, Madam Speaker. It is certainly going to simplify it, but it is not going to make it just. The Star Chamber was a simple system but not a just system. To close, this bill, while it does have some positive aspects, particularly in the areas of assets and pension credits, clearly does not go fa r enough to ensure fa irness and equity bef ore the law.

It reflects the inadequacy of the consultation process and the unwillingness of the government to take a proactive, preventive leadership role. Unfortunately, the results of these fai lings will be fe lt by the very people who are currently the most vulnerable in our society. Bill 3 is a very small step and a very inadequate step in the right direction. The women and children of Manitoba deserve much more from this government. Thank you. Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill 3, the maintenance enf orcement bill, I want to begin first by acknowledging the minister's eff orts, secondly by registering my fe ar that this bill may indeed have unexpected repercussions fo r those that it most seeks to protect; thirdly, I see the bill as a start but not the place that we should fm ish; and fo urthly, it would seem to me that this bill gives the appearance of protection without indeed giving the reality of protection. *

(1500) I want to speak today both from my personal and prof essional experience. Personally, I have been a woman who tried to collect maintenance, who dealt with very creative subterfuges, or not so creative depending on your point of view, who lived with the anxiety and fe ar of not knowing if the maintenance was indeed going to be available and who lived with the humiliation of bounced cheques. My personal experience certainly gave me to believe that maintenance is, above everything, a power issue.

Prof essionally, I have worked with many women's groups and organizations especially on issues related to violence and abuse. I have counselled, spoken with, comf orted many women who were fighting maintenance decisions or trying to get maintenance or, indeed, whose maintenance was in arrears. What I want to do today is to talk about the cultural context of maintenance, to put maintenance and maintenance def ault into a cultural context. With this end in mind, I begin by mentioning something we all know, indeed something that the honourable member fo r Wellington (Ms.

Barrett) acknowledged, and that is that the overwhelming number of deadbeat parents in the province of Manitoba are, indeed, deadbeat dads. This reality will be reflected in my language. I believe that it is 98 percent of custodial parents who are women-or it is 98 percent of people who receive maintenance are women. At the same time I want to acknowledge that there are many parents, both women and men, who honour their responsibilities to provide fm ancial, emotional and educational supports to their children. Back to the cultural context.

It seems to me that the fa ilure to meet maintenance obligations can be traced back to the inequalities in our society, the inequalities that exist between, first of all, men and women and, secondly, between men and children. I think we live in a culture that has a latent assumption that women and children do not quite count. We live in a culture where one sex is more equal than the other. We live in a society where the needs of women and children are not particularly important, especially when they are weighed and measured against those of adult males or at least the perceived needs of adult males.

1624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Junel4 , 1995 I think this is really clear if we look at families after separation and divorce. Madam Speaker, 58 percent of divorced women are poorer after separation and divorce than they were before,

whereas 10 percent of men are poorer after separation or divorce. Clearly, a man who is living in poverty has more ladders out of that poverty than does a woman. Clearly, our society and our economy do not value women equally, so I say that the lack of equality is a very important issue to consider in maintenance. Secondly, I think we live in a culture in which men are not really perceived to be responsible for children, especially for the nurturing part of parenting and the day-to-day care. Women are perceived to be responsible. Both women and men are products of our culture.

Women are acknowledged culturally as the primary caregivers. In a family before separation or divorce, we often hear the phrase that my husband is babysitting or I will babysit for you, which certainly is not taking full responsibility. I contend then that we do not have a society which unequivocally believes that men must be responsible for their children. We do not have a society which tells men that having and raising children is the most solemn commitment and the most serious of responsibilities. This, I think, is one of the reasons for arrears in maintenance.

I think in our society there is still far too much of that nudge, nudge, wink, wink, he is out sowing his wild oats kind of attitude, and I think it is important for us to remember that wild oats sometimes gives birth to real live children, kids who may go on to live with their mothers in poverty, and poverty is no joke. The irresponsibility towards children that characterizes our society, I think, is apparent in the difference in attitudes or practices in car payments and maintenance payments.

I am told that 15 percent of people default on car payments, but 75 percent in one way or at one time default on maintenance payments. People do not default on car payments because they know that they cannot get away with it They defaulted on maintenance payments because there is clear evidence that they can get away from it. If you default on a car you lose it and some women's groups argue that to default on maintenance should mean a loss of access. They argue that not paying maintenance is being an abusive parent because not paying maintenance is denying children shelter, clothing, food and education.

On the other hand, men's groups might argue that no visitation rights should mean no maintenance. Inherent in this sort of argument is some evidence for the kind of irresponsibility that I have been attempting to address. I think that we need to make it clear now and forever that children are a responsibility and a privilege. Children are not a right and children are not a chattel, as the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has already told us.

Whether we see our children or do not see our children, whether we are custodial parents or noncustodial parents, or indeed whether we share custody, parents have fmancial obligations to our children. The main point is that the most important responsibility we have as social beings is to our children and the most important debt we have is to maintenance and to maintain maintenance awards. Just a related point here. I know that court-mandated access to children is not easily denied, so in those cases where an individual is denied access, there is usually some very good and serious reason for it.

I realize that there are cases when mothers deny fathers access, and I think that is a matter that could be discussed at another time. In addressing the cultural context of maintenance, what I am calling maintenance disorder, I have identified the cultural attitude that children are a women's responsibility, that women and children are not quite as valuable as men or indeed, as cars in some cases, that we still do not have a society of equality or a society of equal privilege. I think this is clear, as I have already said, in the poverty of divorced women and the poverty of the children of divorced women.

The second major point that I want to make is that maintenance default is related to the other abuses of power that affect the lives of women. Money is power. A refusal to pay maintenance is a power grab. It is a refusal to give away any power to one's children or to one's partner. It is a refusal to participate in a process

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1625 where a woman may become empowered, may be in a position to move away from the margins of society and become a full member of her society. Not to pay maintenance is to maintain control over women. A bit of a detour again. Professionals and caregivers who work with abused women know that abusers often maintain control over their partners by keeping them poor, i.e., not giving them any money, keeping them enervated with all kinds of tasks, not participating in child care, making sure they are always pregnant.

I think the cliche that I should be looking for or that I found now is keeping them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. That is, abusers frequently abnegate any responsibilities for child rearing or providing any supports. * (1510 ) Maintenance default, I would maintain, is a continuation of this abuse. It hands over the weight and the responsibility for children to the mother. It results in the mother's and the children's poverty and humiliation, probably a lif e on social assistance. Victims of this kind of abuse, that is maintenance abuse, often are multiply abused. They must often endure a series of abuse.

First of all, if they are denied maintenance they live lives of poverty, usually on welfare. In turn , they are decried by certain voices in society for being welfare moms. In the province of Manitoba it is not rare for their partners, out of sheer mean,-spiritedness, to phone the snitch line, report them. Finally, these women are often sentenced to a life which starts a cycle of poverty and violence. My task has been to outline the cultural context and to help explain maintenance default.

There are two major cultural dysfunctions, I maintain: social inequality and culturally condoned irresponsibility, first of all; secondly, the abuse of power in the relationship between women and men where money replaces the fist and becomes, I suppose you might say, the velvet fist. I am not totally convinced that we can always legislate in these matters, matters like cultural equality, an end to the abuse of power, indeed, an end to relationships based on power, an end to generations of irresponsible parents.

What needs to happen is for the world to change, but while we wait we can work for change, and legislation can help promote the kind of change. But it must be careful legislation, legislation that covers all the bases. Education is also important. In fact, I would say that education is not only important but vital and necessary. In the province of Manitoba we need concerted, intelligent, accessible, ubiquitous promotional campaigns. We need to inform women of their right to maintenance for their children.

We need to inform women, women need to know that all children have the right to child support regardless of their mother's circumstances, their mother's age, their mother's employment, their mother's habits, their mother's sexual orientation or their mother's behaviour. All children have the right to maintenance. Women need to know that. They do not know that, and I think the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) pointed out some of the fears women have about seeking maintenance.

We need a promotional campaign to push women to fight for maintenance even when their inclination is to breathe a sigh of relief and waive it because some foreboding presence has been removed from the house. We definitely need ·t o push women to fight for maintenance, and while they are fighting for maintenance we need to protect women. We need to provide whatever supports they need to feel safe in the struggle for maintenance.

As far as education for men, I think we need to encourage young men and to let them know that manhood does not consist of irresponsibility or promiscuous machismo but that manhood consists of honouring, loving and respecting the lives and rights of one's children. In summat ion, Madam Speaker, to design and implement sound maintenance enforcement requires, first of all, I think, an analysis and understanding of the misogyny and the devaluation of children which permeates our society. We need to understand just how seriously disfunctional and disempowering our culture

1626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 really is. We need educational and promotional programs. We need protection for women, we need education for men, and, of course, we need sound legislation. My more learned colleagues will address the soundness of the Minister of Justice's legislation. I want to point out the fact that we need any legislation at all is a sad commentary on the world that we live in, the fact that we do not automatically seek and take responsibility for our children.

Many women have told me that if their ex-partners had exercised even a fraction of the creativity to pay the maintenance that they exercised in evading it, we would live in a different world. I want to close with three brief maintenance stories, neither the worst nor the least offensive, but three out of many because I think that the stories of these women should be told. Woman A was told by her lawyer not to bother attempting to collect her maintenance as her legal bills would far outweigh what maintenance she could possibly receive for her child. Not encouraging, is it?

Woman B, her former husband disappeared in Alberta 15 years ago. She was able to track him down, but she has not received one cent of the more than $90,000 he owes her in child support, and she knows she never will. Yet she lives from month to month and her kids have no money for post-secondary education. Woman C, you might say, is luckier. She gets some child support, but never postdated cheques. She has to beg each month, if he is around. She does not know if the cheque will bounce or whether indeed it will clear the bank. She cannot count on anything but monthly bouts of humiliation and anxiety.

All these women agree with us that is time for change. As to the children, we say that they are our hope, our most precious resource, our greatest teachers. Yet many children in Manitoba live troubled lives, characterized by injustice, by humiliation, by poverty. Many survive only through raw courage. May we learn to do better by them. May their will to survive and their courage be rewarded. Finally, may we create for them Tommy Douglas' visionary society with the light on the hill. Thank you. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill today because I think this bill, in many ways, is a good opportunity not only to address the very important issue of maintenance enforcement but the approach of this government, or I might suggest the lack of an approach, on many of the critical issues that are facing Manitobans, particularly when it comes to issues that impact on the real situation of poverty in our province.

I say that to begin with because this issue is very much tied into the experience of many Manitobans who have not been able to have the maintenance due to them and their children properly enforced. I think we have to recognize from the beginning while it is not strictly women, there are some cases where it is men. The vast majority of custodial parents in this province who are in this situation are women, but this is very much an issue that affects children. I know from personal experience from people that I know how much of an impact that has.

When we hear, as we often do, the statistics showing that we are the child poverty capital of Canada, I think one of the important things that we should recognize is this is an area where you can make a difference.

I want to give you a number of examples of how much of an impact the lack of proper enforcement of maintenance is having, and these are examples of people that I have visited in my constituency, who have come to my office, and I would suggest that there may be a number of people, many members of the Legislature in the same situation. * (1 520) I went visiting one area of Thompson about six months ago and I talked to a woman, Madam Speaker, who was on welfare in Thompson, quite frustrated, wanted to get off welfare, looking for some possibility to get off welfare.

But what was interesting, I then asked her about what her circumstances were. She is a divorced mother with a number of children owed a considerable amount of money for maintenance. In

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1627 fa ct, her husband owned a construction company in Alberta. So here was this woman struggling to put fo od on the table fo r her children and herself, while her husband was in Alberta running a construction company, by her estimates probably close to being a millionaire. I asked her why this had happened, and I started getting a lesson first-hand on the inadequacies of maintenance enf orcement. One example. I will give you another example, Madam Speaker.

I was in my office just a few days ago and a woman who had contacted my office in the past on other issues literally walked into my office in tears. Why? Because the collections agencies were harassing her fo r bills that were owed, and why was she not able to pay those bills? It was because she had an outstanding maintenance order which had not been enf orced. She was in tears, and you know what the end result was? There were a number of phone calls that were made back and fo rth. Now there is a voluntary agreement from her fo rmer husband that he is going to pay.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, it is not the first time there has been a voluntary agreement, and I fully expect within a fe w weeks I will get another call. Hopefully, she will have received the maintenance that is due to her and her children, but she may very well not receive it. She was quite literally in tears, asking what could be done. That is a second example. I can give you another example. I visited another woman in my constituency. Her husband is currently in Newf oundland. She had lived in Ontario fo r a while.

She is now back in Manitoba She is a student in an Access education program, and as members will know, the effect of government cuts on that program has been to eliminate student allowances. So she is struggling to get by, just to stay in this program, and, hopefully, end up getting her prof essional qualifications so that she can get back into the workforce and provide fo r herself and her children.

But the nightmare of dealing with her ex-husband in Newf oundland and then the Ontario structure and then the Manitoba structure was just too much, and one thing she mentioned to me was just how understaff ed the office here in Manitoba was. She mentioned the story that I have heard many times. In the previous two examples I heard the same thing, that people have phoned-and I recognize how burdened the staff is. They are understaff ed. Often people will phone repeatedly, as this woman did, and never get a response fo r days, Madam Speaker, not be able to get the kind of attention that they need.

That is a third example. I can give you a fo urth example as well. There is a woman who has contacted my office on a regular basis who is in the same position again. She is on social assistance. What is happening is that the Province of Manitoba is paying for the social assistance fo r her and her children when her ex-husband is not paying a cent of what he is required to pay fo r maintenance enf orcement. She has become very frustrated about the inability to enf orce those payments. I have had other cases of women. One woman who used to live in the Northwest Territories, the same problem.

In each and every case who suff ers? It is the custodial parent and the children. Many of them are living in poverty while people that have legal maintenance orders are not paying a cent. That is wrong. That is dead wrong. There is a significant number of Manitobans living in poverty that are living in poverty under those circumstances, a significant number. If we can bring in a better maintenance enf orcement system we can not only help deal with an injustice in and as of itself , we can, Madam Speaker, help reduce the level of poverty in this province. It is as simple as that.

We have proper maintenance enf orcement and we are going to have a reduction in the levels of poverty. What frustrates me, Madam Speaker-and I stress here again that when I am talking about custodial parents, there are also men in that category as well. Personally, in my own fam ily and circle of friends I know a number of men who are custodial parents. Incidentally, I know a number of cases where men have suffered under the same circumstances. I want to place that very clearly, because I know at times there is a frustration that is fe lt amongst men who are custodial parents in the same situation.

Once again, the vast majority are women.

1628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 14, 1995 (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) You know, if you look at the circumstances, if you look at the situation they are in, there is another ironic factor here that we have to consider. Every study that has been done has shown that after the breakup of a marriage there are winners and there are losers economically. You know, I have heard this sometimes from people talking about how much they have to pay in maintenance payments, but, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my concern is for the children.

To my mind, when people take on the obligations that go with raising a family, and if there is later a marriage breakup, those obligations continue. The obligations are to the children. You know what I find interesting is, study after study shows that the custodial parent, usually the woman, ends up with a dramatically reduced standard of living following the marriage breakup, despite the maintenance payment, in fact, even with maintenance payments still has a dramatically reduced standard of living.

It is often the noncustodial parent who, even with the maintenance payments, ends up with an improved standard of living. I think that has to be stated very clearly from a clear statement from this House. We have to recognize that many custodial parents, many of the women who are in this situation are dealing with the double jeopardy, if you like, of already being in a situation of reduced standard of living and also on top of that having to chase after the maintenance payments that are their due. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the circumstance.

If we reduce the problems with maintenance, we reduce poverty, we will make a substantial difference in the lives of each one of the women I mentioned that I know personally who are having major problems because of difficulty of maintenance enforcement. The next question is, does this bill deal with that issue, does this bill deal adequately?

I know there are a number of items that are dealt with in this bill: suspending and refusing renewal of a driver's licence and motor vehicle registration, reporting delinquent payers to the credit bureau, attaching pension benefit credits, attaching jointly held money, permitting garnishment orders for monies other than wages to remain in effect, changes in the jail term, changes in the fines. My concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that quite frankly this does not go far enough.

I know our critic and speakers have already referenced the fact that other mechanisms are available, such as what is occurring in the province of Ontario where direct deduction takes place from one's pay cheque. We are living in the age of electronic banking. Many of the members of this Legislature have their pay directly credited into their bank accounts. · It is a very simple concept here to directly credit from the person that is required to pay the maintenance into the account of the person that needs to receive the maintenance.

It would avoid all the intervening difficulties that occur when you end up with a situation, because of the weaknesses in the current enforcement system, whereby even when people do have a valid enforcement maintenance order, it is very difficult to enforce it. That is the route to go. That is what Ontario has done. That, I think, makes a lot more sense than many of these types of proposals, because , Mr. Deputy Speaker, excuse me if I sound a little bit cynical, but we have seen from the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) too many of these types of announcements in the past.

We see it on criminal justice issues where the minister is great at drafting press releases. We even see a court in Brandon, a family court, that does not exist or did not exist at the time the report was put out. I do not want to see the same situation- * (1 530) Point of Order Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member is totally wrong. I hope he will take back his comments for the hardworking people who do work in the Family Violence Court in Brandon which has been operating since September 1992.

The members across the way seem to have total confusion; they do not seem to understand the process at all-

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1629 Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, indeed, the minister may wish to talk to the people of Brandon about that particular matter because the point I was making once again with the minister is that press releases and announcements about various things-1 just referenced one.

The minister, unf ortunately, has gotten into a habit of government by press release, and sometimes the reality of what we see is not always matching what is announced. That causes me great concern because then the minister does a disservice to the system. I am glad that I now have the minister's attention because I know that indeed she is sensitive about some of the ongoing criticism, particularly from our Justice critic, and we want to see reality, not just press releases . We saw even in the election campaign, we had the Premier (Mr. Filmon) walking through a jail.

I am surprised that he did not do a new version out of this Take A Bite Out of Crime ad. It was quite entertaining to see, but campaign commercials, press releases and statements in Question Period do not deal with the reality, and I stand by our Justice critic who raised a very legitimate issue about the situation with the Family Violence Court and the fact that, as is the case in many examples, the boot camps or whatnot, we are finding that it just does not add up. That is why I am raising this in terms of this particular issue because is this going to deal with the problem?

It may help in some areas and in some ways, but is it going to deal with the problem? I ask you that question. I ask the minister that question. I believe it will not deal with the problem, the key underlying problem, and that is the need to directly access those maintenance payments at source through payment out of salaries, et cetera. That is the way you avoid the intervening process. I want to say again, too, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I do not mean this as any offence to any of the members of the bar in this House, lawyers, whether practising or having practised in the past, but I will say where the major problems are in this area is when the legal system intervenes. I have seen many cases where-and there was reference to this by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)-matters were dealt amicably in terms of the marriage separation, and quite frankly, when the lawyers got involved it was through the actions of some of the lawyers that some of the sort of implied threats were made about custody versus maintenance.

That is wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think it is not a question of ethics. Some of the actions that were taken were probably legitimate in the adversarial.sense on behalf of the clients involved, but I have known of cases personally where that has become involved. My belief is the less involvement by lawyers in the adversarial legal process in this particular matter the better. The stronger the ability of custodial parents to enforce maintenance payments without having to access the legal system the better off they are going to be. In the end result, the current system has been proven not to work.

So I then basically look at this bill and feel frustrated, because we have been debating this issue for a considerable period of time. I know concerns have been expressed. On July 25: Evade support, pay price; critics urge tougher rules for deadbeat dads and moms-from the Wirmipeg Free Press, including our critic. Another

article from the Free Press, July 25, 19 94, nearly a year ago: Single moms out of luck-support owed half collected. Once again, pressure. An

article covering a single parent who-and this is the headline from the story: Enforcement a big joke. It is very interesting to read, and this was Tamm y Williamson who went public with her own frustration, and with supporting documents. From July 26, once again, in fact in this case the Premier indicating there were no easy answers. In fact, I think what really the Premier was saying at that time was that he had no answers. I think much of what we have seen in this bill is an attempt to come up with some answers. So at least there has been some progress. More articles, I have copies available too of debates in Hansard, questions that were asked, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

1630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 So my position as a member of this Legislature and our position as a party is very clear. We are glad to see any movement on this issue, any movement, because fo r too long we heard nothing but rhetoric from the Minister of Justice (Mrs . Vodrey) in response to the legitimate concerns that were raised by our caucus and by our Justice critic. We heard rhet oric. We did not see any real recognition. We literally had to go after the government day after day on this issue that there was actually a probl em.

Now that the government has recognized there is a problem, my suggestion to the government is that this does not go far enough in solving that probl em. Why not take the suggestions that we brought in? Why not take the lead example of other provinces, such as Ontario? Why not, as we have suggested, make us a leader in this area? We have the highest child poverty rate, and I mention the connection between this issue and child poverty. Why not, given that fact, make us a leader across this country instead of what we are doing curr ently?

Despite the optics the minister has brought in, I really believe we are still going to see a significant problem with maintenance enf orcement. Now there has been progress over the last number of years, I believe, where we have gone from about 40 percent to a 70 percent range of collection, but there is a huge amount of cases where we are not seeing proper collection, and I think we have to deal with that. I mentioned earlier, there are others on the other side. I had a constituent who was paying more than he was required under maintenance and ran into problems with the income tax system.

I think that is wrong in a way too, that we actually discourage parents from prov iding the support to their children over and above the maintenance payments. There are other issues that must be dealt with, the Thibaudeau case, fo r example, in terms of taxation of maintenance payments. I think those issues are issues that this government and this Legislature have to be involved with. The bottom line is, if you apply the test to this bill of whether it meets the real challenge out there, I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not.

There is not enough in this bill, not specific items that, as a matter of princ iple, we find our selves opposing. So while we are not going to necessarily oppose the bill, I want to have it stated very clearly fo r the record that, while we support it, it does not go far enough. We reserve the right to move amendments. We reserve the right to bring in subsequent legislation, perhaps at this sitting or other sittings of the Legislature.

I say to the Minister of Justice-and I was glad to have her attention earlier when I was talking about the Family Violence Court or supposed court in Br andon-but you know, I just hope that we are not going to be standing in this Legislature a year from now, having to ask about whatever happened to maintenance enf orcement and whatever happened to this bill, because the many people that are fa cing dif ficulty with this, particularly the vast majority of whom are women, they cannot wait any longer. The bottom line fo r me is the people involved.

When I have had people come to my office in tears, when I visited people in their homes who are worried about putting the next meal on the table, and when I see the impact that has on those people, those women and their children, I will not rest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a member of this Legislature, until we ensure not 70 percent enf orcement of maintenance orders, but we ensure 10 0 percent enf orcement so that Manitoba children receive the support that they require. That is our goal, and that is why we will be continuing to raise this issue in the future. Thank you. * (1 540) Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I too am anxious to join the debate on this important issue and on this important bill fo r Manitoba As many others have said, this is an issue that takes a lot of time in terms of dealing with the concerns of constituents in Radisson. It is a justice issue, it is an equity issue, it is an economic and fiscal responsib ility issue, and I want to try to deal with all those areas.

I was really taken aback during the election campaign when over and over again, as I was going door to door, I encountered even more cases where mostly women were having a problem in ensuring that payments due them and their children were not being made. We know that at least 98 percent of the parties responsible, the noncustodial parents are fathers. We

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 16 31 know that in 98 percent of the cases, it is the fathers that are not complying with the law and paying their payments that are due to their families. It was such an important issue during the campaign that I included it in my election pamphlet, my second pamphlet. I have recently also written an

article in the local paper, because it is addressing such a large number offamilies in my constituency. It strikes at the heart, I think, of a number of underlying attitudes that are still prevalent in our society with regard to children and families and the responsibility for both fathers and mothers to their children. We cannot get away from the glaring apparentness that there is a double standard.

There is a double standard in terms of the attitude that when it comes to rearing children it is still the mother's primary responsibility, and it does not, according to this government, seem to be the responsibility to ensure that fathers are going to fulfill their obligations as parents.

I say that knowing that this a step in the right direction, but one of my big concerns is that it is reactive and it focuses on penalties and not completely revamping the system to ensure that it is going to be not the women's responsibility, not the mothers' responsibility to continue to initiate and ensure that the children in these families are given what they are owed.

In this issue we can address the problem that we still have the attitude, and I think this is one of the underlying attitudes apparent with the need for this kind of legislation and the hesitance, I think, of this government to not going forward and farther to ensure there is an automatic pay cheque deduction system in place. I think that is because there is still the attitude that family is private, that these kinds of relations between a husband and a wife and their family are private, and that there is no business for the state to be involved. Unfortunately, these are huge economic and political issues.

We are seeing that, with the high divorce rate that we are having in our culture and in our country, these are the attitudes that we are having to challenge head-on. We have to have a public mandate to ensure that the contract that two parties enter into when they are having children is going to be complied with and that the children are going to not be subjugated to poverty simply because the parents no longer get along.

That is some of the very difficult issues that we are dealing with here and they are complex and controversial, but I would say that these are political issues that deserve serious consideration and I would say that there are a number of issues that we have to look at as elected officials with respect to these kinds of family matters. The underlying principle must be then that both parents must remain responsible for rearing children in the case of separation or divorce.

It goes to the heart of giving value to the work then that women do as mothers, I believe, in giving value to the arrangement then, if the noncustodial parent is financially responsible for giving in some cases only $10 0 a month, sometimes less, that there is also a value associated with all the other caregiving and all of the other work that the custodial parent, primarily the women, are doing to raise their children. These are some of the issues that I hope we contemplate when we are dealing with the problems of enforcing maintenance payments for children.

I want to emphasize that it is a women's issue because at the heart of these economic matters of maintenance payments is that this payment can be used as financial abuse, the withholding of these payments can be used as financial abuse, and we know that when women leave marriages or leave their partners, they end up being poor. We know that, by far and away, when women leave a relationship and their family, they end up having their gross income decline and men tend to have their income increase.

This is nine times out of 10 because the women will maintain the responsibility for the children and not have the income needed to do that. So it also makes us reflect on the importance of having financial and economic independence and realizing that very often women stay in bad relationships, violent relationships, simply because they do not want to enter into poverty and this system of having to ensure maintenance payments are made. At the outset, then, I want to say that the first principle of any maintenance enforcement legislation must be that this be the primary responsibility, that

1632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 1995 child maintenance be the primary responsibility or the primary emphasis for settlements dealing with payments fo llowing separated families. Now this bill, as I said, is reactive and it emphasizes penalizing noncompliance with maintenance orders rather than looking at how we can create a new system that is going to be more preventative and proactive in there being any pro blems.

So we support the measures that it does undertake, the prov ision to suspend or refuse drivers licences, the pr ovision to report delinquent payers to the credit bureau and provisions to increase maximum jail terms of30 days to 90 days and to increase the fm e. The pro blem you are going to have, especially in the area of fines, and this is an area I want to get into a little later in some detail, is if the fe llow is not paying his maintenance enf orc ement, how are they going to be collecting fines?

It speaks to the whole issue to how it is a backwards approach to continue going after penalties when what we need to be doing is creating a system that is going to work fo r children and work for women to ensure that they are not fo rced to go without and be neglected. I am also concerned with respect to this bill, and perhaps the minister will correct us if our inf ormation is wrong, is that she did more consultation with lawyers, perhaps, than she did with women and men who use this system and who are going to be the ones impacted most by this legislation.

I would suggest that there is a vast resource of expertise among a number of women's groups and resource centres in the province that could have provided advice. When I had the opportunity, with two of my caucus colleagues, to tour the province with the NDP task fo rce on domestic violence, we heard from a number of those groups who told us clearly some of the problems there are with the existing system. * (1 550) The other thing about this bill that I find quite repreh ensible is the fact that it takes away the right fo r the custodial parent to appeal.

It takes away women's right to appeal when the decision aff orded to them with respect to their maintenance allotments is not in keeping with their approval. When we have criminals who have the right to appeal and we do not give moms the same right, that is saying something pretty dramatic about our legal system and the kind of systemic barriers that are put in place, reflected by this entire system that prevents women from being financially on par with men. I hate to see something go fo rward, and I hope the minister and the government will consider an amendment to rej ect that

section and make sure that moms have the same right as criminals in this province to appeal decisions handed down from the court regarding maintenance. I would want and expect some explanation of why the government fe lt it was necessary to do that. I am afraid that this bill is an attempt by the government to simply make it look like they are addressing this problem because they have had a tremendous amount of heat.

I know that the minister's office and the minister's department in Justice received numerous phone calls from myself and my assistant regarding this issue, and I know that the same number of phone calls goes to the minister's office and to the department for many others in this House, as well as from many people in the community. I think that they are attempting to respond and quiet the outcry in the community without really addressing the pro blem.

I fm d that disconcerting and a concern, especially when the Minister of Justice is also the Minister fo r the Status of Women, so I would encourage her to take a close look at that tradition and re ject that part of this bill. The other thing that is not addressed, as I said, is making the system itself more eff ective. We know that there is a shortage of staff in the maintenance department. Estimates are that there are more than 1, 1 00 case loads per officer in the Maintenance Enf orcement division and this is, compared to other pr ovinces, twice as many.

There are in other provinces 400 or 450 cases per wor ker in this area So in Manitoba we have the highest noncompliance record in the country, and we can see this is partly because of the poor levels of staffing respons ible for this pr ovision.

June 14, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1633 But even with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 1990, 1991 it cost this division in the government $759,000 to collect $1. 2 million in maintenance payments. So it is a cost-efficient effort on the part of the government, and staff in this department more than pays for themselves.

I would suggest that this area requires not only legislative changes but programming changes, one of them being increases in staff in the Department of Justice to take on this function of maintenance enforcement, but, in light of that, a lot of that work would be unnecessary if we would move to an automatic pay cheque deduction system which we are advocating on this side of the House. I want to speak a little bit now about the 40 percent to 50 percent default rate on maintenance payments and how that is compounding and contributing to Manitoba's abysmal rate on child poverty.

We have poverty because there are 20,000 children in Manitoba affected by this lack of enforcement in maintenance payments. We have the highest rate of child poverty in Canada here in Manitoba because we have poor moms. We have this problem, I would suggest, because we do not have the kind of program we are advocating that informs women they have the right to these payments, so a lot of the statements that we are making applies to approximately only 68 percent of the population. There are other huge numbers of families out there, women and their children that do not even know they are entitled to these payments.

They often think if they go forward and apply for maintenance enforcement that they are going to have to again deal with the divorced spouse or the partner that they have left, and they do not want to do that so to avoid that they live in poverty. Now it has been said that, in Manitoba, welfare is paying about $8 million that it should not have to pay because there is $8 million out there that is being given to women and their children on welfare who should be getting that money in maintenance payments.

So this is a fiscal issue that a government should be interested in from the point of view they will be saving the taxpayers money, because it will be the fathers 98 percent of the time who are going to be paying for the care and welfare of their children rather than the provincial government or other levels of government. We know that 58 percent of single-parent women live below the poverty line, and we know that half of the women recipients of maintenance enforcement have less than a $1 0,000 annual income.

So these are the realities that are contributing to the problem we have in Manitoba with respect to child poverty. When I think of one thing that this government could do to deal with that that would be simple and would be effective it would be this issue which is in the interests of justice as well, the justice and equity necessary in Manitoba. I want to then briefly address some of the concerns with respect to the system that we have. As I have said, this bill does not go anywhere near addressing the systemic problems in the area of maintenance enforcement.

The issues of taxation of benefits, I do not think it is reasonable that the custodial parent, the woman, ends up now paying income tax on the maintenance benefits that she is receiving. The other problem is with respect to how arrears are dealt with. It is ridiculous that the higher the arrears the more likely they are to be forgiven, and the number of cases that I have in my constituency mostly deal with arrears. I have constituents who have $1 5,000 in arrears owed to them and they cannot get at that.

They cannot get at that because there is a provision for the father to earn more than $1 ,400 before he has to begin paying arrears. There is another provision that says the day the service order·has to be given into the court is the day after he gets his cheque. That does not make any sense, and it puts a lot of responsibility for knowing the business of this person on a woman who no longer wants to have anything to do with him. In this case it wouid take three months for that to go to court.

These are the kinds of problems in the system that we are dealing with where it ends up being impossible in a number of cases to ever get at the arrears, and, as I have said earlier, the higher the arrears get, the more likely it is they will be forgiven. So I would want to recommend that there should not ever be any forgiving of arrears and there has to be a way to prevent those arrears from accumulating to that extent. As we have said before, one of those ways would be automatic pay cheque deductions.

1634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June14, 19 95 * (1 600) I have had other constituents complain that the noncustodial parent will simply go on welfare or will have part of their income given to them as not declared income, so their income will remain lower than what it has to be so they have to pay the maximum benefits, and they will get that money untaxed and under the table. The other problems with the system are the problems for women on welfare who are collecting maintenance and the hoops they have to go through when they do not get the money that they are supposed to get.

Welfare gives them their cheque based on the maintenance they are supposed to be receiving when in fact they are not getting that money. I have a case in Radisson where a woman who has three children and has an income of less than $900 a month ended up paying $50 in income tax to the government. She often ends up having to give money back to welfare once she ends up getting the child maintenance that she is due. These are all examples of how our system is failing, and none of these problems are addressed by the legislation that the minister has put forward.

I have not heard any comments that she plans on dealing with these more systemic problems. In closing, I just want to say that I know a number of my caucus colleagues have talked about the proposals we have for amendments. We know there are other provinces that are dealing with this in a much more proacti

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-17a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 17a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6eb7897c98b8c0ff8a2c95746e0f4561e7f3e67f

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