Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 19A (31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-19a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXV No. 19A 26 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 2:30 p.m.Thur sday, December 8, 1977 Printed by P. N. Crosbie - Queens Printer for the Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Thursday, December 8, 1977 Time: 2:30 p.m. OPEN ING PRAYER by Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham(Bi rtle-R ussell): I should like to direct the att ention of the honour able members to the galler y on my left where we have 25 st uden ts from the Stei nbach Bible In stitute. These students are under the direction of Mr . Gerald Barkman. This school is located in the constituency of the Honour able Member for La Ver endr ye. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you here today. Presenting Petitions ... Read ing and Receiving Petitions ...

Presenting Reports by Sta nding and Special Committees ... Min isterial Statements and Tablin g of Reports ... Notices of Motion ... In troduction of Bill s. ORAL QUE STIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. MR. EDWARD SCHREYER( Rossmere): Mr . Speaker, a question to the First Minis ter and it flows from the reports of today's press, that the Prime Minis ter has sold - to paraphrase the headl ine has sold the premiers on his economic plans for creating jobs.

May I ask the First Min ister if in fact he has been sold on these plans and will he take the opportunity to indic ate what the salient features are? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minis ter. HON. STERLING LYO N( Cha rleswood): Mr . Speaker, in responding to the Leader of the Op position, I am at a disadvantage in that I've only read the same headline myself, and he will appreciate that I was not able to read the burden of the story or the news report to see whether that, in fact, coincided with any discussions that we had had.

Based on the headline I would have to say that there was no coi nc idence between the headl ine and the discussions I had with the Prime Minister, except in a very general ized sense. I would really have to read the story and then see the subsequent communication from the Prime Min ister before I could give a defin itive answer. What the story is based upon, I can't say at this stage. Cert ainly it does not appear to have been based upon the kind of discussion s that we had the other day. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op posit ion. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I quite appreciate that.

Qu ite apart then from the headli nes which ofte ntimes are misleading in any case, may I ask the First Min ister if it would be correct to say that discussions did take place with respect to the reported notion of - and I'm quoting now- massive, massive spending on the construction of projects from fish plants to experimental oil refin eries. Was this kind of specific possibility discussed? MR. LYO N: No, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. SCHREYER: Wel l, Mr. Sp eaker, then my thir d and last question with regard to this.

In light of the fact that the report seems to, more than seems to, but in fact does intim ate - the words are not ni ne, Sir , - massive spendin g on works projects from fish plants to experimental refin eries - could I rnk the First Min ister if this kind of approach, which isn't new, woald be in accordance with his view md policy views as to what is needed at this time in the econ omy? MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, I repeat what I said in response to the first question, that we're operating in 1omewhat of a vacuum.

I would much prefer to see the specific statement that the Prime Mini ster ill uded to when he was here on Tuesday, that he will be send ing to all of the premiers following the :ompletion of his meetings with the ten premiers on Wedne sday, I believe it was, before one could nake any comment at all upon policy implications re or apprehended from the news report that the .eader of the Op position has all uded to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr . Sp eaker, I wanted to direct a quest ion to the Honour able Minis ter esponsible for the Task Force.

Could he indicate whether any prominent Liberals or New Democrats iill be uti lized in his exped itions into the Civil Service? lll R. SPEAKER: · The Honour able Min ister in charge of Task Force. 519 t t m a a s a c m L r w M

Thursday, December 8, 1977 HON . SIDNE Y Sl?IVAK(R iver Heights): Mr. Sp eaker, I'm not aware of the politi cal affiliations of those who have agreed to particip ate on the Task Force. MR. DOERN: Wel l, Mr. Spe aker, can the minister give us the assurance that decis ions to eliminate SMYs will be based on, let's say, considerat ions of merit or economy rather than on political affiliation? MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the honourab le member would repeat the question. MR. DOERN: Could the minister assure us that there will be no political consid erations in the decision to cut staff or SMYs? MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the Task Force will be making recommendations to Management Committee with respect to government reorganization reform. The actions that will be taken will either be consistent with the recommendations, a rejection or some amendment. When that occurs there will, in fact, I bel ieve be some adjustme nt with respect to the Civil Service. It will be based on the moneys that are available to operate in the foll owing year - this coming fiscal year - on the basis of recommendation of reform and the acceptance of the reform. Those will be the considerations. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Op position. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, to the Ho nourable, the Minister of In d ustry. Since he has tabled in response to the Ho nourable Member for St. Jo hns a document or what purports to be a document projecting, or shall I say extr apolating certa in information relative to capital flows and investment, may I ask the honourable minister specifically with respect to investment, if he will table, not hypothet ical but the actual investment data for each year for our province for the past 10o r 15 years, take his pick? MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of In dustry and Comme rce. HON. ROB ERT (Bob) BANMAN(La Ver endrye): Mr . Spe aker, I reply to that question in saying that would be an appropriate Order for Return. MR. SCHREYER: I'm at a lit tle bit of a loss, Mr. Spe aker. I gave my word to the Honourable, the First Minister that we would not file Orders for Return at this session and now I'm being invited to do so. I am quite prepared to do it in that fashion. But I would ask my honourab le friend if he would not simply undertake to table the Statistics Canada catalogue which would provide that information.

It would be merely a formality to file an Order for Return, the effect is the same. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, just on the point that my hon ourable friend , the Leader of the Op position has raised. He's quite right that there has been an accommodation extended by the opposition with respect to Orders for Return - and which we appreciate - in this session. And on the second point, of course the Statistics Canada - it used to be the Bureau of Stat istics - StatsCanada figures are of course a matter of public record.

If we could facilitate my honourable friend's research into them by providing them we'd be happy to, but they're in the library right across the way, and that would be the only information, I imagine, subject to what officials might te ll us that we would have. MR. SCHREYER: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I can only put my question in this form and I don't wish to pursue it further.

The one thin g I miss most, Sir, in this position compared to the position across the way is the relatively lesser access to certain documents and stat istical data and it is only a question of asking the Min ister of In d ustry if he would be so kind as to simply to provide, which I know he has so read ily available in his office, that particular information governing not guessed-at but actual investment level data for this province. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Fort Rouge . MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Mr .

Sp eaker, I have a question for the Minister respons ible for the Task Force on the reorgan ization of the economy. In answer to a question this morning, he ind icated that the task force terms of reference would encompass a wider orbit than simply look ing at governmen t departments.

On that basis, does he ind icate that the task force will be reviewing the kin d of financ ial assistance or grants that are given to the wide variety of private agencies or organizations who depend upon some form of governm ent support and those agencies, have they been notified that this review will be taking place of their own funding base? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister. 520

Thursday, December 8, 1977 _MR. SPIV�K: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that the Honou rable Me mber for Fort Rouge is right in the interpretat ion of my answers to the questions that were asked this morning. Certai nly the task force will be examining moneys and funds and grants that are given to a whole host of non-governmental agencies in determ inin g the range of effect iveness of the programs in the limited and premliminary way in which it will be deal ing with its function undert aking at this period of time.

If there is need, I am sure that there will be contact with those whom they may desire to discuss the matter with for the purpose of obt ainin g information. My impression tho ugh is that within the government structure, there is a well of information available for their investiga ti ons and, in turn, we have received submissions from some organizations whose informat ion will be passed onto the review teams tor their conside ration. MR. AXWORTHY: A supplementary, Mr. Spe aker, just so that we can be quite clear as to exact ly what this task force is doing.

Can the minister indicate then that part of his review or re-examination will be the examination of moneys given to organizations like the Childr en's Aid Soc iety which carries out certa in child welfare functions on behalf of the government, say the Un iversities, cert ain other kinds of organizations that receive grants as part of their operation and, if so, if they are going to be subject to that kind of review, has there been any specific directive given to them to begin their own reassessments and being able to prepare submissions or is it simply that they can do so on a volu ntary basis? MR.

SPIVAK: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, the review teams have the objectives. They are set up and organized to deal with their terms of reference. They will be reviewing expen ditur e of government money. Their course of action will be determ ined by them, but at the same time I should make the Hon ourable Member for Fort Rouge aware that the departments themselves are in effect reviewing their activities as they prepare for the estimate process. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr .

Speaker, I don't want to persist with the minister but I th ink it is important ... well, conside ring that we spend a couple of hun dred million dol lars in grants and allocat ions, I would suspect that it's more than a laughing matter for those who are on the receiving end of it and that it would be important for those organizations to know that if their function is being reviewed and being ex amined by these review teams, what opportunities they would have to present their case and to provide the kind of information or assessment that is needed. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I would simply ask the minister, in the cond uct of this review or the activity of his review teams, what procedures are being put in place so that these private non-governmental organiz ations would be able to have full access to present what they are doing and to ensure that the information received is the kind of informat ion that would be useful to the review team? MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the non-governmental organizations that the honourable member has referred to are in a conti nu ous process of review by the departments who in fact deal with them on a day-to-day or mont h-to-month or yearly basis. The task force will cond uct itself to achieve the objectives that have been set forward; they will have their own operating proced ures; they may or may not be in cont act with certain agencies, hat will be their decision. Their recommendations, that is of the review teams, will come to the task force itself.

They will in turn be forwarded to the govern ment th rough the Premier or the Management Committee and then the decisions will be made. MR. SPEAKER: Before I recogn ize the next questi on, may I point out to members that the question period is for the use of all members of the Ho use and I would hope that the questions are fairly short and concise and the answers are similar. The Hon ourable Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker, I wish to direct my question to the Hono urable Min ister of Educa tion.

Yesterday, he had indicated that at a school tru stees' workshop, all aspects of education - and I'm quoting from a newspaper report -will have to be examined to ensure their cost effect ivene ss. May I ask him who will do the examination, his dep artment or the task force under the co-chairmanship of one of the Min isters without Port fol io? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Ed ucation. HON. KEITH A. COSENS(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, both. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This now becomes very interes ting.

May I ask then, you know, what the division of respon sibility will be as to the type of examination that will be performed by his department and that by the task force which is co-chaired by one of the Mi n isters without Port fol io. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Selk irk. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker, my question is directed to th eM inister ot Finance. I wonder if the honourable member could advise the Ho use whether now, having had an opportunity to peruse the response from the Honourable Mr.

Chretien, he is able to advise the Hou se whether or not the federal minister is prepared to waive the $300,000 assessment in relationship to the Liquor Control 521

Thursday, December 8, 1977 Commission assessment. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I' m sorry I didn't get the first part of my honourable friend's question. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed towards the Minister of Finance because he had taken the question the other day as notice, in connection with the assessment levied by Mr. Tansley, the AIB administrator against the Liquor Control Commission of some $300,000 and the letter which was forwarded to the federal government to Mr.

Chretien, I und ersto od, by the Min ister of Finance and I gather there was a response to him from Mr. Chretien, whether he is now able to advise the Hou se as to whether or not there was any agreement to waive the assessment. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Finance. HON. W. DONALD CRAIK(Riel): Mr. Speaker, there is no further resol ution to the problem. The correspondence that I referred to between myself and the federal Minister of Finance has not resolved the problem satisfactori ly.

We think there is sti ll a possibility but I doubt whether we'll get it resolved until the Finance Ministers' meeting at the earliest which is slated tentat ively sometime in late January. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Min ister without Portfo lio respons ible for the Task Force. To whom doe s the private sector co-chairman report? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the private sector co-chairman and the other members of the task force and myself report to the Premier as Chairman of the Management Committee. MR. PARASIUK: A supple mentary, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify ministerial respon sibility, can the minister confirm whether the private sector co-chairman reports to him as Minister respons ible to the Task Force or directly to the First Min ister? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, we are co-chairmen. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you.

I would like to ask the minister, how do the respon sibilitie s of the private sector co-chairman and the political co-chairman differ and in the ligh t of concerns for efficiency, is not one co-chairman redunda nt? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if he could en lighten me about the tapes that were apparently removed from a government office and now seem to be missing. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. KEN MacMASTER(Thompson): Mr.

Speaker, could I take that question because it has been handed on to me to deal with? If the Member for The Pas had asked this specific question this morning , he would have got an answer, Mr. Speaker, but he made a little comment. -(ln terj ection) l'm prepared to. -(I nter jection)- Wel l, do you want the answer or what? Ok ay, the letter came in from the Member for The Pas to the Honourable Ge rald Me rcier asking if he could view the tapes of a public meeting that was held in Thompson on November 6th.

The letter was handed on to myself to deal with and the answer is that there is absolutely no problem with him viewing those tapes if he wishes to. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Sp eaker, can I assume from that answer then that the tapes that I have beeri unable to locate the custody of are now in the custody of the Min ister of Northern Affairs? MR. MacMASTER: I'm not sure where the member makes his assumptions or how he makes them but I can present those tapes to him and he can view th em. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Bonif ace. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr .

Speaker, I have a question for the Ho nourable Minister o He alth. In order to prepare his Estimates, the Minister no doubt is receiving budget proposals frorr 522 n , f m

Thursday, December 8, 1977 the different agencies. My question is, is that done on the usual way as it has been done in the past or are they being given any direction that ther e'll be certain cuts, or are those budge ts returned to them for different cuts or added information? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of He alth. HON. L. R. {Bud) SHERMAN{Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, we're just barely into that process at this juncture.

The message that has been disseminated, I think, genera lly th roughout the community is that this is going to be a difficult year in terms of available funding, so everybody is being asked to be very careful and be as efficient as they can in developing their budge ts and proposals for presentat ion. But we're just at the very thre shold of that process right now. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Spe aker, these people are asked to be careful every time they prepare a budget, but is there any other direction, and their budge t mailed back to them .. . because the Honourable Minister knows that the staff must be working on many of them now. MR. SHERMAN: At this juncture there is no such direction. There's no information that I could give the honourab le member in that area. At this point in time, Mr. Spe aker, it has just taken the form of the general message and the general encourag ement that I referred to. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Spe aker, if I may to the same Minister.

Do these budge ts stay within the department or are they passed on to the Minister without Port fol io respons ible for the Task Force. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be, somehow or other, engaged in questi ons from the Honourable Member for St.

Bon iface and the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, who both are experienced in the Ho use, in terms of elo ngating the Question Period to 40 minutes every day, for what purpose I don't know, with respect to - and particu larly the former Minister knows- internal policy decisions that are made by every department of government. Now, if my honourable friend wants instruction from me or from the Minister of Finance as to how Estimates are prepared in his time, how they're being differently prepared now, fine, we'd be happy to give him a seminar some afternoon.

But it's really not appropriate for the Question Period. My honourable friend will see the Est imates when they are developed thro ugh the processes that are now under way by Management Committee, with co-operation from Task Force and so on. When he sees them in March or April, or whenever the Est imates are tab led, then he will know the results of that process, just precisely as we did when he was Minister of He alth. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr . Speaker on the same point of order ... . MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Bonif ace has had three questions now. MR.

DESJARDINS: I'm speaking on the point of order that the First ... MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. Bonif ace want to raise a point ofmrder? MR. DESJARDINS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the ... Well, all right, I want to make a speech like he did, then. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do want to raise a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Bonif ace on a point of order. MR. DESJARDINS: First of all, I'd like to say that I had very few questions this session. To say that I prolong the meeting is completely wrong, the Question Period. Secondly, Mr.

Sp eaker, of course these people have been dul y el ected and they can work their Estima tes as they wish. But this is st ill not a dictatorsh ip and I think the agencies are entitled to find out what they have to do. - (I nter jection)- That is a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Selk irk. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Spe aker, a question to the Attorney -General.

Could the Attorney-General advise whether or not his Executive Assistant was speaking on his behalf when he advised the Un iter, November 30th that he envisi oned difficulties as a result of the sharing of commercial assets, for example, a lawyer's practice. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Attorney -General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER {Osborne): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was not aware of the comment. The Executive Assistant obviously was speaking on behalf of himself. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Burrows. 523

Thursday, December 8, 19 77 MR. HANU SCHAK: Mr . Speaker, I have another qu estion for the Ho nour able Min ister of Education. In �peaking to the same group of trustees, he had called upon the trustees to limit the burden of local proper ty taxes but at the same time he had warned them about in creasing education costs and a greater burden on the taxpayer. Could the honour able member indic ate the types of taxation that he plans to im pose upon the taxpayers to make up the balance of the education costs? � MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Rup ertsland. MR. HARVE Y BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr . Spe aker.

I'd li ke to direct my que stion to the Min ister of Northern Affairs and ask him if he has any success to report on his request to the federal government to get action on the marketing and large in ventories held by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and their apparent hold-back in fi nal payment to the fishermen of Man itoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Northern Affai rs. MR. MacMASTER: I appr eciate the que stion, Mr . Speaker. I sent a telegram to the Honourable Minis ter, Romeo LeB lanc, in regard to the hold-b ack of the final payment.

It's really of concern to all of us assembled here that what seems to be happen in g is that the Fresh Fis h Marketing Corporation is using the fi nal payment money due the fishermen, which is in the neighbou rhood of $2.5 milli on for the 19 75-76 season, and they're using that money to carry on with current oper ating seasons, and that is of concern to me, and I'm sure concerns everybody assembled here.

I' m sorry to say at this moment that the answer to the telegram came back that the federal Min ister is home sick and his Executive Assistant said it will be brought to his attention im mediately he returns to the House. Thank you. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I' d li ke to direct a question to the First Min ister.

I' d li ke to ask him at what stage the offer that he made to the former ful l-time commi ssioner of the Civil Service Commi ssion stands, right about the time that he was moved from permanent to partial status, where that offer stands? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I' d lik e to address a question to the Mi nister of Northern Affairs.

In his capacity as the lia son Min ister with the special ad hoc comm ittee formed in the Ci ty of Thompson with regard to the adverse effects cau sed by the announc ed I NCO layoffs, or the planned layoffs, can he advise the House whether the committee or he hi mself, as the Mi nister of the Crown, are able to reco)'Tlmend, is able to recom mend any sign ificant programs to help al le viate the economic distress in whi ch the commun ity of Tho mpson, if it is not finding itself in now, will soon find itself in. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Nor thern Affairs. MR.

Ma cMASTER: Just to correct part of what you have said. Mr . Speaker, of the 650 people that are to be in volved, they hope that 550 of those will be hour ly rated people which will be through attrition in the next few months. Yes, I've been in touch with the group that's working in Thompson. They have set up a variety of proposals and at the very moment I am endeavourin g to set up a series of meetings with various cabinet Mi nisters who can meet with them, very shortly I h ope, to discuss the applications of some of those proposals and the possibil ity of implementing them. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr . Speaker, a question again to the Mi nister of Northern Affairs. It relates to the last que stion. I wonder if he has considered moving the Resou rces part of his department or some of those staff to northern Ma n itoba to help overcome the shortage of employment in that area now. Or would that decision be up to him or up to the Min ister without Portfolio II? · MR. Ma cMASTER: Mr . Speaker, we do have at the moment what we feel is adequate staff in Thompson to handle the Renewable Resou rces and Transpor tation Services.

This can certainl y be taken into consideration. MR. Mc BRYDE: Mr . Speaker, I wonder while he's lookin g at that. if he mi ght want to consider relocating the transportation

section of his department in to northern Ma ni toba, where most of their work is done. MR. Ma cMASTER: Mr . Speaker, I don't want to run away from it, but I think if you're talking about an entire department, that that would have to be a polic y matter. I 524

Thursday, December 8, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Ge orge. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. I' d like to ask another question of the First Minister. Can he indicate whether an offer was made to the former commissioner of the Civil Service Commission? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if my honour able friend could be more specific? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, my question is in relat ion to the meeting, I believe there was only one meeting between himself and the former commissione r at the time that the Order-in-Coun cil was passed.

Could he indic ate what type of an offer, or whether an offer was made to the commissioner? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I had a private conversation with the former Civil Service commissioner. As far as I am aware, there would be only myself and the Civil Service commissioner who were privy to that. I would not want to ... Mr. Beds on was at the meeting. Un less my honourable friend has gained information from the former Civil Service commissioner, I would want his approval before I responded to my honour able friend. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Op position. MR. SCHREYER: Mr .

Speaker, earlier in this session I asked the First Minister whether action had been taken to remove the commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. I bel ieve the reply at that time was that there was no removal or suspension and I would like to ask the First Minister, given that reply, and also given the fact that the Civil Service commissioner in question is not functioning, can the Honourable First Min ister ind icate whether any course of action is being fol lowed to clear up a state of affairs that could only be described as limbo. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Spe aker' my honourable friend makes an assumption that I'm not aware of, namely that part-time members of the Civil Service Commission are not functioning. I will certa inly check into that and .let him know. MR. SCHREYER: I can assure you in advance, Sir , that the question is not satirical, but rather I should like to ask the First Minis ter if a state of affairs exists in which certain commissioners are not no tified, Sir, of the meetings of the Commission, how it can be presumed that they are functioning? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for El mwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Min ister of Urban Affairs. Has he had either an enqu iry or a request from the City of Winni peg for financ ial assistance in regard to a new or expanded arena? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Attorney-General . MR. MERCIER: Mr . Sp eaker, Sir, I have not yet received any such request. MR. DOERN: Mr. Sp eaker, a supplementary, are there such funds available that could be made available to the City of Win ni peg for an expans ion or a new arena? MR. MERCIER: Mr .

Sp eaker, Si r, I believe the Honourable Mi nister of Public Works answered that question some few days ago when he said that after eight years in government, there are no moneys available. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Selk irk. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-Gene ral. Will the Attorney-General be meeting shortly as a result of the request which he has received from Parent Fin ders Organization for a meeting? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, Si r, I am presently reviewing quite a large file with respect to correspondence that the previous Attorney-General accumulated with respect to that matter and will be reviewing it and probably meeting with that group in due course. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Sp eaker, a question to the Min ister of Con tinu ing Educ ation. Maybe he could help me clarify this mystery surround ing these tapes. Were these video tapes prepared by his department for the Department of Municipal Affairs at their request? 525

Thursday, December 8, 1977 mr. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Ministe of Educ ation. MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I und erstand that these tapes were prepared by a group under the organization of Focus, which fall s within my department. MR. McBRYDE: Were they prepared for your de partment's use or for the use of the Department of Municipal Affairs? MR. COSENS: Mr . Sp eaker, I wasn't aware that they were prepared for anyone's use. MR. McBRYDE: Mr . Speaker, a final supplementary question to the Minister of Continuing Ed ucation.

Does he have any knowledge of how the tapes finally ended up with the Minister of Northern Affairs? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I have the same information as the hon ourable member received from the Minister of Northern Affairs just a few minutes ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, yesterday I posed a question which was taken as notice by the First Min ister, but it really relays to the Minister of Finance, assuming he has an opportunity to fol low it up. If not, he may wish to take it as notice.

And that is to ask whether there has been an opportunity to confirm or ascertain the accuracy of reports emanating from the Min ister of Finance, Ottawa, and unnamed federal revenue officials, to the effect that for the third quarter of the fiscal year, there is every sign of an unant icipated increase in revenues generated just as there was unant icipated decrease in the second quarter. Has the Minister had an opportunit y to fol low up on those reports? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, that information, as the First Minister may recall, comes from the federal government, usually late December. So we don't expect to hear the specific figures for about two weeks yet. But I think perhaps this question grew out of the comment from the federal finance minister's office, that the GNP showed a so-called turn around in the third quarter, but it isn't really from indi cations a signifi cant turn around.

It looks like the real growth for the year, rather than being the 2.5 percent that they had originally indi cated based on third quarter results would be 3 percent and it does not appear to make a large difference. We do not antic ipate that the results on transfer payments from either personal or corporation income tax at the end of December will be substan tially different than those that were predicted in the report which we tabled on November 15 th. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

I direct my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and ask him if it is a policy of his ministry to permit public servants in his de partment to make what seem to be political statements to the press. My question arises from a newspaper

article in today's Free Press relating to the Delta Marsh Project. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Northern Affairs. MR. MacMASTIER: Mr. Spe aker, I haven't seen the article. I don't know what was said but I will look into it for you. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for Transcona. MR. PARAS I UK: Mr . Spe aker, this refers to another matter that seems to be left in limbo and I direct my question to the minister respons ible for the task force. Does the private sector co-chairman report to him or to the First Min ister? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the co-chairman reports to the First Min ister. The private sector co chairman has an office in this build ing and is here on a daily basis. We meet all the time. We discuss various things. If there is something to report, we will report it together. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. His Honour, F. L. Jobin, Esquire, LieutenH.tilVfA.IJ.vASSlfMTthe Province of Manitoba, having entered the House· and being seated on the Throne: Mr. Speaker addressed His Honour in the following words: 526

Thursday, December 8, 1977 mr. SPEAKER: May it please Your Ho nour: The Legislative Assembly, at its present session, passed a Bill, which in the name of the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which Bill I respect fully request Your Ho nour's Assent: (No . 2) -An Act to ratify an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Manitoba under the Anti-inflation Act (Canad a). To this Bill the Royal Assent was announced by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly as follows: MR. CLERK: In He r Majesty's name Hi s Ho nour the Lieut enant-Governor doth assent to this Bill. MR.

SPEAKER: Orders of the day. Add ress for Papers, the Ho nourable Member for St. Jo hns. MR. SAUL M. CHERNIACK: Mr. Spe aker, I would ask leave to withdraw this motion on the und ersta nding that I didn't hear the Min ister of In dustry too well this morning. If I und erstand correctly from him that he has already complied with the intent of this Addr ess then of course I would withdraw it. He is nodd ing his head so I am assuming that he has already filed all documentat ion supplied to him by his staff relating to this ... work, and I the refore ask leave to withdraw the motion. MR.

SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) The Ho nourable Governm ent Ho use Leader. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, if we have reached Orders of the Day, I would ask you to call Bill No. 5 and then No. 6. But before I do that, Sir, the re is a possibility that the debate on those two measures may be con clu ded before the end of the day's sitting, as well as the con sideration of Bill No. 3 and No. 4 in the Committee of the Whole.

In that event, the Hou se will then proceed to Law Amen dments and I ask the co-operat ion of the media and perhaps the Cle rk's Office to notify at least a few groups of people who may be desirous of appearing before Law Amend ments tonight, in the event that we reach that stage. I don't expect that it will be much before mine o'clock but then anyth ing can happen, and I am hoping that we will be able to be in Law Amend ments by this evening . MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Op position. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, it is I think fair to say that this afternoon could perhaps contemplate four honourable members on this side wishing to speak and in addition to that there will be cons ideration in Committee of the Whole stage with respect to two finance bill s. It is in a sense reasonable to assume that it may be, it may be that by 9:00 p.m. we will have completed the Or der Paper. My concern is pract icality of announcing that at nine o'clock people wishing to make a presentat ion should be prepared to do so. I am not objecting, it's reasonable, but I am concerned as to its practicability.

We may finish by nine, maybe nine-thirty in which case would we have people convened for half an hour. I am not making my honourable friend's job any easier but this is the kind of practical problem we face. MR. SPEAKER: I' m the servant of the Ho use here. What is the wish of the Government Ho use Leader in this regard? MR. JORGENSON: I und erstand there are a number of people who have indicated th eir intention to present briefs before the commit tee. Perhaps if a couple of them could be notified to be ready to appear before the commit tee, in the event that it's necessary, that would be sufficient.

I doubt very much if it's necessary for all the people who intend to present briefs to be here tonight because we will not be hearing them all tonight. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. SCHREYER: That latter sugge stion is perhaps the most practical and common sense one in the circumstances. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for St. Jo hns. MR. CHERNIACK: On the same point of order, I wonder if I could inquire from the Ho nourable the Hou se Leader, which of the two bill s he would have in mind to be dealt with this evening by the de legati ons.

A MEMBER: There are only two that will be before - well there are three actually, the Marital Property Act, Bill No . 6, the Overt ime Bill and the

Summary Convicti ons Act. Those are the only three. I would be surprised if there were anysubmissions on the

Summary Convicti ons Act and perhaps even if we dealt with that one, if nothing else, it would be at least some progress. But I think that this may be a possibility, that a couple of the people who have ind icated their intention to present briefs on the Marital Property Act could be here this evening just in the event we can occupy the time of the committee to good advantage up till ten o'clock. 527

Thursday, December 8, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: Is that fully understood by all members of the Hou se then. We will proceed then with Bill No. 5. The Honourable Member for Wel lin gton. BILL NO. 5 - FAMILY LAW MR. BRIAN CORRIN: Mr . Speaker, it is my intention in addressing myself to this bill to be quit e short, short not in the sense of being intempe rate but short in the sense of trying to expedite the affairs of the Ho use and trying to put the affairs of this assembly in order as soon as possible.

I think I can say without reservat ion or qualification that I share in principle, I share the expressions that have been made my hono urable colle agues on this side of the Hou se with respect to the basic concepts and principles embodied in the two pieces of legis lation that are dealt with in the bill. Having said that, I will addr ess myself immed iately to the substance of my reservations in this regard. Mr.

Speaker, there's been a good deal of discussion about the inherent defects that are apparently tho ught by some to be manifest within the two pieces of leg islation that were before this Hous e earlie r this year. Many members, and I would say on both sides, have expressed reservat ions.

Some have said though that those defects are of such a nature that they can only be dealt with through a tho rough review, and others, the prepond erance of course being on this side of the Ho use, have suggested that those defects perhaps would be better dealt with in the normal process and perhaps in the coming spring session of this assembly. Now I'm moved by both arguments in a sense, but I say this, if it's log ical that these defects be redressed, and I think we all agree if there are defects there should be amend ments and revisions.

But if that's appropriate I would sugge st that we must also consider the possible defects that would be inherent in our suspendin g the proclamation of the Family Main tenance Act and in dealing with the Marital Property Act as has been sugg ested in the Bill. I would suggest, Mr. Spe aker, and I do so respectf ully, that many people of our province are under a great misapprehens ion and misun derstanding with respect to what is happening, what is tran spiring. I think that there is a certain myopia, and it is possibly common to all politicians because we are so immediate.

We're so close to the issue at hand we can't in a sense, being colloqu ial, seethe forest for the trees and vice versa. We all take it for granted that it's understood by all the gentlemen and lad ies of this province, people who may, or some small proportion of whom, may in fact have matters before the courts or pending before the courts that are rel evant to this bill. They do in fact und erstand what it is that's happening here, and it's presumed that all these people are receiving legal advice that is allo wing them to keep abreast of these proceed ings.

But I suggest, Sir, that that at very best is a very tenuous premise, a very very tenuous premise indeed, because I can say as a solicitor, there is a great deal of confusion among the people of Manitoba as to what exact ly in fact is tran spiring with respect to this matter. There are many people who rather than bel ieve us - - I should say bel ieve the government are willing to merely accept uneq uivocally that these bill s will be repealed or suspended. There are many people of the mind that's only one maybe. There's st ill common misconception in this regard.

I myself have spoken to sol icitors who have asked me whether they think that's an impossibilit y. Frank ly, I tell them I don't know. Anyth ing is possible, after all the business of this Hou se is not adjourned. If we're going to go into law amendments presumably there are going to be many interested citizens, representative of many opin ion groups who are going to appear there and I think fairly, one can presume that members of both sides of this Hou se are going to listen to the substance of those agruments and conceivab ly members of this Ho use may be moved to alter their position.

So, nobody in Manitoba can say uneq uivocally out of hand that this is a fait accompli this matter is go ing to proceed as per the bill s before this Ho use. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and I do so in deference to all the members of this Hou se, I respectthe privileges of this Hous e, but I remind you that the administrat ion of justice may well be brought into disrepute if we tamper with these pieces of leg islation.

People currently have taken posit ions on the representat ions made thro ugh the media, I might add as well, since I am aware that over 50,000 booklets on the Marital Prope rty Act were dist ributed in Manitoba early this summer. On the basis of those types of informational pamphle ts and their decimination, people have taken certain decisions that will in effect bea great moment in their lives and I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, it's unfair- I don't want to suggest it's frivolous, but I don't want to sugge st that it's capricious either, but there's something in that sugg ests to me some manifest injustice.

There is something inheren tly defective in that sort of treatment. We spoke the other day in dealing with a relatively minor amend ment dealing with, I bel ieve the

Summary Convicti ons Act. We talked about retroactive legisla tion and we talked about the ineq uitie s of retroactive legislation and apparent ly both sides again agreed. The fore former attorney -general mentioned that he'd always had reservations about it, and the current attorney-general as well shared those reservations. That was the substance of the debate. And here we are again, Mr. Sp ear Speaker, dealing once again with what is in effect retroac tive leg islation. We are repealing legisla tion that is enforced in the courts.

Matters are at this very moment presumably being dealt with in Manit oba's courts on the basis of the legisla tion proclaimed by this Ho use, The Family Main tenance Act and people's affairs are being ruled and governed according ly. I sugge st to you, Mr. Spe aker, that there is simply someth ing wrong witt deviating ff from that law at this point. People will have rights of appeal based on that. It seems so unfair to me to cont emplate the possibility for instance of a wife appearing before the courts today and getting a certain treatment under the no-fault provisions of the Family Main tenance Act, and 528

Thursday, December 8, 1977 another woman coming before the courts, perhaps in two weeks time, and not being able to avail herse lf of those same provisions that her neighbour bore the credit of. So, Mr. Speaker, one can conte mplate that justice, if it is in fact to be perceived as justice, must be perceived just as that. The public can't perceive that as justic e. How can we ex plain to the one wife the one wife whose rights have suffered prejud ice - how can we ex plain to her in all good conscience that she's not entitled to the rights her neighbour was two weeks before?

It makes no sense, and as a lawyer, I would have no part of that. There is something manifestly wrong with that position. I sugge st to you, and I think that many people, after hearing the briefs that are going to be submitted in the next few days, and I presume there are goin g to be many, I think that many of us are going to have similar reservat ions. As I sugg ested earlie r, I've spoken to solicitors - colleagues of mine - who are on the horns of thorny dilemmas. They don't know which way to turn. They don't know what sort of advice and counsel to give to clients. What will be the law?

When would it be advantag eous to advise the client to take one or other steps under these laws or other laws? I sugge st to you, without go ing into broad detail - expansive det ail - Sir, that we're running a great risk. We're running the risk, as I sugg ested earlie r, of first of all bringing justice in this province into ge neral disrepute, and consequently as well, we're runn ing the risk of bring ing the affairs of this Ho use into disrepute. It isn't just the former government th at passed these laws. That's not so, that's just another misconception.

We seem to treat these pieces of legi slation as if they belonged ... that somehow the former government acquired them, had proprietary interests in th em, and I sugge st to you that that's not the case, that's not our way of government, that's not the style and manner of governm ent in this country, in this province. These laws were proclairned by all the people of this Hou se.

They were the by-product of intensive examinati ons, and I was moved to hear the Member for Fort Garry last evening describe in great detail precisely what he felt - his most profound feel ings - how he felt when the work had been completed . I think he described an evening last Ju ne, perhaps itwas the early morning in last Jun e, and how he apparently had risen in the Ho use and had complimented all the people on the commit tee he had sat with, and told them that it was ...

I think he said, and I' m not trying to paraphrase him, it would be unfair, but something to the general effect that it had been one of the most profound experiences of his leg islative career.

So I sugge st to you, having heard those representations, and knowing that there is confusion in the minds of the public, and that the courts are currently acting under the terms of reference set down by this Ho use, I sugge st to honourable members that this matter not proceed , that we step back and take one long rational reflection, consider the impact, the implications, the consequences and perhaps then, in a spirit of tempe rance, and profound respect - profound respect for the rules of this House and for the people of Manitoba - perhaps then we will all agree, we will concur, we will come to a compromise.

I don't know how many ti mes I've spoken about the need for compromise in the few short days of this session. We will come to the compromise that it is in the best interest of our people, people we all serve. No party sen timent I'll place in that respect - I've said that before too. It 's in the best interest of those people that we pause and reflect and go about our business in a more business like normative fashion. Thank you, Si r. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Jo hns. MR.

CHERNIACK: I am pleased that I deferred speaking until now, so that I could hear my colle ague, the Honourable Member for Wel lin gton, give what I think is an exc elle nt review of the presen t situation, and I appreciate his having done so because I don't think I had in mind to do it anywhere neai as well as he did. Therefore, I want to jump back to what he spoke about, and point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it appears to me to be the intention of the governm ent to change some of the principles of the law.

I will enlarge on that, but point out in respect to the one feature mentioned by my colle ague, the Honourable Member for Wel lin gton, the no-fault feature on separation, that the one person on the other side who spoke with feeling in support of the general principles of this legis lation, already expressed a little bit of doubt about that one feature. If we don't have his support, fighting in his caucus for the principles, I think, Mr. Speaker, we are in a very sad state insofar as maintainin g the principles of the legisla tion.

Ju st carry the picture further - that depicted by the Honourable Member for Wellin gton - and picture a person who knew the law as it stood, having been proclaimed in this province. The law today provides that there need not be a cause for separat ion to en title a person to a separation order' and the law goes further and says that on the granting of a sepazation order, then there shall be an ent itl ement to support based on need.

So that we can picture a person last week, last month, today, saying: "I can no longer continue to live with my spouse, although that spouse has not been a brutal person, although that spouse is not guil ty of adultery, although that spouse is not guilty of failure to support, but that spouse and I have not been getting along for many many years, but that spouse is the person on whom I am tot ally depe ndent for support. I married young," let's say, "and I have not had the opportunity to acquire the skills to support myself.

But the law now recognizes that I'm entitled to a separation, and tosup port for a period of time necessary for me to acquire those skil ls," and therefore the separation takes place, and the order may be granted . Mr. Speaker, you know what happens? The moment that happens, and when this law in its present form passes, then that person will have lost the rights given to them under the law. That person will now, - not now, but as soon as this law passes and the Wives' and Childr en's Maintenance Act is brought back in -will now have deserted the spouse, and being the dependent spouse, that person 529

Thursday, December 8, 19 77 has lost the right for support' because the law, as it is being proposed by the Honourable the Attorney-General provides that any maintenance order made shall now come under the law as it was in the archaic days, and as it will become again when it is proclaimed by this government. That is the picture that we can well see as being a certain possibility.

A person who will have acted on the law as it was proclaimed will be prejudiced possibly forever, certainly prejud iced in a very difficult way by the retroactive feature of the government's cance lling a law retroact ively and going back to the old law. And that, to me, is so highl y irrespon sible, Mr .

Speaker, that I have delayed speaking until now in the expectation that we would be hearing from members opposite and in the hope that they would be making certain commitments to principle, so that the people who are affected and concern ed, from out side of the thi s Chamber, will have the reassurance of knowing that while the y're fidd ling and diddli ng with the leg islation as it now appears, at least they would know that there will be a session, and the next session will be the one when there will be a proclamation again of the principles in this law.

That's why I bel ieve the Member for Sel kirk and I pose specific questions in asking: "D o you agree with certa in of the principles?" And if we had had that assurance that they do agree with the principles, then I would have to shrug my shoulde rs, and like the Member for Fort Rouge, say: "Well, at least they promise to bring it back during the next session and people will suffer a lit tle longer but their rig hts would not be affect ed." But I have every reason to do ubt the government's intent, and I have tha t reason to doubt, Mr. Speaker, for several reasons.

One is that we asked for an assurance and we didn't get it. The other is that this happens to be the th ird time that I am speaking in thi s session on this subject. Do you remember how we pleaded with the Attorney-General to get up and speak on this subject so we could und erstand his response before he had the final word? He knew he had the right to speak on a number of occasions. Other members, no one has been barred from the right to speak on this issue. Finally , we heard on one occasion from the Me mber for Wolseley and then we heard yesterday from other respons ible members of the caucus. But, Mr .

Spe aker, we heard from twomembers who had voted in favour of the Marital Property Act, we heard from one member who voted against it and of f all that I heard, I heard only the Ho nourable Min ister of Health make some commitments, and what were they, Mr. Speaker? They were that he will fight to the best of his ability to maintain and preserve principles enacted in the legisla tion of last session, and already he backed away to the extent of saying he's not too sure about the no-fault position. And that means to me, and I asked him' if you recall, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not he was speaking for the government, and he said: "I may be speaking for the government, but I'm real ly speaking for myself." And we are sti ll left in limbo. Now the Min ister of Mines has a contr ibution to make. I will give him the opportunity to ask a question so that he could ... Oh, well, that's reassuring. I assume I have the right to quote the honourable minister who did not speak into the microphone to say that he spoke for the Minister of Min es.

No, I don't have to exp ress my regret yet, because the Honourable the Minister of Mines sti ll has the opportunity to speak, and I invite him so to do, because when I sit down, and before the Attorney-General speaks, the Minister of Mines sti ll has the right to speak, and I wish he would. I wish he wou Id give some assu ranee that th ere are people , more than the Min ister of H ea Ith, and more than the five who voted in favour of it, who are going to support any effort made to fight to maintain the principles. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just for a moment want to pause on the question of mandate.

I th ink we talked here about whether or not the government had a mandate to rush into the Ho use with a very early session in order to bring in certain legisla tion, and clearly, Mr. Speaker, the dealing with the AIB legis lation was essen tial.

Cle arly it was not essent ial to deal with succession duties, but the government said: "Well, while you're here, we might as well use up the time - while you're here - and get rid of that because that was a campaign promise." The suspension of the Marital Property Act was not a political promise made on the campaign trail by any member of the Conservative party as far as I've been able to ascertain. I bel ieve that they . ..

Well clearly they would not have legislated as we did, clearly if they formed the government as they have now, they would have every right to amend leg islation - but to step in and retroact ively suspend, defer indefinitely, leg islation already passed is, I thin k, abhorent. And the reason I say they have no mandate to do that, is that it was not, as the Ho nourable the Min ister of Health made clear, it was not an election issue.

It was not one that he found, as he went from door to door, was a matter that was burnin g in the minds of the people he inter viewed, and th erefore he cannot say for a moment tha t there was a rush about. But, Mr. Speaker, the rush takes place if the governme nt decides to change the law- not im prove the law, not polish the legi slation, not take care of anomolies - but to change the law. That is the only reason they would rush it in that much of a hurry.

Othe rwise if the laws were as badly drafted as they say, there would be some floun dering around in the courts, there would be some addit ional time spent debating in the courts the issues involved but there would not be a damage that is irreparable if the Attorney-General and his group were prepared to come into the next session with amendments for improvement. Mr . Speaker, they hired a task force, or whatever they call it - the committee - some while ago.

If that committee is meeting daily and been putting in full-time, as indeed they should, in the interest of the people affected by these laws, the y could have come up with a great deal of leg islation even for this session, and I would assure the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral , and I've not consult ed any members of this caucus at all, but I am convinced that this caucus would be prepared to wait a while, come back in three, four, five days and deal with the matters which no doubt could be dealt with.

So, the fact is, I do not believe the half-hearted lukewarm protest on the part of governm ent that all we want to do is clean th ings up, that we are sti ll committed to the principle of equal sharing. You 530

Thursday, December 8, 1977 know, Mr . Speaker, th e principle of equal sharing is an easy thing to accept providing you put in so many loopholes, and provid ing you rely realize so much on the old concepts of society and of law that you can go back to the old law without any problem whatsoever. The Murdoch case and other cases that show that when the courts start evaluating, accepting the concept of equal sharing, and then start saying: "What are the cont ributi ons?" - and find ing they are not eq ual, the families are in tr ouble. Mr .

Speaker, another reason why I don't bel ieve the statement that all they want to do is to polish up the act and make it workable, is not only what was said by the Minister of He alth, but what was said by the Attorney-General where he's reported to have said he couldn't make a commitment in relation to the equal sharing of commercial assets, couldn't make a commitment and therefore - and the headline is: "Me rcier Refuses to Give Commitment on Equal Spli t of Commercial Asset s" - indicates that that too is going to be reviewed. Mr.

Sp eaker, I want to call to your memory last nigh t's add ress by the Ho nourable the Minister Without Portfo lio respon sible for the task force on reorganization of government, and he made the state ment, Mr. Speaker, that the law is so loosely wiitten and is so unconcise, or is the word inconcise, not concise anyway, that he says it leaves too wide a discret ion to the courts. He said that, Mr. Speaker. Here we've been getting complaints that the courts have had their discretion removed from them.

In deed, one of the great brains of the Conservat ive party, and I'm not saying that sarcastically either, one of the leaders of the Conservative party, Graeme Hague, Q.C., whose presence I feel with me in this Chamber almost daily, says in a letter addressed to the Tribune, and I quote, it's a lengthy letter, but he says: "The inequities of the law respecting family break-up are well documented but are no more inequitable than the blind, unfee ling imposition of a 50-50 regimen from which no relief from hardship is provided. Fairness is not found in leg islative or jud icial absolutes." Mr.

Speaker, I had more respect for Graeme Haig before I read the letter than I had after I read the letter because for a person who poses to comment authorita tively and as a lawyer on the legislation, one would have expected that he would have read it, and knowing his int elle ctual capacity as I do, I would expect that having read it, he would know that there is a great deal of discretion allowed to the courts. Not allowed to the courts, expected from 'the courts, because there are judicial decisions that must be arrived at based on factors that come before the court which would affect that decision.

And, of course, the Min ister for River He ights, if I may use the expression of his shorter title, yesterday said that there was too much discretion left to the courts and therefore, when Graeme Haig says- and I quote again - "some judi cial discretion is essen tial," then I have to say to him that he hasn't read the legislatio n because I bel ieve in some respects there may be too much discretion in the Act but, neverthe less, discretion is there. And he says, Mr.

Speaker, and this I call to your atten tion because I find it amusing , "The deserving cause of women's rights is ill-served by exaggeration' hyperbole, or error." And I pause for a moment to ask, where have we heard hyperbole? From members opposite who final ly rose to speak. Where have we heard hyperbole? From the intr oductory speech by the Attorney-General to which I intend to refer shortly. But I go on with Graeme Haig. "L et us pray that calmer and more careful deli beration will produce for all Manit obans the sound legis lation which the subject matter deserves. " Mr .

Speaker, do you remember how much time we spent on this legisla tion? Do you recall how many briefs we heard? Do you recall the fact that many people appeared before three different hearings to present briefs? And of course there was an emotion because this subject is one that touches the hearts of every Manitoban who has any consideration for people, many of whom are in a position of subjugation and of complete control by another person. Mr.

Speaker, I want to deal with the speech of the Attorney-General when he intro duced the bill just to indicate to you why I think that it is hyperbole to criticize a bill as he did, why I think it is nonsense to bel ieve that they don't have the intention to dig deep into the bills and to extract therefrom certain principles which they will then throw away. Mr.

Speaker, I again pause to note that the Ho nourable Attorney-General said, "We wish to maintain and protect the principle of equal sharin g." The only way to maintain something is to maintain something that is and what is now is a law which they are sett ing aside, and what existed until we passed the law last Ju ne was no equal sharing principle and none to maintain. But he points out three signific ant areas. The first is the classification of assets as between family and commercial. Mr . Speaker, that's a problem for the courts.

We have defined what is commercial and we have defined that everything else is family which means that there is nothing that would falt in between the two cate gories - it's eit her family or it's commercial - and the court, in going into it, look ing at each case, will then defin e and develop a jurisprudence which will determine the specifics in certa in matters which are not clear. It is the discretion of the court that it is being left to and yet honourable members opposite claim that it is too rigid and there is no discretion. He deals with cred itor's rights and, Mr. Speaker, in

Section 38 of the Marital Property Act, it is clear that all creditors are protected up to May 6th and, Mr. Spe aker, it is then clear that credit ors after that date have to make sure that they are takin g securit y on assets from people who have a right to give that securit y as a pledge and to make sure that they do not encumber an asset which really belongs to two members of a marital union, and not get the consent of both. Then he speaks about potent ial tax problems. Mr. Spe aker, we debated the tax problems at some length in committee and, Mr.

Speaker, we made a provision that in the event that there is an imposition of taxation because of leg islation of another jurisd iction that the courts in making the 531

Thursday, December 8, 1977 decision regarding the dist ributio n of assets shall take into account the impact of such taxat ion in making that assessment, so that as equity between the parties involved there is clearly the requ irement - not ju st the discretion - for the courts to make that adjustment based on that. But also there can be mutual agreement which would then take care of these possible problems that have been raised. Let me te ll you, Mr. Spe aker, I practiced law since the 19 30s and I have done very well in that respect and, Mr.

Speaker, I tell you that if you let legi slation and leg islative problems fall into the hands of lawyers alone you're in serious tr ouble, Mr. Sp eaker. Every lawyer is trained to find every possible way to get around, to discuss, to debate, to twist, the law as it appears in order to make a point he wants to make and that's his tra ining . Mr. Speaker, the problem of taxa tion -t o the extent it is a problem, and it is in certain respects - can be dealt with by two parties who take proper consu ltation and do take proper precautions in the way they share the property. But I think it is very unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker' if the law of a federal jurisdiction, in regard to taxat ion, is consid ered a barrier to giving people within Manitoba equal rights to assets acquired during the time that they shared their homes. But yet it is the impression I have from the government that the ... no, I don't mean the impression, I quote the Attorney-General.

"The legislation should not become law without some commitment in writing to the government of Canada so as to ensure that Manitoba citizens are not penalized tax-wise because of this legis lation." He says here that he bel ieves, it seems to him, that it should not become law unl ess thefederal government con sents to writing a letter of commitment. Well, Mr .

Speake r, I would hope that laws are passed here that are equita ble in rights without regard to whether or not another jurisdiction decides to smile favourably on the legisla tion that appears before us and it seems to me that it is the Attorney-General who is letting the federal government make the decision as to whether or not this law will be proclaimed. And yet, the Member for Fort Rouge who has a special pipeline apparently to the federal government, has given some sort of assurance that an application would be looked at favourably in that case from the Attorney Genera l.

I'm not yet sure the extent to which the provin cial government has made an effort to get that legislation varied by the federal government. He deals, Mr. Speaker, with insurance pol icies and pension plans, and if I und erstand the legislation properly this problem would be one that the courts would deal with. They would dete rmine the nature of the assets, into which category it fall s, and how it is to be divided in an equitable way. I will trust the courts, Mr. Speaker, something the Attorney -General may not wish to do, othe rwise why should he have to rewrite leg islation?

Why should he have to order the courts when indeed the courts are given the discret ion and the power to make the separation in an equitable way. I go on, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that I might run out of ti me. He speaks about - now real ly it takes a lawyer to say, "Oh, but look the legisla tion doesn't say this law affects people who are resident in Man itoba." If it doesn't say that, then of course it cou ld by inference affect the people who have married and live in Timbuktu, and then that lawyer comes along and says, "Well, that's a problem," he says.

Wel l, I don' t bel ieve that our courts will assert their jurisd ictional power over people who are not within their jurisdicti on. But if you look for something to say, you can find it. He speaks further ... oh, I'm jumping now, Mr. Speaker. He says that he has some doubts - don't quote that correctly - but he speaks about ... here it is

Section 2, I think he means

Part II, discriminates between void and voidable marriages, and now he is righteously indignant on behalf of parties to avoid marriage and he asks the quest ion, why should a person ind uced to enter into a former marriage formal marriage by the wrongful misrepresenta tion of another be deprived of rights? If the Ho nourable the Attorney-General feels so stro ngly about parties to avoid marriage, amend the law.

Make it apply to void marriages but you don't suspend the law or repeal the law because it doesn't cover as much as you want it to do, so don't raise a red herring - and it's only a coincidence I used a red pen cil to underl ine that, Mr. Spe aker, - don't raise a red herring by saying the law doesn't go far enough. It doe sn't go far enough? Make it go further.

You don't cancel it because it doesn't go far enough, but let me say that I think the law gener ally is that a void marriage is a non-marriage that never was a marriage and if you want to give rights for misrepresentation - even today our common law provides damage rights, compensat ion for people who are wrongfully brought into a contractual relationsh p. Then he speaks about retroactivity and, Mr. Spe aker, I need only say that it applies only to people who are sti ll married and decla res only what we all seem to agree is only right and fair, equal sharing . I go on, Mr. Speaker.

He deplo res the fact that the leg islation appears to discourage atte mpts at reconcil iation. Why, Mr. Spe aker? Because if you find a couple that separated prior to May 6th, they don't have any rights for sharing but, Mr. Speaker, if under this present law they come and live tog ether and have a reunion, then they do come unde r the law and he says, "Oh, now they won't do it. Now they will be afraid to do it." Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, I do bel ieve - and I have had a great deal to do with attempting to reconcile couples who have separated - that when they come together they should come toget her kn owing and unde rstanding the new concepts that are being brought to th em, that they have a proper appreciation of what they're doing, and one thing they ought to know is that if they are coming tog ether in the form of a trial recon ciliation they should have an agreement affecting that and an agreement is exactly what is provided for under this Act. Then, Mr.

(2) Speaker, what does he say? "Section 3 of the Act is particu larly vague and it's purpose difficult to dete rmine." You know what that says, Mr. Speaker? That says that if there is a marital home, which means that it belongs to the couple who are married, and it is reg istered in the name of another, then that marital home shall sti ll be covered un der that

section even though it is reg istered in the name of the other. As long as it is owned by one of the two parties and it is the home 532 s a e s e

Thur sday, December 8, 19n which they occupy as their home. The Honoura ble the Attorney-General says that's vague and difficult to determine. Not for him, Mr. Speaker, I believe he never looked at that

section properly. I believe he was reading notes of what somebody said to him look ing for trouble and, I if I'm wrong, then I must say to the Honourable the Attorney-G eneral study a little more, read a little better and you will understand. He speaks again that the Mai ntenance Act does not provide any grounds up on which a spouse is entitled to apply for an order of separation. This results in a possible requirement of acco unting of commercial assets at any time. Mr. Sp eaker, I don't believe he read the Act thoroug hly because he could only get an accou nting of comm ercial assets if there is an Order of Separation and that Order of Separation is made under the terms set out in

Section 19 so there cannot be a requirement for an accounting unless there has been an Order granted or the parties have been separated for six months. So let him not mislead hi mself into thinking that this is irreparable. The fact is it is clearly set out and can be changed only if it is necessary to do in order to achieve greater equity. You know, Mr. Speaker, he says that some of the commercial assets should not be restricted to debts and liabil ities of a spouse. Mr. Speaker, if he believes it let him change the Act. Why cancel it? Why repeal it if it doesn't go as far as he thi nks it should?

Ch ange it, amend it, weare here forthat purpose. That's why we are legislators. Then he goes on, Mr. Speaker, he speaks about the definition of what is financial independence. Mr.

Speaker, we discussed it at great length and if the honourable member read the Act, I hope that before bringing in the legislation he also read the deliberations that had taken place by all of these comm ittees that studied it and would know what was discussed about financial independence and the fact that what is financial independence for a person in a certain economic strata may be luxury for a person in a low strata or may be poverty for a person in a high strata. So who would decide? Legislation?

Is the Ho nourable the Attorney-General or his comm ittee of three people so capable, so com petent, that they can actually define what shall be financial independence and, failing to do that does that then mean that a person shou ld not be expected to attempt to achieve financial independence? I think, Mr.

Speaker, that we have enough respect on this side anyway, in the courts, that the cou rts will be able to determine what is financial independence in relation to the couple whose affairs they are looking into at the time and juris prudence develops from the fact that courts make decisions, cou rts of appeal review the decisions, confirm them or vary them, other cou rts in other cases review the decisions and graduall y we get a body of law built up. Mr.

Speaker, if the Honourable the Attorney-General wants a ready-made body of law then he'd better go to a jurisdiction that does not have respect and confidence in our common-law system because that is the only way you can be reasonably sure that equity will continue to be ach ieved by the parties to a marriage. Mr. Speaker, he then speaks about "maybe the Court of Queen's Bench should have been incl uded." Well, maybe they should have been, so include them. You don't repeal a law because the jwisdiction is lim ited to two cour ts and you think there should be three cour ts. Tha t's just an excuse, Mr.

Speaker, and that's what brings me to feel that the government doesn't care about the people who are affected and the government as such - and I don't know if they've caucused as such - but certainly the leadership in the government as evidenced by a numb er of mem bers opposite is not happy with the law. They will pay lip service to equal sharing but they will not undertake to see to it that people get it in the best way possible. And I've come to that conc lu sion because of the way it is being presented and the lack of the assu rances on those principles that some of us felt we ought to do.

So they lean on thin gs li ke, oh, the Legal Aid director said that it would bankrup t the Legal Aid Program in short order. Of course, now the Ho nourable the Attorney-General did, and I'm pleased he did, produced a letter from the executive director who says he did make reference to the possibil ity, not he think s the probabil ity, of a subs tantial financial im pact. He says, and I qu ote, "My use of the word bankrupt was a piece of hyperbole which shou ld not be taken as a prediction or as a probable result of that Act." But, Mr.

Speaker, the important thing is, that in the protection of the rights of individuals, the costs of litigation should be the least important and not the most important, and bankruptcy of the government program should not determine the rights of individuals as between themselves. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be an awful pity if a good law is repealed and set aside because the budget of the legal aid will go overboard because the budget of the legal aid is there in order to help people protect them selves when they don't have the financial capabili ties so to do. So let me conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that the Honourable the Attorney-General being a lawyer of some experience shou ld know that he need not follow and be too mu ch influenced by what other iawyers have to say in relation to their own problems, lik e Mr. Mercur y of the Bar Association who says that it would be difficult to advise the client as to his or her marital status. -(ln terjection) Oh, so the lawyer will have difficu lty advising them. Why? Because the body of law has not been developed. If lawyers could advise their clie nts correctly every issue that's involved, they would hardly ever be in court.

It is only because there are differences between them in their

interpretation of the law that brings matters to cour t and it is there that the courts make determinations which are recorded, which are available for posterity to look at, and which will determine then, for them, the way the law is tending. Our law is a living law and it is one which develops with the changing times and we are really, although we were the forerunners on this continent in the Marital Property Law that we brought in, we are still behind where we ought to be in relation to the rights of individ uals. I'm proud that we were involved. You, Mr.

Speaker, mu st be proud you were involved in that progress. It would be an awful pity if my predictions are true and the government backs away from what is right and proper in order to serve the concerns of the few. 533

Thursday, December 8, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorne y-General will be closing debate. The Ho nour able Member for Rupert sland. MR . BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Before the honour able minister closes debate, I would like to say a few words on the bill before us. It is the first time I've spoken on the legislation before us. The members of my party I bel ieve have put forward the posit ions very eloque ntly that we are concerned about.

The Co nser vative position, as I have been list ening and reading the debates, seems to be that the legis lation that is presently planned to be en acted is unworkable. Mr . Speaker, I do not bel ieve this to be the case. Many of the lawyers who have commented on this legis lation have commented that it can work, it can indeed be a workable, useful piece of legislation and any amendments that need to be made can be made in the course of the workin g of the legislation. Amend ments could be brought in at the next session, Mr .

Sp eaker, which would satisfy any of the requirements for modification of this legis lati on. Ju st recently, Mr . Speaker, the legal aid lawyers of the provin ce who, by the way, handle about 80 percent of the client s who would be deal ing with the new Family Maintenance Act, have made the case that this Family Maintenance Act should be maint ained in place. They bel ieve that it will cause greater hardship for the people that the y are deal ing with if we have to go back to the old law. I submit, Mr .

Speaker, that the reason, the concept put forward by the Cons ervative administration that this legisla tion is unworkable is an excuse, it's not a reason. It 's not a valid reason for pullin g back on this legi slati on. An excuse, Mr . Speaker, is to cover up their real reasons for opposing the legislation and cancellin g it at this point in time. We bel ieve the law should be tested and amendmen ts brought in at subsequent sessions of this le gislature to deal with any problems that may result from the workings of the leg islat ion.

If the problems are thei r real reason for holding back on the legisla t ion, Mr . Speaker, then they'r e attac king the problem all wrong. They should be esta blishin g a special committee of MLAs who could be assisted by the Leg islative counsel that are already employed by the government. If they are int erested in the rest raint measures as they say they are, th ese people could be reta ined and working on the legislation at very little extra cost.

The extra cost of maint ainin g the MLAs in a special committee could be well worth the effort of shaping up and sharpen ing up any problems there might be with the existing legislation. Mr . Speaker, the Conser vatives claim they have a mandate for chang ing, pulling back on this legi slation. Wel l, Mr . Speaker, dur ing the election campaign, as has been pointed out here already by my colleagues, the Conser vative Party was cons picuously silent on this whole issue of family law legislation.

If they really felt that they wanted a mandate to pull back this legisla tion and change it, they wanted to be the crusaders, Sir , for bring ing in better leg islation, why did they not raise it as an issue? Why did they not put it into their election pamphlets and election material? Nowhere to my knowledge did any Conser vative candida te anywhere in this province raise this as an issue during the election campaign. I bel ieve, Mr . Speaker, that we should call a spade a spade and describe the real reason why the Conser vative Party is pull ing back on this legis lation at this time . Mr.

Speaker, the wealthy people of this province are the holder s of the large commercial asset and they, I would imagine, to a man oppose this type of legisla tion and the un derstandable reason is that people who have large commercial assets don' t relish the idea of having, in the event of marriage breakdown, to have to share these assets with a spouse. These are the same people, Mr. Speaker, who bankroll the Progressive Con servative Party and, Mr . Speaker, this is one way that they're callin g in their debt. This is proof, Mr .

Speaker, that these people control the party and are te ll ing the party at this point in time that is forming the governm ent that this legislation should be pulled back, that it should be either thr own out or it should be watered down so that the par ticular

section relating to the sharing of commercial assets will either not be in there or it will be in there in such aform as it will not have any real meaning. Mr . Speaker, I submit this is the real reason that we have this bill before us to suspend this leg islation. We have the new Attorney-Ge neral tr ying to be vague about the plans of the government. We have him reporzd ::is sayir.g that he's not sure about the sharing of commercial assets so he's already flying that hial balloon to see how it will work. He 's already saying to the media, Mr .

Speaker, that he's no1 sure the legislation will be ready for the spring session. Well, Mr . Speaker, we take the position, and i1 should be clear from all of the comments that have been made on this side so far, that this legislatior should be enacted as sched uled and the reason is that there is no real need for suspension at thi� ti me. Public hearings have already consumed th ree years of study. We've had a Law Reforrr Commission that has had public hearings all over this province.

We've had the MLAs working almos· in a non-partisan fashion in its special committee holding public hearings all over this province coming up with what is an exc elle nt piece of legisla tion. I'll join my colleagues, Mr . Sp eaker, in callin� on the Attorne y-Genera l to clearly state and I hope that he will prove the comments that I have jus made wrong. I hope that he will cle arly state his government's position on this issue. Mr .

Sp eaker, I'll outl ine the principles which I would like to hear him say that he is in agreemen with, and which they do not to intend to discard in the rewriting of this leg islation. Number one, Mr Speaker, relating to the Marital Property Act, does he agree that the family house which is purchase< for marriage should be jointly owned by by the couple? Nu mber two, Mr . Speaker, does he agree tha property acquired by either spouse dur ing marriage will be join tly shared , except for gift� 534 e t t n s m t , g t t r. d at s,

Thursday, December 8, 1977 inhe ritance, and so on? Mr . Speaker, number three, does he agree that property not used to produce income is join tly owned if it was join tly used by the couple dur ing the marriage? Number four, Mr. Speaker, does he agree that property used to produce income, commercial assets acquired during marriage, such as bank accounts, bonds, apartment blocks, businesses, etc., are shared only if a couple separates, but they will be shared on a 50 -50 basis in the event of te rmination of the marriage? With respect to the Family Maintenance Act, Mr .

Sp eaker, does the Attorn ey-General agree that custody of childr en will be decided by the judge in the childr en's best inter est? Nu mber two, that the parents are eq ually responsible for the support of the childr en up to the age eighteen, even if separated! Number th ree, Mr . Sp eaker, does he agree that maintenance should be decided by a judge with consider ation of living costs, financial circumstances, and need for providing stable environment for the child, and that this maintenance should be decide d on need, not .on fault? Mr .

Speaker, does he also agree that on separat ion, each spouse will be expected to attempt, within reason, within a reasonable period of time, to become fin ancially independent of the other spouse? Mr . Sp eaker, many fears and doubts in the minds of concerned Man itobans and in the minds of those of us on this side of the Hous e would be alle viated if the Honour able Min ister, the Honour able Attorney-General would respond to this challenge, and agree with these points as I've outli ned them . We can only assume, Mr . Speaker, if they do not do this, that they don't agree with these principles.

We must assume that they want to either th row out the legislation altogether, or to bring it back in some watered-down form with these principles not intact. I believe, Mr . Speaker, that the Conser vative government doesn't want this legis lat ion. They're going to atte mpt to kill the leg islation, either thr ough watering it down or not bringing it back in.

They want us to stay with the old leg islation - the y're happy with the old legislation, obviously - I have to assume this since they chose as thei r legisla tive dr aftsman a gentleman by the name of Ken Houston, who has made his position cle ar on this legislation. He has said to the committee of MLAs, and I quote: "The whole premise of my comments was the law is presently sufficient, and as far as I'm concerned, the legisla tion is unne cessary." Does the hon ourable gentleman Ken Ho usto n, does he speak for the Cons ervative government in putting together this legisla tion?

Are these sentimen ts that he has already expressed going to be enacted in any new form of leg islation that is brought forth by the Cons ervative government? Mr . Speaker, I bel ieve this is the kind of advice the Conser vative government is actually looking for, and I bel ieve it's the kin d of advice they're going to accept - the kind of advice tha t Mr . Ho uston has to offer. The people of Man itoba, Mr .

Sp eaker, as has been eloquently exp ressed by my two col leagues today who spoke on this bill, are going to have to suffer with the old leg islation, with its outda ted principles, and the dismal record of its application in the courts of this province. In closing, Mr . Speaker, I exp ress the hope that I am wrong in assuming these things about the present government, and I hope that they will prove my assumptions wrong. However, I challe nge the Attorney-General to state his position on th ese principles of the legislation cle arly and unequivocal ly. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General will be closing debate on Bill No. 5. The Honour able Attorn ey-General. MR. MERCIE R: Mr . Speaker, Sir , I want to perhaps begin my remarks by indi cating, Sir , I have great respect for women. While I was a member of City Counc il, Sir , I had the privilege of serving with a fello wcounsel lor, Laurie Chernia ck. While we had great difference of opinion with respect to political philosophies, Mr . Cherniack, Laurie Che rniack, always conduc ted himself as a gentleman and a state sman, and despite those differences of opinion' we always remained good friends.

And I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, those were attributes he received from his mothei. Mr . Speaker, the Honour able Memberf or St. Johns is just one example, I'm not going to comment, Sir, on all of his sugge st ions with respect to the concerns that I indic ated have been expressed with respect to the legislation.

But he made one particular comment about a concern I had exp ressed about a lack of time during which people might have an opportu nity to become reconc iled , and failing reconc i liation, that in that period of time that would not affect the applicability of the legislation, and he seemed to indic ate that that wasn't quite right. I want to point out, Sir, that ... MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. May I interrupt the Attorney-General to welcome to our Chambers the Consu l-General of the Polish People's Republic, Tadeusz Janicki, and the Canadian Consul =ugeni usz Panek. On behalf of all members, we welcome you.

The Honour able Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Sp eaker, I was commenting on the Honour able Me mber for St. Johns ;omments about lack of the provision for recon ciliation. I want to point out to him, Sir , that du ring my lractises in family law, I found that in the Wives' and Childr en's Maint enance Act, because there was io similar provision for a nin ety-day period for reconcil iation in the Wives' and Childr en's Jlaintenance Act, as there was and is in the federal Divorce Act, I wrote to the then Attorney-General, Jlr.

Mackl ing at that time, and made that sugges tion that tha t kind of an amend ment should be made o the Wives' and Childr en's Maintenance Act, because it would assist in recon ciliation; because in ny experience, many people were very, very reluctant to enga ge in any reconc iliation process 1ecause of the legal results that flowed from it; and the government of the day, and the then Attorney- 535 a f l t E c p n M M t m b

Thursday, December 8, 1977 General made that amendment to the Wiv es' and Childr en's Mai ntenance Act, Sir, and I consider that was a wise amendment to the act. In the same way, Sir, I sugge st that the kin d of concern that I express with respect to that provision would be a valuable one. Sir, I want to indicate firstly that this government, despite comments from members opposite and various mem bers of groups, are committed to bringing into the spring sess ion of the 19 78 1egisla tur e the amendm ents that we deem suitable to the family law leg islation.

And let there be no doub t, Sir , that those amendments will be brought into that ses sion of the legisla ture. -(Int erjection)- The Honourable Member for St. Jo hns referred to the comments of the executive dir ector, and I think, Mr . Speaker, du ring question period, I elabor ated on the transcript of the seminar on family law that was held by the Law Society, in which Mr . Larson had stated that he thought the act stands a good chance of bankrupting Legal Aid in about six months. I think that I ag ree with the Honour able Member for St.

Johns that a mere procedural matter, as this really is, should not delay the introduction of this kind of legisla tion, but it's a point that has to be made that more lawyers will have to be consulted earl ier in the process, and there will be an additional expense. Bu t agai n, I agree with him that that should not be a reason for deferring the legislation, if it is good and val id legislation. . 1 want to comment for a moment, Mr . Speaker, with respect to the comments of the Honourable Member for Selki rk, with respect to the tax impl ications.

The Honou rable Mem ber for Selkirk pointed out that there was a tax benefit to Manitobans resultin g from the passage of this legislation, and that I should not sugge st that the taxation problems were pur ely in the ne!ilative nature. I wantto point out, Mr. Speaker, that he pic ked from a 14 -page report one paragraph m which it was pointed out that there may be a tax benefit, while the remainder of the 14 -page report poi nted out nothing but tax problems. -( I nterjection)- We will deal with Fort Rouge in a minu te. With respect to the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, Mr.

Speaker, he indicated that no steps at all had been taken to get the federal government to make the necessary tax changes. I want to point out, Sir, that the previous Attorney-General, the Member for Selkir k, gave to Mr . Basford a copy of the tax report in Ju ne 24, or hi s report dated Jun e 24 was given to him on J une 29. He su bsequently wrote Mr. Basford on Ju ly 13 th. The Ho nourable Roy McMur try, Attorney-General of On tario, wrote to the Mi nister of Na tional Revenue on September 20th with respect to this problem.

The Honour able Alex Campbel l, the Premier and AttorneyGeneral of Prince Edward Is land wrote to the Honourable Ron Basford in No vember. Bu t it is a matter of record, Sir, that responses from the federal government were received on October 11t h from the Ho nourable Je an Chr etien, over two months after the former Minister of Fina nce had written to him, and that the Honour able Ron Basford only wrote to me in response to Mr . Pawley's letter on November 14th, over four mo nths after he was contacted by the former Attorney-General. Mr .

Speaker, if these requir ed tax changes are so smal l and relatively simple, as stated by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, why has it taken so long for the federal ministers to even respond, and then only to tell us they're studying the problem? Mr . Speaker, I want to ind icate to mem bers of the assembly I spoke to the Honourable Ron Basford on December 5th, this past Monday, after attempti ng for a few days to telephone him, and in fact he did telephone me from outside of Ottawa.

He ind icated, Sir, that the amendments to the Income Tax Act are traditionally only brought down in the Bud get Speech, and that he would respond to me shortly after he returned to Ottawa to di scuss this matter fur ther with Mr. Chretien, but indicated that it would be qu ite unusual for income tax amendm ents to be brought in at the cu rrent session in the manner sugge sted by the Honour able Memb er for Fort Rouge. At the same time, the Minis ter of Fi nance has gi ven me a report indicating that Mr .

Basford is not in a position to make a comm itment on behalf of the federal government, he certainly has done so perso nally. We appreci ate • that, but the federal Fina nce Mini ster is the one respons ible for this tax policy, and they are � � apparently still carrying out their review of the tax implic ations of the fam ily law legislation.

The y afterwards intend to review that with the National Review Dep artment, with the Ju stice Department, and they intend to go through a process of assessm ent of these recommendations, and the information that I have through the Mini ster of Fi nance is that the initial discussions between the various dep artments will not be completed for at least two or three weeks. I want to point out, Mr . Speaker, that we are not the only province in Canada that are requesting income tax changes in order to put into effect matri monial pro perty legislation.

Vir tually every other province in Canada is doing the same thing, and have proposed or have enacted subject to proclamation n, and this kind of legislatio are awaiting the changes that have to be made to the Income Tax Act in order to bring this kind of legislation into effect. The Ho nou rable Member for St. Johns indi cated that it would be inequitable for us to wait for the federal go vernment to make these changes. Qu ite to the contrary, Mr . Speaker, 1 sugg est that it would be inequ itable to introduce into effect the leg islation without the requi red tax changes.

Sir , I want to review agai n some of the tax impl ications with respect to this legislation. As 1 indicated earlier, the report from the tax consu ltant retained by the previous government was given to Mr .

Basfor d in Jun �. and the tax consultant has subseq uently advised that the legal officers of the Department of Ju stice have confirmed his opi nion that the vesting of imme diate ownership rig hts in the non-regis tered spouse constitutes a di sposition unde r the Income Tax Act by the registered owner, and therefore there may be an app roved capital gain and the registered owner's spouse would be requir ed to pay tax on the di fference between his cost to the particular assets and its fair mar ket value. He's c�r:n mented previously, as I indic ated to the Ho use, Mr .

Speaker, that the effect of the rollover prov1s1on of the Income Tax Act, which leads to very compl icated tax situationsqhere we deal with deferral of real ization of capital gain s or losses until the property is dis posed of, the loss of 536 I

Thur sday, December 8, 19 77 capital cost allowance, adjusted cost basis and attri bution of income. It would appear, Mr . Speaker, that the attri bution of income under

Section 74 of the In come Tax Act would result where property is transferred to a spouse before divorce, whether by agreement or court order,

whereas a court order vesting property in the spouse directly would not result in this income att ribution. I appreciate, Sir, that the information that I am giving to the Ho use is complicated, and members should appreciate that it is compJicated, but unfortunately those tax implicationsw ere not considered when the bill was . passed and when it was proclaimed. The Marital Property Act permits spouses to own more than one marital home at the same time which causes tax implicat ions. Marital homes are deemed to be owned jointly and eq ually by the spouses.

With regard to fam ily assets, furn iture, furn ishings , cars, boats, cottages, each spouse is deemed toxe the owner of an undi vide d one-half int erest. The home and family assets may be eligible tor income split ting but the commercial assets are not, so that transac tions involving different assets owned by the same tax payer would be treated in a different fashion. It may lead to attempts by taxpayers to conver t commercial assets into family assets under certa in circumstances in order that a more beneficial tax treatment will be achieved.

There are tax implications that are created from the conversion of family assets to commercial assets and then the ir reconversion to family assets. All of these and other tax implications, Mr . Sp eaker, may be very sign ificant to a sizeable nu mber of Man itoba citizens. We want to ensur e, Sir , that Man itoba citizens are not penalized in taxes because of family law reform. We must determ ine just how far the federal gove rnment is prepared to cooperate with us before we bring this legisla tion into force. I've comment ed previously on the problems with respect to insurance policies and pension plans.

There is, Mr . Speaker, an interesting letter to the Ed itor in the Winnip eg Tribune today by two female lawyers which is rather lengthy but in which some comments, very relevant comment s are made with respect to this leg islation. The letter to the Ed itor is headlined Present Leg islation Would Create Hardsh ips and In justice. I don't know either of the letter writers but they do make some interes ting comments. -(I nterject ion)- She may have, but I wasn't a member of the caucus. They sugge st that the consequences of the immediate vesting are horrendous.

I am not going to go into all of the problems that are raised, Mr . Speaker, but they go on to ind icate that the fact are that the NOP government and womens groups are responsible for any delays in the implementation in this legis lation. The NO P government neg lected to codify the proposals of our law reform commission until the last session of the leg islature, in May 1977 and then, Sir , did so with indecent haste and reckless disregard tor the consequences. Amendme nts to the bill were handed out onl y . minutes prior to the Law Amend ments committee meeting conven ing.

Mor eover the NOP government rejected many of the commission's recommendations. I would say, Sir, that this is in support of the comments of the Honour able Minis ter without Portf olio responsible for the MHRC, who commented last nigh t. They go on to comment about the seminar on October 15th, of Man itoba Law Socie ty tor some 500 lawyers at which a panel of acknowledged experts in the field of family law stru ggle d to int erpret what is alleged to be "the best family law legislation in Canada" for their colle agues.

They were unable to agree on such basic points as whether a registered reti rement savings plan was a family or a commercial asset. At the hearings they say when one of us personally raised the problem of categorizing of insurance, registered retir ement savings and pension plans she was advised by the government that this was not a problem. Sub sequently ... -(I nter ject ion)- that's correct, nin e judges could n't agree on the AIB leg islation, Mr. Speaker, but I sugge st, I sugge st, Mr .

Speaker, ifthe government hadn' t sat on the fence and had fol lowed the course that they were advised to do by the legal officers of the Attorney- Ge neral's department they would have saved many many un ions in Man itoba a great deal of legal expenses in not having to go to court, and as far as the supreme court, to fight a decision for no worthwhile purpose at all. MR. SI DNE Y GREEN(lnk ster): Ho w do you know how the new leg islation will be interpr eted? How do you kno w they will be able to agree on that. MR.

ME RCIER: They go on to say in thei r letter, the last quote I'll make, Sir , is that it has been clear to the Con servatives and other responsible individu als that to put the legislation into force in its present form would create inj ustices and hardships and in some cases lead to costly lit igation. A MEMB ER: There is no injustice now though with this whole law. MR.

ME RCIER: I might, Sir , point out in passing that the repeal of the Su ccession Duty Act and the Gitt Tax Act at this session of the legis latur e are being very much welcomed by many propone nts of the legis lation who have been concerned tor a number of years about gifts, particularly gifts between husbands and wives.

There has been, Sir , concern exp ressed about the enforcement of maintenance orders and the former Attorney- Ge neral has been kin d enough to discuss this matter with me, Sir , and that is something which I intend to fol low up and hopefully be able to be in a position to improve that situation. The question, Sir, has often been asked - it has been asked in this Hous e and outside of thi s House - What am I committed to? I want to say, Sir , that I recognize the value of a woman's work, whether that be in the home or whether that be in the market, placeas equal to that of a man, Sir .

I th ink, particula rly as an aside, I think politicians, whether they be male or female, particula rly at times like this when our occupations take so much time and we are away from our spouses and our families so much. I think we, probably more than any other group of people, recogn ize the value of efforts of 537

Thursday, December 8, 19n our spouse which results from our absences away from home and I think perhaps that may be part of the reason why the issue was handled so well, as I understand, by the legislative com mittee during the last session for which they were and have been commended and which I hope will continue in the future.

I want to, Sir, assure the Ho use that the princip les of equal sharing between marriage partners will be applied and as a result the amendments will be applie d clearly, will be applied understandably, will be applied ' unequivocably, and that it will be realistic legislation and practical and fair legislation. I mu st in passing, Si r, comment on the remarks of the Ho nourable Opposition Hous e Leader, the haggard fellow in the front row, who suggested that I looked haggard last night.

I too agree with some of his personal concerns and again, these are personal concerns and probably will not affect any amendments that are brought forth. I agree with his general phi losophy about inje cting into the private lives and private decis ion-making of people some of this legislation.

To me personally, and again I say I don't think this is a personal view point and these are notthat significant, but to inject into legislation provisions, for example, in a Fami ly Maintenance Act, specifying personal expenses, specifying financial information to be given by spouses living together, Sir , I find repugnant.

I th ink people living together are well able to make those decisions themselves and as the Ho nourable Member for Inkster said, if the sanctity of marriage or the well-being of marriage in this province requires this kind of legislation in order that spouses can live together happily, then we are in a very great deal of difficulty, I suggest, Sir .

I suggest that in any situation where spouses have to use this kind of legislation and apply to cour t for an order to get this kind of information or to get a personal expense allowance, there's a lot of problems in that marriage and this legislation is not going help it in ' any way whatsoever. I say, Sir, it has apparently been agreed upon and I am not going to continue that debate any further. _ The Ho nourable Member for Inkster indicated two princi ples which he felt were the basic principles behind the legislation. The first one that he indicated was marriage is an equal partnership.

I agree with that, Sir , and I think most, if not all memb ers of the Ho use, would agree with that. He indicated, Sir, that the second principle was that property acq ui red during the marriage by the spouses should be shared equally, and I agree with that, Sir, particu larly with respect to family assets. f ! I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The question of comme rcial assets has been mentioned, Sir, and I would poi nt out that when I was asked the qu estion whether I agreed with 50-50 sharing of commercial assets, I said no, and the previous government didn't agree with it either.

That's why they includ ed a

section in that Act that allo ws some li ttle discretion in what I admit to be extraordinary circums tances, and Si r, that

part icular

section is one where concerns have been expressed and where I have, in introducing this bill and expressing concerns, the only practical problem being that of how qui ckly do those property rights vest and over what period of time are they to be paid out. And it may be, Si r, that there are practical and realistic problems in implementing that kind of sharing im mediately. There's been comments or qu estions with respect to no-fault maintenance.

In my personal experience, Si r, I would agree with the qu estion or the fact that an order for separation generally shou ld be available on a no-fault basis, because I have seen thedifficulties that are caused by one spouse having to prove fault in a family court where it's very difficult. I agree it's very difficult to determine fault because what seems to be a very outlandi shed act is sometimes caused by numerous incidental acts on the part of the other spouse, so it is difficu lt, Sir , to apportion fault.

There is one problem though Sir , has been indicated in this letter to the Editor in which fault is still _. , a provision in the Divorce Act and how is that qu estion to be reconcile d with Family Law legislation in • the province of Manitoba. There is also the qu estion that no one should go away thinking that there will be no question of fault in matrimon ial proceedings because by virtue of the wording in the Famil y Maintenance Act - the word used is the judge "ma y" make an order, and then outlines a numb er of things that can be done, one of which is an order for cu stody.

Si r, when you get into custody, I am sure the Honour able Member for Inkster and Wellington and St. Jo hns in their experience will agree that that's where some of the most vicious arguments and disputes between spouses take place. So this legislation, Sir , is not doing away with fault. One of the concerns expressed, the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry, the Min ister of Health and Social Development, indic ated his concern with no-fault maintenance.

The Law Reform Commis sion did recommend , Sir , not the same standards of fault that we've had in the past but a situation in which the concept of a paramount fault of a spouse could be used as a basis, I sup pose, for those very smal l numb er of cases where someone, on a whim or someone without any consideration whatsoever for the spouse, deserts a spouse or comm its some other act which has formally been a ground for separation. In view of the position of the Ho nourable Member for Fort Garry, t_hat is a matter that will have to be dealt with.

I want to say though that generally 1 agree with the position that fault too often has been looked at too closely in marital situations. But perhaps for that very small numb er of cases where there is what is referred to in the Law Reform Comm ission Report as pa. amount fault, that that will be reviewed and legislation will be brought in that may deal - with that. I'm not makin g this comm itment that that will happen, I'm saying, Sir, that that will be reviewed and I don't want to unduly restrict the report of the review comm ittee who have been given a certain job to do.

Sir, in the last there has been supp ort for the position that our party has taken. The president of the Manitoba Bar Associa tion, Sir, said in a statement, this past Tuesday, it was reported that ... 538

Thursday, December 8, 1977 A ME MB ER: I wonder if the Honour able Member would permit . MR. SPEAKER: Or der. Or der please. The Honour able Me mber for ln kster with a question. MR. MERCIE R: I will accept a quest ion at the end, Sir . MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. MR. ME RCIER: Sir , ther e was quite a le ngthy news

article in dicat ing support from the president of the Man itoba Bar Association, who, although he indi cated support for the basic principles of the leg islation said there was no doubt that the legis lation, the way it is presently drafted, could cause needl ess and expensive litiga tion. He went on at length to desc ribe that, Sir , but cert ainly ind icated support for this posit ion because of the lack of clarity of the legislation.

In addition, Sir , I have received a letter from the Estate Plannin g Council of Winnip eg, who are most concerned with the Marital Property Act and feel that it is very difficult to ad minister and they are in favour, I believe, of the deferral. Mr . Sp eaker, Sir , the Fam ily Law Review Committee, I expect, Sir , to complete their review some time prior to the end of Ja nuary. There has been discussion, much discussion about the personal philosophies of members of that Family Law Review Committee, Sir .

I want to say, Sir , in their support, that they've been involved in family law litiga tion for a good number of years and they've been hired as lawyers, Sir ,hhe y've not been hired to propose or advance any personal philosophies. Theirs is a legal review, Sir , and I have every confidenc e that they possess a sufficient amount of expertise to do a good job with respect to this matter.

That review should be completed by the end of Jan uary, Sir , and I would repeat again, that we will under take here to do everything in our power to bring in whatever amendmen ts we deem suitable in the spring session of the 19 78 Legislatu re.

Sir , it appears to me that this whole subject was dealt with very well in the committee stage at the last session of the Leg islatur e, al most on a non-partisan basis, as people from all political philosophies have un ited thr ougho ut the provinc e in supp ort of reform of matrimonial property leg islation, and I agree there is reform and I believe this party believes in the need for reform, Sir . I look forward to working with such a legisla tive committee in the next session to ensur e that the best possible law, practical and realistic and fair for all Man itobans, will come into force in 19 78, Sir. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for ln kster with a question. MR. GR EEN: Mr . Speaker, the Atto rney-General indic ated when he closed his remarks, he would permit a question; I would like to quest ion specifically with regard to the letter from the President of the Manitoba Bar Association. MR. MERCIE R: Mr. Sp eaker, I do not have a letter from the Man itoba Bar Association; I was reading from a newspaper

article which he can have if he wishes. MR. GREE N: No, Mr . Sp eaker, if my honourable friend is relying on that newspaper

article as being one of the points to advance his argument - I'm not suggesting if he didn 't have it that he would s_ay anything different, but if he is rely ing on it, then I would like to ask him whether he would check with the Man itoba Bar Association whether that letter is not di rect ly in conflict with the Bar Association Committee which was considering family law, which said that the leg islation should be proceeded with and that there should be no suspension of the legislation at this time. -(I nterjection)- The Man itoba Bar Association.

I would like the honour able member, who is perhaps a member of the Bar Associat ion, to check to see whether the President's letter is directly in conflic t with the committee that was given the task of deal ing with this quest ion. MR. ME RCIER: Mr . Speaker, Sir, I am not in any way rely ing only on the comments of the President of the Man itoba Bar Association. I can assure you that there are many, many other reasons, most importantly, the tax implications for bringing this bill before the Ho u�e. -(l nterject i<:>n)- 1 was ju_st looking in the newspaper

article if he di_d m�k .e a refer�n .ce to the Family Law_sub?ect 101"!; he has, Si r, and it's very difficul� to read. But h_e said, "1t 1s the op11")1on _of n:iany lawye_rs in this prov1_nce that �he legislation, the way 1t now stands, 1s unworkable. If leg 1slat1on 1s � nacted �t could result in defeat 1r:ig the purposes originally cont emplated ." I'm not certa in whether he s speaking on behalf of the Family Law subsect ion, but I can certainl y check. MR. GR EEN: Mr . Speaker, another quest ion.

I raised the first one merely because the Honour able Atto rne y-Gener al would want to know what au�hor ity that letter has, since he us� d i�. Sec<?n�ly, Mr . Speaker in terms of hiring counsel who are hired as lawyers and have no sub1ect1ve opin ions on questions, is the Attorn ey-General tel ling this Ho use that if he sought advice on _Ind ustrial Relations _aw, that he could hire Leon Mitchell or Dick Hun ter, either one of them,x oth being lawyers, that the nformation they would give would be clin ical and would have no subjectivity to it. MR.

SPEAKER: May I sugge st to the Honour able Member for lnk ster that that question may 539 A S q L i

Thursday, December 8, 19 77 argumentative. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the reason that I raised the qu estion is that the Attorney-General said that Mr. Houston and others who were hir ed were not hired because of their opi nions, but because they were lawyers, and I, in clarification, am asking him whether the subjectivity of a lawyer wi ll not possibly be felt in the opin ions that he expresses.

T o put the qu estion, I asked him whether, if he was seeking advice on labour relations, he think s that he would get the same legal advice as to how the law should be drafted if he hir ed Leon Mi tchell or Dick Hu nter. MR. SPEAK ER: Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Member for Assinib oia have a question? MR. PAWLEY: Yes, to the Attorney-General if he would ag ree to a quest ion. The Attorney-General referred to a letter of June 24th dealing with tax implic ations from Mr.

Goodwin and to my speech. xcerpts taken from I wonder if the honourable member could refer to the page in which he sugg ests \. that my comments were taken from. Sec ondly, at the same time, whether the honourable member could advise whether or not subsequent corresp ondence and communic ation was not received by him from Mr. Goodwin as to the date that he first corresponded with Mr. Basford re the tax imp I ications. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Attorney-General. MR. ME RCIER: Th ere was a report, Mr. Sp eaker, by Mr.

Goodwin, to the best of my knowledge on June 24th, and another one in October, and the information I had is that the former Attorney-General • personally del ivered the report dated Ju ne 24th to the Honour able Ron Basford at a conference of • Attorneys-General at the end of June 19 77. I would ask him to repeat his fi rst question. MR. PAWLEY: The first qu estion related to the references made by myself as to unintended tax benefits and suggest ing that that was taken from the report of Jun e 24th, whic h was referred to as a 14 -page letter.

Could the honourable member refer to the page in which I took those excerpts from? MR. SPE AKER: If the Honour able Attorney-General wou ld ind icate whether or not he is willing to provide that information, I think we can go on with the orders. MR. MERCIER: I'm willing to provide that information as soon as I get a ropy of the report out. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the qu estion? The question is on the motion of the Honour able Attorney-General on Bill No. 5,

an Act to Su spend the Family Mai ntenance Act1 and to defer the coming into force of The Marital Property Act, and to amend certain other Acts a d make provision requir ed as a consequence thereof. QU ESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. JORG ENSON: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. e Order ple ase. The qu estion before the House is the adoption on Second Reading of Bill No. 5. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Lyon, Enns, Jorgenson, McGill, Cra

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-19a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf 19a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	84b3e48a7d47c0f48bd1383e9e1e0df8a8f43561

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