Manitoba Hansard — 19 February 1990 (Sitting 128A, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-128a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, February 19, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INT ROD UCTION OF GUEST S Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have from the George McDowell School, forty Grade 9 students and they are under the direction of Brian Hyska. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Niakwa (Mr. Herold Driedger). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Port of Chu rchill Continued Use Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speak er, tomorrow Manitobans along with the rest of the country will receive more bad news as the Mulroney Government continues its destruction of regional economies. Mr. Speaker, there have been many concerns raised in this House about the Port of Churchill over the last few years as the federal Government has cut back its use of that important resource in this province, and I would like to ask the Minister for Transportation today whether he has received any assurances about the continued existence of the Port of Churchill. (Mr. William Chorn opyski, Deputy Speaker , in the Chair) Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate at this time that this Government has continually for the past 20 months promoted the idea of the rail line to Churchill, VIA Rail, as well as the Port of Churchill and we will continue to do so. ' Mr. Deputy Spe aker, I would like to indicate that we are prepared to back our record to the previous administration on what is happening in Churchill with the previous administration.

The fact that these are federal decisions, we can only try and influence and bring forward the arguments on behalf of the people of Manitoba, which we have done. Town of Selkirk Dry Do ck Facilities Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker , there we�e '.'llso concerns raised a few years ago about port fac1ht1es and dry dock facilities in the Town of Selkirk. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us whether he has received assurances about these important facilities in that community? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Mini ster of Highways and Transportation): I have not received those assurances, but we are still trying to achieve that. 5358 Free Trade Agreement Impact on Manitoba Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): My question is to the Minister responsi ble for Ind ustry and Trade (Mr. Ernst). The year-end trade figures for the first year of free trade are in. Canada has suffered a $3 billion drop in its trade surplus with the U.S. I wonder if the Minister for Industry and Trade can tell us what the impact of this has been on the Province of Manitoba. Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): If my honourable friend would care to notice, there has been a 9.25 percent change in the U.S. Canadian dollar exchange rate, which has almost entirely resulted in the kind of reduction in trade balance that we have had. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Osborne (Mr: Alcock) has the floor. Mr. Alcock: I did not ask the Minister the reason behind the trade surplus. I asked him- An Honourable Member: You want to make a political statement. *

(1335) Mr. Alcock: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I asked him very clearly, what was the impact of a $3.2 billion drop in trade with the U.S. on this province?-something that Minister should know. Mr. Ernst: With respect to the Free Trade Agreement, first let me say that the average is a 1 percent drop in tariffs over the past year on 25 percent of the goods that we export. Our exports as a matter of fact have been second in the country in terms of the numbers and the volume of increase of exports we have had over the past year. That is something that we can be very proud of.

Our manufacturers are adapting well, our manufacturers as a matter of fact are taking advantage of many of the opportun ities under the Free Trade Agreement. lnformetr ica Economic Forecast Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Yes, we are doing so well that lnformetrica has ide ntified us as one of the losers next year, and predicts we could lose as many as 20,000 jobs. Can the Minister of Indust ry, Trade and Technology tell us how he explains lnformetrica's bleak job forecast with his rosy one? Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism): I think the facts speak for themselves and the facts are that we have had over the past year a 7

Monday, February 19, 1990 percent increase in manufacturing shipments, which is the second highest in the count ry. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for all those companies who my honourable friend across the way talks about with gloom and doom, they have invested an increase of 14 percent of total investment in this province. In addition to that, in terms of manufacturing, which is the greatest area of concern, according to my honourable friends , under free trade, the 105 percent increase led the count ry.

We can have the gloom and doom of my honourable friend across the way on a regular basis but they are not part of the solution. They are the prob lem. We have companies in Manitoba doing the things that are necessary to create the jobs. They are optimistic and so should my honourable friends across the way be. ERDA Agreements Expenditures Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): That optimism is predicted to produce 20,000 fewer jobs next year. To the Minister responsible, again, $242 million was set aside to fund western ERDAs in the 1989 fiscal year.

Can the Mini ster responsible for Ind ustry, Trade and Technology tell us how much of that money was spent in Manitoba in this fiscal year? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): As we pointed out last week, and as my Premier (Mr . Filmon) pointed out last week, those agreements are about ready to be signed. We have only a few details to finalize and we will then have the situation in place. As a resu lt, we will not be able to spend as much money had we had those agreements some time earlier in the year. Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , an entire year minus some 30 days has gone by, and we have not seen a single dollar from those agreements spent in this province. Now- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. I think the Honourable Member has had his last question. The last one was the last one. That is it. Thank you. Federal Budget Transfer Payments Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), this is the second post-free-trade budget we are going to have in Canada. Of course, the Con servatives are playing it both ways.

They supported free trade, which is an Americanization of our country, a leaner and meaner country with the United States. Now they are whining about the cutbacks in healt h, post-secondary educ ation and regional development, all of which were predicted by many of us in the Free Trade Agreement, if it took place. My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). On November 6, we asked the Premier to get ahead of the issue of cutbacks in the federal budget.

We asked the Premier to place in the Manitoba statement before the Prime Min ister, on November 6, a strong statement by the Premier on preventing health care cutbacks, cutbacks to post-secondary education and indeed cutbacks to regional development. The Premier did not put it in his statement. He did not anticipate what is going to happen tomorrow. Would the Premier please tell us, was he assured that there would be no cutbacks tomorrow on Manitoba, and that is why he neglected it in his statement to the Prime Minister? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I find it quite unusual that today the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Doer) is criticizing my statement of November 6. He said, at the time that I made it, that he agreed with the statement I made and he thought I had made an excellent presentation. He lauded it when I made that statement in Ottawa. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, as is normally his type of vision, he comes forward and says that I should have said somet hing back on November 6 and that now he has thought of something I missed out.

The fact of the matter is, First Min isters throughout this country have said over and over again that the way in which Ottawa ought to control its deficit is not on the backs of the provinces. Ottawa has obviously a legitimate intent and desire to control its deficit spending, and all of us believe that is the case, that you cannot build prosperity on borrowed money, that ultimately the people of this country have to pay for those deficits. Deficits are just deferred taxes. *

(1340) We are finding the bitter truth of that from the legacy of the NDP years, when they ran up deficits in this province of over a half billion dollars a year, year after year after year. That was the result of why taxes had to go up, to be the highest level in this country under the NDP. That is not the kind of solution any of us should seek for the benefit of the people of this province. We have indicated firmly over and over again that the Ottawa budget ought not to transfer the deficit problem on to the shoulde rs of the provinces. Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) knows that our comments were comments of solidarity on the Manitoba position on Meech Lake. We raised on November 6 in this Chamber, four days before the First Ministers' meeting, that post-secondary education, Medic are and Regional Development would be cut. My question to the Premier is, is it a failure on his behalf and his Government's behalf that he did not go toe to-toe with the Prime Minister at the First Ministers' Conference, like Clyde Wells did on Meech Lake, on Medic are, on post-secondary education, on Regional Development? He did not stand up to the Prime Minister at the time.

How can he expect Manitobans to trust him tomorrow when the budget is dropped? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member was probably asleep at the time that he was in Ottawa. I am starting to second guess my decision to take the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) with 5359

Monday, February 19, 1990 me to Ottawa. It was obviously a waste of the taxpayers' dol lars, because he must have slept through the presentat ion. He may recall that the Prime Minister was so exercised at the comments that I made with respect to the budg etary matters and the econo my, the criticisms I made about the federal Government's handling of the economy, that the Prime Minister said that Howard Pawley was a statesman. That was his response because he was so incensed.

The fact of the matter is that the New Democratic Leader has obviously not been paying attention and he need not dredge up silly arguments like that, that are totally contradic tory to what he said in November. Mr. Doer: The First Min ister's statement, the one that says Manitobans are on the move but did not say where is for a public document, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, and we would refer that to the Premier. Federal Provincial Programs Departmental Memo Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): I have a supp lementary question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

In the last three weeks the federal-provincial department of Government, which he is the Min ister responsible for, has sent out a memo to all departments asking them to item ize all the federal -pr ovincial programs, all the cuts that are in the federal-provincial programs and what impact that will have on Manitobans. Would the First Minister now table that in this Chamber so all Manitobans will be able to review the federal budget tomorrow in light of the information requested in the departments by his department? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do not have any such memo in my possession, nor do I have any such response. If that was sent out by members of my department then it is just a matter of their doing their job as they ought to, to prepare for the budget, because he would be criticizing us if we were not prepared with the relevant comparative information in all of that matter. We will have that information available obviously as a backgrou nd to which we will compare any decisions that are made in tomorrow's budget. * (13 45) Federal Budget Transfer Payments Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Premier is well known for his statement of, all I have to do is pick up the phone and federal-provincial relations will be solved. When the First Minister picked up the phone there was $240 million in regional development in Manitoba. It appears now that when he is hanging up the phone there is about $60 million. Can the Premier please clarify whether in fact he will meet the $240 million that he inherited or will it be a cutback from that $240 million on the basis of his conversations with the Prime Minister? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Spe aker, again the Member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer) would be well served to start listening to the responses that I give. That very same question was asked by his Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), was asked by the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), was asked by himself during the course of the last week. If he has run out of material for Question Period, he has the answer. I told him that the federal Government has replaced the former ERDA system with a whole series of bilateral discussions and negotiation. They have also replaced it with matters like Western Diversification that now becomes the umbrella.

We have received some $80 million in Western Diversification compared to $7 million that the NOP received in their first year of operation with Western Diversification. We received a $12 million soil and water accord. We have in addition to that, of course, expecta tions of joint fed eral-provincial agreements in at least three or four or five other areas between our Government and the federal Government. In addition to that we have $15 0 million in an ER DA package that involves federal, provincial and municipal spending with respect to the Southern Development In itiative and other matters.

In all of those areas the federal Government has created an umbrella that takes account of the former ERDAs and replaces it with another whole series of bilateral agreements. That is the answer and it remains the answer and will continue to remain the answer no matter how often he asks the question. I ask him now to listen to the answer so he does not have to ask the question again. Child and Family Services Government Communication Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): This Government has campaig ned on restori ng good management to Government, but that promise has not become a reality.

Child and Family Services agencies have some 40 days left in this fiscal year and they have yet to get straight answers from this Government about their budget. The agencies have been asking crucial questions about service del ivery and funding issues and they have not been told anything. My question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is this: can the Minister tell us how his Government can campaign on good management wh en his Government has failed the first principle of restoring good management, and th at is, commu ni catin g effectively with the agencies you fund? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the fact of the matter is that our Government is in constant communication with agencies. There are matters that are raised time and time and time again, and we deal with those matters. With respect to the funding for the Child and Family Service agencies in this budg et, the 19 89-90 budget is $41.1 million. That represents $7.4 million, or 22 percent over the 19 88-89 funding, excluding the special funding that we gave them for deficit assistance. That represents $5.6 million, or 16 percent, over the 1988- 89 funding, includin g the $1. 7 million for deficit 5360

Monday, February 19, 1990 assistance. That represents at least 10 percent more than what the agencies actually spent in 19 88-89. They had been funded very generou sly. Well beyond what most people in society are given as inc reases, they have gotten in additional funding. We have an obvious ongoing problem, but if the Member for Ellice (Ms. Gray) is advocating that those agencies ought to be given unlimited budg ets, that they ought to be able to spend anything regardless of needs, regardless of means, then I have to disagree with her. That is the Liberal policy. Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, I reject it completely. • (1 350) Ms. Gray: The Premier should get some advice on what the meaning of communication is. Government Agencies De ficits Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): With a supp lementary question to the Mini ster of Finance (Mr. Manness), can the Minister of Finance explain to us why agencies who have previously maintained balanced budgets are now in deficit positions this year? The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) could not explain it because she said she was not an accountant. Can the Mini ster of Finance explain that to the House today? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when you consider that the Child and Family Services agencies were given $5.6 million or a 16 percent incr ease over their 19 88-89 funding in this year's budget, one would have to wonde r, what are the special circumstances whereby they would still run up deficits. We have, obviously, a great deal more to do. But I tell you, it is not as simple as the Liberals would have you believe. Their view of it is that you simply back up the Brink 's truck, you dump out the money and allow people to pick up whatever they want out of the money of the taxpayers.

Then of course they have the audacity to suggest that they would not raise taxes. Every single dollar that they advocate spending would be incr eased taxes to the people of Manitoba time after time after time. That is the irresponsib le attitude of the Liberal Opposit ion, and we hear it every day, Mr. Deputy Speaker . I think that the taxpayers are getting a little tired of it. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Child and Family Services Deficits Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, pl ease. Orde r. The Honourable Member for Ellice has the floor. Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I have a final supp lementary question to the Premier since he seems to like to rise to his feet. Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) answer this question other than giving us generic responses? Can he then tell us how he expects as a Government to deal with the problems facing the Child and Family Services agencies when his own Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) is unable to articulate the reasons why these agencies are in deficits and says she does not understand because she is not an accountant? How do you expect to solve the problems? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, among many things, we are setting up an agency relations group within Child and Family Services so that we can have this kind of in-depth relationship and know and understand what agencies are doing with the 16 percent in crease in funding that they have been given. We have set up an associate Deputy Minister, whose specialty is in areas of finance and administration, to work with those agencies to try and develop a plan of action so that they can work more closely with us to be able to live within the means of a 16 percent increase in their budgets.

We are doing that in a very positive way, not taking the attitude of the Member for Ellice (Ms. Gray) which is, simply throw more money at them, dump it on the table, let them take what they want, and regardless of the circumstances raise taxes, do whatever you have to. That is the irresponsi bility, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seniors Directorate Role Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): I have a question for the Minister responsi ble for Seniors (Mr. Downey). Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in its brief to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Manitoba Society of Seniors raises a whole series of questions about the role of the ministry and of the directorate. I quote from that brief. It says that we need clarification as to the roles of the ministry and the secretariat. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like to ask the Minister respons i ble for Seniors, after two years of this Government, could he please explain to us and to the Manitoba Society of Seniors, what is the role of the Seniors Directorate? Hon. Jame s Downey (Minis ter responsible for Seniors): Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, as was committed in our throne speech, as has been committed by our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our Government, we are embarked upon a major initiative as it relates to seniors abuse problems. We are in the process of those hearings right now. That is one of the major activities that we are carrying out. Elderly Abuse legis lation Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Deputy Spea ker, the public hearings dealing with the subject of elder abuse have been now travelling across the province for several months. The Manitoba Society of Seniors 5361

Monday, February 19, 1990 asks another question in its brief to the Government and to all Mem bers of the Legislature. Does the Government intend to table enabling legislation on the subje ct of elder abuse? Would the Minister answer that question for the MSOS and all Members of this House? Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party may not think that it is a major initiative, but the seniors of this province do believe that elder abuse, seniors abuse- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , pl ease. Ord er.

The Honourable Minister responsibl e for Seniors has the floor. Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Spea ker, the Member for Assi ni boia (M r. Mandr ake) seems to be having somewhat of a problem over there.- (interjection)- My colleague for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) in dicates we will look after his riding for him. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! • (13 55) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , please. Mr. Downey: The question was, Mr. Deputy Speaker , as I understood it, will we be tabling enabling legislation dealing with elder abuse?

The answer very directly is, when we conclude the meetings that are being held with the seniors organization, then an assessment will be made and MSOS will be part of those discussions. Pharmacard System impleme ntation Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a suppl ement ary qu esti on to the Minis ter responsi ble for Seniors (Mr . Downe y). Mr. Dep uty Speaker, seniors and indeed many Manitobans believe that the Pharmacare card idea has great merit. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in this House, himself, thought that it was an excellent idea.

Does the Minister responsib le for Seniors share the view of the Minister of Health that a Pharmacare card idea is a good one for Manitobans, and when can we expect its implementation? Hon . James Downey (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Deputy Speaker , I can assure you that the Conservative Party, my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), when it comes to good ideas, is always prepared to listen to them and to discuss them, and I am prepared, as the Minister for Seniors, to carry that process out with my colleague, the Minister of Health. Social Agencies Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycia-leis (St.

Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to pose my questions to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The cuts of Sterling Lyon pale in comparison to the kind of cutba cks that we have seen under this present administration. This Government is clearly doing the most harmful deed of all, and that is killing our social agencies slowly -(interjection)- water torture, as my colleague, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has said, and doing it on the backs of children and families.

My question to the Premier is, given he has talked about the incredible increases of this Government, when in fact the overall increase to one of the agencies holding an emergency meeting this evening to decide upon that difficult question of whether or not to cut services or to draw their line of credit got an increase from this Government, an overall increase this past year of 2.8 percent, less than the cost of inflation and only a 1 percent increase in administration grants at a time when reports have in dicated an in crease in cases of 84 percent in the last three years and an incr ease of over 200 percent in child abuse cases over the last three years, can the Premier today tell us if he can leave a message, before this emergency meeting tonight, that this Government will come forward with increases at least in line with cost of living, and cover the deficits of these agencies?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell you this, that the Memb er for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) zeroes in on precisely the criticism that not only myself but literally hundr eds of thousands of people throughout this province had with the former NDP administration, and that is that their major priority was administration. When she starts to comp lain about cuts to ad min is tration, I wi ll tell he r that in terms of administration, this entire Government has cut back on its costs.

We expect that others will take that . . . that is why we were able to incr ease funding for health care by 7 percent; that is why we were able to increase funding for community services by 9 percent; that is why over a period of two years we gave 45 percent more to day care; and that is why we spent 16 percent more on child and family services agencies, because we said, you are goi ng to have to cut back on administration.

We do not believe it is a priority to set up a huge bureaucracy, to fund it with people who are involved with jobs such as political support, as they did, to fund it for jobs that they called research, research and admin ist ration. Those are no t priorities of this administration, those are not priorities of the people of this province, and if they are the priorities of the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), she ought to be ashamed of herself. Those are not the kinds of increases that anybody in Manitoba wants to see given. * (14 00) Ms. Wasylycia-leis: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , nothing can compare to the inaction of this Government when it comes to the crisis facing our families and communities in Manitoba today. 5362

Monday, February 19, 1990 Child and Family Services Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): My question is to the Premie r (Mr . Filmon). He talks about communication, and such fine communication it is. His Min ister, a year and a half ago in Estima tes, talked about reviewing the fu nding formula dealing with deficits. Nothing happened-four months ago told the agencies in a meeting and followed that up with a letter saying, sorry, the review is under way but cannot be complete for anothe r four to six wee ks-then in Es timates of this year, January 18, said there was still nothing to announce.

She still had not resolved the problem. We are dealing with a crisis. My question to the Premier is, will he ensure that he or his Minister of Family Services (Mr s. Oleson) delivers a message tonight before the emergency meeting takes place involving Northwest Child and Family and Central Child and Family and tells them that the deficit will be covered and that this Government will bring in in creases in line with the cost of living? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Deputy Speak er, let us understand fully and completely that this Government has always brought in increases to child and family services agencies that are well beyond the cost of inflation. This year's budge t-$5.6 million or 16 percent over the 19 88-1 989 funding levels, that included $1.7 million in last year's funding levels to overcome the deficits that they were in. We covered all of their deficits last year with a special increase of $1. 7 million. What we have said to the agencies is, we want to see them work responsibly with us. We want to see them manage as efficiently and effectively as they can.

We are prepa red to fund them and fund them generou sly, but we want them to be accountable for the manner in which they spend their money. Last year we covered their deficits. I am sure that given the same set of circumstances this year we will do the same. When they come to us and they say, six months into the fiscal year, we want you to cover projected deficits, forecasted deficits, we find that they will do just as they did with the NDP administration previously and that is to forecast a deficit that is way higher than their actual deficit, and get money built up in other pockets.

That, we do not believe, is the right way to budget and that is- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, pl ease. Ord er. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we appreciate that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has given some indication that they may cover the deficits. I hope they will be able to make that statement before this evening, before volunteers in our communities have to make the difficult decision between cutting services or drawing on a line of credit.

My final question to the Premier is, given that back on September 25, at its annual general meeting, the president of Northw est Child and Family Services Agency said some children are not safe because these agencies do not have the dol lars and the resources, I want to ask the Premier, how many children will have to die before this Government will act, deal with the deficits, ensure increases in line with the cost of living? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Spe aker, with great regret I have to say that is the most irresponsible thing I have heard said in this Legislature in a long, long time.

The agencies, in writing from- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Order. Mr. Filmon: The agencies, in writing from the Min ister, have been given instructions that no services are to be withdrawn. Services are to be provided in response to the needs. Last year we covered $1.7 million worth of deficit. This year we have given an increase of 16 percent to all thos e agencies over and ab ove that amount, including the $1.7 million deficit reduction from last year.

We have indicated to them that we are prepared to look at their deficits and to fund actuals, because we believe they have a responsibility to provide those services. The kind of irresponsible comments made by the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) are shameful, and she does not deserve to be in this Legislature when she makes those kinds of statements. ***** An Honourable Member: Point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): Yes, on a point of order, I would ask the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) to withd raw those comments. The Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) is raising some very legitimate concerns about a very important area and does not want it to get to the point where children are dying. That is a responsible act of an Opposition Member and the First Minis ter should categorically withd raw his last comments. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member did not have a point of order. The choice of language possibly, perhaps could have been improved upon, but it is not unparliamentary, so the Honourable Member did not have a point of order. Used Vehicles Safety Standards Mr.

Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): Mr. Deputy Speaker, January 29 I asked the Minister of Highw ays and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) as to how many unsafe vehicles are being sold through the auction process. Today I will provide the Minister with the information. Approximately- 5363

Monday, February 19, 1990 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Or der, please; order, please. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): This is Question Period. I think the Honourable Member is attempting to give an answer and that is probably not appropriate here. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Osborne, on the same point of order. Mr. Reg Alcock (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the Member is indeed trying to ask a question, and if the Government House Leader (Mr. McCrae) would call his Mem bers to order, perhaps he could get it on the floor and get an answer. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank all Honourable Members for their advice. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia has the floor. ***** Mr. Mandrake: Mr. Deputy Speaker, approximately 200 unsafe vehicles are being sold every week by private individ uals to our senior cit izens and low income Manitobans because there is no requirement to provide a safety certificate on these unsafe vehicles. My question -(interjection)- Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Order , please. Mr. Mandrake: -to the Mini ster of Hig hways and Transportation is, what action has he taken whereby all vehicles, unsafe vehicles that are registered in the Province of Manitoba, pass a safety inspection? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker , I believe this issue has been before the Manitoba Legislature from 19 76. In fact the legislation was passed three times but was never proclai med. Between the Mi nister responsible for MP IC (Mr. Cummings) and myself, we have been meeting with the industry.

We are looking at implementing some kind of a safety inspection aspect of it, something that is workable, not the kind of legisla tion that was passed before that was no t workable. Safety Inspections Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): Twenty months of waiting, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, twenty months. Fifty percent-to the same Min ister -5 0 percent of all vehicles inspected by MPI C fail inspection. My question is, what action has he taken regarding this very serious problem? 5364 Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transportation ): As I ind icated, there has been legislation on the books that has not been proclaimed at various times because it was not workable legislation. I am working together with the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings), who does the safety inspections, to see whether we can expand on that to the point where we can make vehicles safe when people- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Albert Driedger: Mr. Deputy Speaker , we are working on it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Mr. Albert Driedger: But, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, it is not our intention to come forward and pass legislation just for the sake of passing legislation if it is not workable. We will make it workable. Mr •. Mandrake: Mr. Deputy Speaker , to the same Minister-there is a serious problem of unsafe vehicles. Can he not see the advantage of implementing a safety inspection for all used vehicles sold by dealers and private individuals for the protection of our Manitoba public? Stop waiting for 20 months. Do it now. Port of Chu rchill Federal Budget Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Govern ment's record on Churchill has been a provincial tragedy. Disastrous shipping seasons have taken place over the last couple of years. There is a federal-provincial agreement that has been allowed to expire by this Minister and this Government without even a whimper from them. This Minister has not even been able to convince his colleagues to pursue a federa l-pr ovincial agreement with the federal Government.

I ask this Minster today, is that not the reason that there was no Churchill agreement announc ed by the Prime Min ister in Brandon the other day when he made his dis astrous and dismal announcement, pathetic announc ement about federal provincial agreements in Brandon; and is it not a fact that this Mini ster has made it very easy for Mulron ey, Mazankowski and Wilson to axe Churchill in the budget tomorrow? • (14 10) Hon. Albert Driedger (Mi nister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Deputy Sp eaker, when the Liberals ask questions about Churchill, and I assume that they got that information or insinuation of anything happening at Churchill out of the press, I am surprised that this Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has been Minister for many years-and I am prepared to compare my record with his, because during the 15 years out of 20 years that we had the NDP administration, the population in Churchill used to be around 7,000. It is now less than 1, 000 and that did not happen in the last 20 months. But I have met with the federal Mini ster-

Monday, February 19, 1990 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Mr. Albert Driedger: -and the federal Minister, with his staff people and my staff people are working at options that are long-range options, rather than this kn ee-jerk reaction that we have had for many years. Continued Use Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker , un der our adminis tration there was a $93 million agreement, $58 million in provincial money. There has been nothing from this Minister, and every agreement is smaller than the one before that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is bragging about.

This Government's true lack of commitment for Churchill is demonstrated in the Deloitte Haskins report that was released on the Crow changes that Mazankowski is attempting to inflict on Manitoba farmers. While New Orleans is used as a base point, as an option, Mr. Deputy Speak er, Churchill is ignored in that report completely, and I ask this Minister why he did not insist that Churchill be included in that report and conside red as an option. Is that not a fact that he ignored it and failed in his du ties as Min ister of Transportation in not having Churchill even mentioned in that report? Hon .

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker , the problems of Churchill did not start this year; they did not start last year. They have been there for a long, long time and wha t I am trying to acc omplish with the federal Government is some long-term options so we do not have this knee-jerk reaction that we go through every year. I think this Government- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Mr. Albert Driedger: -is committed to the continuance of Churchill. We are working on that aspect of it. The fact that the Member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman) wants us to get out there and beat drums all the time, a lot of work has been going on and we will continue to do so. Together with my Premier and my colleagues we are working for the retention of Churchill, for the port, for the line as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for Question Period has expired. NO N-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I have leave for a non-political statement? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? (Agreed) Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like at this time to pay tribute to the many thousands of women who have been involved in the Women's Institute movement in Manitoba and across this countr y. Manitoba is celebra ting its 80th year of activity in the Women's Institute movement. Right now across the world there are some 9 million people involved in the Women's Institute movement, some 40,000 in the country of Canada and some 1, 400 in the Province of Manitoba celebrating their 80th anniversary on this February 19, Women's Institute Day.

I would like to pay tribute to all these women who work, particularly in rural Manitoba on various initiatives such as agriculture, home economics, health, education, recreation, arts and Canadian unity, a group of women ded icated to make Mani toba , rural Mani toba in par ticula r, a better place to live. This, their 80th anniversary, I know the Women's Institute movement will continue to do good and better things in the years to come and I wish them well. Thank you, very much. ***** Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would also like leave to make a non-politi cal statement following the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Find lay). Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too would like to take a moment to congratulate the Women's In stitute, a women's movement that has a fine history in this province and inde ed around the world. It was formed as I understand in the Province of Ontario, the community of Stoney Creek. In fact I have, just as an aside, relatives living in that small community of Stoney Creek outside of Hamilton. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, Members on this side want to indicate that I had the honour of liaising with the Premier, with the Women's In stitute, on a number of occasions as Min ister of Agriculture. I want to say that the progressive nature of the women of this province certainly has a message for their spouses in the farm community. It is and has been the women's movement in this province that has led the way for formulating policy and solidifying policy in many key areas.

In fact while some in the farm organizations were opposing farm land owner ship legislation, it was the Women's In stitute who suppor ted the need for farm land ownership in this area. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I am paying tribute to the women's organization in this province, and I am sure that all Members of this House would want to do likewise. For Members now to say that the issues that they reach out and deal with are political, absolutely, they are dealing in the everyday lives of Manitobans.

I give them credit for the positive stance, and I wish them many years of success. Thank you. 5365

Monday, February 19, 1990 ***** Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): May I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? (Agreed) Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to quote the following as we pay tribute to the Women's Institute: "I am convinced that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can, for the harder I work the more I live.

Life is no brief candle for me, it is a sort of splendid torch which I get hold of for a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before turning it over to future generat ions." Those words of George Bernard Shaw I believe amply reflect 80 years of service by the Manitoba Women's Institute.

The Women's lnstitute's organization has always and will continue to sup port commun ities through the development of worthwhile educational programs by actually educating the communities on very timely issues, by effective lobbying of Governments for needed changes, and by providing a networking opportuni ty for their members.

The Women's Institute strives to improve the quality of life for families and individuals through their various efforts, and it is this worthy goal that the institute has pursued for some 80 years and we all hope will continue to pursue for years to come so that future generations will have a better quality of life. Certainly as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Find lay) has said, the Women's Institute is primarily a rural organization, but we do have chapters who have been active in the City of Winnipeg as well.

As we pay tribute to this organization, one is reminded of how the issues facing the com muni ties, which the Women's In stitute have championed, have changed over the years, but the message underlying has remained the same, and that is, the improvement of quality of life for families and improvement in our communities, rural and urban. On behalf of the Liberal Caucus, we salute the Women's Institute. ORDERS OF THE DAY WRITTEN QUESTIONS (No. 6) Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition)- Has the Premier received confirmation from the Federal Government that the Federal Immigration office in Winnipeg will not be scaled down or moved out of province? If confirmation has been received, would the Premier present this information to the House? HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet in Room 254 on Tuesd ay, February 20 at 10 a.m. to consider Bills 81 and 82. 5366 The Standing Committee on Indu strial Relations will meet in Room 255, Thu rsday, February 22 at 10 a.m. to consider Bill 31. Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the following Bills: 98, 49 to 52 inclusive, 57, 70, 35, 19, 84, 59, 60, 47, 48, 56, 80, and the remainder as listed on the Order Paper. An Honourable Member: Jim, how about -(inaudi ble)- Mr. Mccrae: No, they will not go.

SECOND READ INGS Bill NO. 98- THE MANITOBA DATA SERVICES DISPOSITION AND CON SEQUENTIAL AMENDMEN TS ACT Hon . Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) presented Bill No. 98, The Manitoba Data Services Disposition and Consequential Amend ments Act, (Loi sur !'a lien ation de la Commission des services d'in formatique du Ma nitoba et modi fications correlatives) for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. * (1 420) MOTION presented. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and bring forward Bill 98 for second reading.

I am delighted that the third Party is obviously interested in this Bill also and no doubt will be having a lot to say with respect to it.- (interjection)- I think I just heard the Member for Interlake (Mr. Uruski) say, you are damn right. I guess by that I mean that he himself will be speaking to this Bill too. Mr. Deputy Speaker , in keeping with our throne speech commitments, our Government announced its willingn ess to consider the potential divestiture of Man itoba Data Servic es.

I bel ieve, as do es this Government, that the potential successful sale of the company will lead to growth opportunities for Manitoba Data Services and will assist in the attract ion of additional technologically advanced industry to this province. We bel ieve divestiture is a tool designed to achieve broad economic policy goals and is not an end in itself.

We will only proceed with the divestiture of Manitoba Data Services if we can create enough significant investment in the critical mass required to build an information-technology industry in Winnipeg, thereby creating hundreds of new skilled and professional jobs for Man itobans who otherwise would have to leave the province to find work in their chosen profession. I would expect that all Members of this House will accept this as a laudable goal.

To those dou bters in our midst, I would say, allow your mind to open just a little bit so you can see the potential that Manitoba Data Services has in crea ting new ec onomic development within this province. To those that would say "ba lderdash" or "hogwash," I say then you are

Monday, February 19, 1990 not interested whatsoever in economic development in this province. You believe that the status quo will do. Mr. Deputy Speaker , why do we want to divest of Manitoba Data Services? An Honourable Member: Where is the beef? Mr. Manness: Well, the Leader of the third Party says, where is the beef? If he would just allow me to put my remarks on the record, maybe he will be more satisfied than apparently he is at this point in time. Why do we want to divest of Manitoba Data Services?

As I have indicated on several occasions, we considered the divestiture of Manitoba Data Services as a result of an unsolicited offer to purchase the company. When we were approached, it made us realize what could be accomplished by using this Crown corporation as a launch for major economic development thrust within the high-tech area. We are more convinced than ever before with respect to that, having received 11 bona tide offers, all of them with a strong economic development perspective. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, 11 initial propo ne nts, many with operations globally, had preliminary discussions with the divestiture team. Four companies were short listed, which embarked on more detailed discussions with that team. The list was nar rowed down to the two most serious contenders and draft purchase agreements are at present being negotiated with those two. Two final purchase agreements are now being readied to bring before Cabinet. Why do we need this legislation, Bill 98?

To make it very clear our intent with respect to the divestiture of Manitoba Data Services and to be open and forthright about it, it was necessary in our viewpoint to bring forward legislation. This is an open Government. We take great solace in the fact that wherever possible we have tried to present information with respect not only to divestitures but with respect to the fiscal standing of this province, at times which are in fairness to the Mem bers opp osite. Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , it is our watchword.

We think there could be nothing better but to elevate the discussions surrounding the potential divestiture of Manitoba Data Services, and elevate that discussion to become a major policy discussion area within the Legislature. Mr. Deputy Spe aker, we also believe that Cabinet should have a free hand after some of the discussion in this House to conclude an agreement with any company that Executive Council decides represents the best potential for the province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we also do not want to leave any lingering doubt regarding our right to sell the Crown corporation, Manitoba Data Services.

Another reason we bring forward Bill No. 98 is, rather than deal with some obscure legislation, and I am referring specifically to the library Act that was written over 40 years ago, we want to ensure that the Government has the clear authority to dispose of it in any manner it wishes, either through sale of assets or through sale of shares. Mr. Deputy Speaker, our legal counsel, Members have been asking me over and over again with respect to the opinion surrounding the library Act, our legal counsel confirms tha t The Leg islative Libr ary Act is no t prohib itory to the sale.

Nevertheless, there is enough information and uncertainty surrounding this whole area that we deem it wis e to bring forward en abling legislation at this point in time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not want to see the process go off the road because of some obscure Act written years ago when technology and the use of technology was nowhere contempla ted at the time. Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , eco nomic bene fits-a s a Government we feel no ideological commitment to the devolution of Crown assets.

Instead , from a rational policy objective we are using Crown divestitures as levers to significant econ omic development, as a lever to significant job creation and as a lever to significant investment growth. This will allow us to take advantage of a unique oppor tunity to lever significant investment in our province by private sector companies with access to global markets. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are constantly asked by Members opp osite to lay before the people of Manitoba our economic plan. This is one of the planks of our economic plan.

Members opposite, their economic plan was to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars outside of the province, favour short-term jobs by them, help the employment statistics for a point of time and then come forward today and ask us why we do not have money to direct additionally into social services- Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for- Mr. Manness: -when we have $600 million a year that we are directing towards interest costs. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon on a point of order. Mr.

Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): On two points of order, first of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member starts a di atrib e ab out wha t he belie ves the pr evious Government did with respect to economic development, does not recognize the $200 million dollar Jobs Fund, the Venture Capital Fund, the Technol ogy Commercial izatio n Fund and at least seven other programs that created jobs in this province in an unp recedented way. On point of order- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order . Mr. Storie: -N o. 2, Mr. Deputy Speak er, is, the Member for Morris continues to- 5367

Monday, February 19, 1990 Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mr. Storie: -lack any relevancy in his speech. His remarks are supposed to be addressed to Bill No. 98. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order, one or two. The Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has the floor . ***** Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I am talking as to why the Government is divesting Manitoba Data Services, why it is we are bringing in this enabling legislation. Let me say to the Member opposite, I am fully aware of all those programs he talked about.

I am fully aware that the money for all of them was borrowed and today we are paying $600 million a year in interest. That is why we do not have the flexibility in many cases to direct additional funding to the well meaning and intentioned social service agencies in our province . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , to use Manitoba Data Services as a catalyst for economic renewal , specifically in support of our fledgling Manitoba companies and for the establishment of a critical mass required for the information of an environmentally clean high growth , knowledge based industry, smart jobs for the young people of this province , Mr. Deputy Speaker , that is what our initiative is; that is what our goal is.

Today, we have a number of smaller companies that are within this smart industry, small companies in the Manitoba context who are trying to reach out , who are trying to develop , within their own sphere, the necessary mass of human resources, of investment capital, to reach out into the global trading economy and to export that knowledge base. Mr. Deputy Speaker , they are having difficulties . Ind eed , if Manitoba Data Services can be divested , and if a large player can come in and give them the found ati on and the stability that is needed, we not only win one way we win several ways .

That is the essence of the divestiture of Manitoba Data Services . When the NOP particularly are opposed to it wh at they are saying is, they are denying the potential for these fledgling companies in our midst who are trying to export within the smart industry, they are denying them a birthright to greater and great er economic opportunity . Mr. Deputy Speaker, no longer should young Manitobans have to choose to leave this province if their vocation is in the smart industry, in search of em ployment. That has happened long enough. Therefore, I say to you this is part of our economic plan.

It is an important plank, and it should be seen as such by the NOP. *

(1430) It is my hope to be able to welcome professionals born and educated in Manitoba , but now residents in other provinces, back home as we build a reputation as a place where skilled professionals in this industry can have a future. Our intentions are noble. Hopefully all the Parties in this Hous e will see that and will come forward and support this legi slation.

However , before any divestiture of Manitoba Data Services it must be demonstrated that there is a strong commitment to the building of alliances between the university community, its graduates and Manitoba companies who are capable of exceptional growth, provided the appropriate infrastructure can be established with a dynamic company with global opportunities. What else on the economic side?

We see if we divest that there will be an opportunity for the development of strategic alliances with Manitoba small businesses in order that significant spinoffs occur for other niche Manitoba companies, in essence providing them with a platform from which to grow. Of course they will be provided with new investment money that they need . Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they .will be - and I am talking again about the fledgling Manitoba companies that today need support providing they will be provided with the global market opportunities that they today cannot access themselves.

They will also be helped to develop products that they either do not have the technical expertise to develop on their own or the capital need for further research and development. Mr. Deputy Speaker , in a world where information technology recognizes no artificial boundaries we have a window of opportunity to create an infrastructure where potentially hundreds of jobs will be created, where the divestiture will lever millions in direct investments and where these investments will link Manitoba universities to information industry in joint endeavours and co-operative training. (Mr.

Harold Gilleshammer , Acting Speaker , in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker , I would like now to talk about the divestiture criteria . I would like to talk particularly in the area of confidentiality, because this Bill basically covers two areas : one, provid ing Government the enabling legislation required; secondly , it talks about confidentiality of data , an important issue not only to Members opposite but indeed to the Government of Manitoba .

Let me state again for the record that before any divestiture can take place the Government must be completely satisfied that all criteria are met, particularly with respect to confidentiality of processed data . Included in Bill 98 is a provision requiring that any third party data processing agreement guarantees that the security and the integrity of information processed will not be breached .- (interjection)- Mr. Acting Speaker, the Leader of the third Party (Mr. Doer) says he wants to hear how it is we are going to talk about or maintain confidentiality of data .

I am trying to lay that out now, and if he wishes to listen he may find himself supportive of the Bill. Mr. Acting Speaker, currently there is no agreement respecting confidentiality or procedures for 5368

Monday, February 19, 1990 confidentiality. With this legislation we will be formalizing this process. In place today at present Manitoba Data Services employees swear an oath of secrecy to the Crown corporation Manitoba Data Services. No oath is sworn to the Government, just one to the Manitoba Data Services. Mr. Acting Speaker, we will do better. We will ensure a better system than than.

Any agreement we enter into will require that contracts as between the third party processor and Government, any department of Government, contain specific confidentiality procedu res that to date have never been spelled out in formal agreement. Right today there are no formal agreements for the most part as between the Manitoba Data Services and Government that lie in departments. Mr. Acting Speaker , while the data may be stored by a non-Government body, the right to access that information stays with the Government. This includes the secret codes needed to access the data.

Other criteria in addition include continuance of existing MO S jobs and employee obl igations, second, a guarantee of significant new job creation; third, establishment of and investment in new value added busi ness beyond the provision of service bureau services; fourth, broadening of client source revenues to include national and international accounts; fifth, establishment of co-operative educational opportunities with Manitoba's universities; sixth, position of new MOS technology through investment and product research and development; seventh, and I have just added this to the list, this corporation will be paying taxes to the Province of Manitoba, something that Manitoba Data Services never did.

Mr. Acting Speaker, these are the criteria that have guided us through all of our discussions with potential acquisitors that have sought the Crown corporation, Manitoba Data Services. Mr. Acting Speaker, there have been other elements that we have discussed during the heavy negotiations and it is these. I will lay them out for the House. All cash on hand and term deposits will be pulled out of Manitoba Data Services. They will be pulled out so any deal that we arrive at will be basis the book value of the company, less cash on hand, and taking into account the goodwill of that company.

The purchase price- let me indicate to Members it is significantly over the book value. The book value today is $9 million, significantly over. The province and the company will jointly pursue the development of electronic archival facility.

We are also negotiating that this agreement will have a key education and training component wh ich involves the comp any pr ovidin g scholarships in computer sciences, something that MOS does not do today; providing guest lecturers, something th at do es not happ en toda y; pro viding for the development of a co-op program so university students can have actual hands-on experience with the company while conducting their studies.

Another aspect that is not provided by MO S today, computer time to students at university, training and upgrading existing staff at Manitoba Data Services, an upgrading program for existing staff that is in place tod ay. Mr.

Acting Speaker, one of major elements of the negotiations, and probably one of the reasons that it has taken yet another two months longer than I may have hoped, is in the area of what we call the "golden chair" because certain Members oppo site have always tried to conjure up the spectre that we were going to be selling our service bureau to somebody else who was going to then hold us captive to unwarranted price increases, or who would run off either with the assets, or move the head offices off, or somehow the Government would not have available to itself the service bureau, or that they would flaunt at us whatever legislation that we had before us dealing with confidentiality of data.

We have taken these concerns, we have taken them very seriously and that is why we have provided for a golden chair. If the purchaser violates key commitments of the agreement respect ing confidential ity, service levels, transfer of business, employment commitments or financial managements, then the Government has the right to take back the asset of the company upon set terms. (Mr. William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker , in the Chair) Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, I cannot provide any more detail around that but everywhere we have looked into the vehicle of a golden chair, every example that we have seen, none has provided a greater opportunity for the Government again to take back a service bureau if it is deemed that it is in the best interests of the public to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker , other conditions include that this purchaser of Manitoba Data Services cannot move the business, the headqu arters or the Government business, outside of the Province of Manitoba.

That is covenant within the agree ment, and that the Government also has retained the right to employ the employees who do not want to remain with the new comp any. The Go ver nment has the fir st right of refusal-if the third Party decides they want to dispose of Manitoba Data Services, the Government retains the first right of refusal. The Government will provide a revenue guarantee for five years. Written within that contract, though, is a guaranteed

schedule of rate reductions reflecting the new technology generation that can come within that industry, and the fact that the cost of computing on a per unit basis continues to fall.

These are some of the elements that are being negotiated right today. * (14 40) Let me state that I wish to assure all Man itobans and Members of this House that this Government will not entertain the sale of Manitoba Data Services unless there is a significant potential economic benefit, but what we are talking about is a growth industry which is on the leading edge of research and technological development which is a knowledge based or smart industry in which Manitoba does not presently have a significant profile either nationally or internationally.

We have the oppo rtu n ity via the div es titur e of Manitoba Data Services to create the kind of critical 5369

Monday, February 19, 1990 mass required to attract former Manitobans back to this province, to create significant new opportunit ies for young Man itobans and to bring significant new investment in an industry with a future. This is not ideology, this is an opportunity for Manitoba as we move into the decade of the'90s by entering the international world of information processing. It is an opportunity that we would be foolish to pass up.

I ask all Members of this House to help us and guide us along in this approach, because when Members opposite are talking about economic development, there can be no greater catalyst, no better opportunity today within all of the building blocks of Government to provide an economic catalyst than the divestiture of Manitoba Data Ser vices. Tho.nk you, Mr . Deput y Speaker . Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): For greater clarification, I wonder if the Minister would permit two or three questions on his remarks, by leave perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr.

Angus: Taking the last remarks first, on a number of occasions I have offered the Mini ster of Finance (Mr. Manness) my co-opera tion, my assistance, my help in trying to come to the best arrangement for Manitobans as possible, and he has not taken me up on it yet. My question is, why not? Why has he not asked for my help or even agreed to sit down with me and discuss it? I will ask another question, Mr. Deputy Spe aker.

A more serious question is, why did the Minister choose the cont ract litigation route for the prote ction of confidential information versus a legislative route of protection of confidential information? Mr. Manness: Let me acknowledge the fact that the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) has more than a passing interest in this divestiture and that he has provided his advice to me from time to time, much of it that I take very seriously and indeed have incorporated in a lot of the negotiating points of view.

Although he may not recognize in the legislation, as we have laid before it, some of his work, I can assure him that if he had access to some of the negotiation contr acts and some of the draft buy-and-sell agreements, he would recognize some of his contribut ions. He might say to me, well, why do you not share that with me? Again I say to him, under the parliamentary system as we know it, Executive Council ultimately has to make these decisions, and furthermore, before that most of the proposals that have come forward to us, indeed all of them, are on a prop rietary basis.

They are to be kept confidential and Government cannot begin to open those up to Mem bers opposite in spite of the fact that at times we may wish to do so. As far as his question, we chose not to put hard penalties into legislation with respect to what might happen if a company were to violate some of the agreements, the agreement they would have to enter into before we possibly engaged in a sale, because 5370 then the company to whom we are sel lin g may legitimately ask who it is that they are dealing with.

Are they dealing with the Government which has rights or are they dealing with the Legislature which has rights to impose through amendment any penalties it wishes? I say to the Member opposite, if he is contemplating bringing in serious amendments with respect to the penalties that would have to be brought to bear should a company that we sold to for some reason, either purposely or not, have a major breach in confidentiality, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no company is going to sign the final document with us until they have seen what the legislation is.

I dare say, I would think that most of the companies would not enter into an agreement where there was a forced amendment written into legislation which could be waived again by the force of the Legislature a year hence. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I probably have not satisfied the Member with my response, but I am telling him why it is that the Government has seen fit at this point not to bring in those types of hard penalties within the legislation. Mr. Angus: Some of these questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be best referred to us at the committee stage, where we can get into more interaction.

But there are a couple of serious questions that will affect the opportunity to speak on this Bill. One of them is: How do you arrive at the book value of the company at being in the $9 million range? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Spea ker, the book value is the value of the hard assets, the hardware, net of the costs or the amortization costs associated with them.

It also takes into account some of the-that is the main book value asset and of course what the companies are interested in, the potential flow of stream of income that can be provided by Government after that point in time, plus, I might add, a dimension of that $9 million is the value that acquisitors put on the potential of that staff which is very highly regarded to generate additional profit. Mr. Angus: Mr. Deputy Speak er, the Act wants some changes to The Municipal Act.

I am not sure I have a clear under standing of why those changes are needed and what the repealing of the portion of the Manitoba Data Services at that level does, or why it is necessary to take that out. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I promise to get back to the Min ister . Certa in ly, I have had that information in my mind three or four days ago. I cannot recall right today why it is. Mr. Angus: Mr. Deputy Spe aker, perhaps the Minister can as well-I un derstand that some of the municipalities either did not have to pay taxes or collected taxes and there was some change there.

Perhaps, while he is looking at that he could also get me the information as to the worth of the contracts that MOS has with the Manitoba Government right now, as I under stand that there are no contracts in place, and that is why I wonder how they arrived at a value

Monday, February 19, 1990 of the company. I am not sure how they valued the company at the $9 million. The final thing is, I hope, and perhaps the Minister can clarify this by his remarks, is he indicating that he is intending to attempt to sell the Crown corporation whether or not this Bill is passed, or is he going to have to wait until this Bill is passed before he can actually conclude the sale arrangement? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Speaker , we are in uncertain times in this Legislature. Obviously the Government has to maintain for itself the flexibility that is required.

I wish I could answer the Member's question definitively. I cannot. Obviou sly, the Government will know a lot more as to how the Legislature as a whole is going to accept and be willing to accept the thrust behind Bill No. 98. Obviously that will have some bearing on the Government's ultimate decision. * (14 50) Mr. Angus: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will move, seconded by the Ho nourable Mem ber, that the de bate be adjour ned . I am not sur e of the pr oc edure. The questions can best be saved for later. ***** Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, if I might. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), on a point of order. Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Before we move on, I have just come back into the House and seen that the Minister had been speaking on this Bill and my friend from St. Norbert had been asking some questions. I want to declare a conflict, Mr. Deputy Speaker , with respect to thi s Bill perso nally because of my employment. I will certainly be exiting myself from the Chamber for future debate on this Bill and throughout its process in this House. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), on a point of order. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like to ask the Minister one question prior to the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) adjourning the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? (Agreed) Mr. Leonard Evans: I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether the companies are asking for a specific length of contract and what the Government is looking at. Is he looking at a five-year contract, a six-year contract or a four-year contract?

It seems to me that this is something that the Minister should be telling us at this point in time. There is no reference to this of course in the legislation, but I would imagine from his discussions with the company he must have some idea of what kind of a guarantee any potential buyer would want prior to entering into this purchase. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, I made reference to the fact that certainly the Government would be putting up a guarantee.

I can indicate to the Member, because he has asked this qu est ion on several occasions, that the negotiations are all centering around five years. ***** Mr. Angus: I move that the deba te be adjourned, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr s. Yeo). MOTION presented and carried. DE BATE ON SECOND READ INGS BILL NO. 49-THE DO WER AMEND MEN T ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae), The Dower Amendment Act; (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le douaire), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the Honourable Member for St. James. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on this Bill before the House. I think it is an important Bill. It is un fort una te th at I think the opportun ity has been missed to do much that could have and should have been done with respect to The Dower Act.

However, it is with some pleasure that I do stand today to talk about this Bill, which does go some way to dealing with some of the problems that The Dower Act has and has had for many years. Mr. Deputy Speaker , let me, at the outset, remind Honourable Members that this Bill does fit in with the overall family law package put forward by thi s Government, that is Bills 47 through 52 and also Bill 57, which is certainly, I think, of interest to many of the same people whom the other family law Bills are of interest to. So I tend to treat them as a package. I have previously, of course, spoken to Bills 47 and 48.

I am mindful today that Bill 49, which is relatively short in terms of wording and pages, is probably the most important of the Bills in the package. I guess what I mean by that is not so much in terms of what it has achieved but what it could have achieved, what it should have achieved, and in terms of its implications on spouses in our province and in particular women, because simply by statistics we know that the vast majority of surviving spouses are women. Mr. Deputy Speaker, The Dower Act has some overall purposes. Let me just deal very briefly with them.

It is a very old piece of legislation that was set out specifically 5371

Monday, February 19, 1990 to deal with situations where a spouse died and did not make adequate provision for his/her spouse. As I have said before, by and large in our society, that has affected women. Certainly, men are also included under The Dower Act, but by and large it is women who have sought refuge under The Dower Act to protect their rights to the marital assets and to be able to provide for themselves as they go on in life and perhaps even try and provide for children of the marriage. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is simply a fact, increasingly less so thankfully, but it has simply been a fact of our society that the assets in a marriage have traditionally been held by the men. That has allowed the men, through the creation of wills, to deal with the marital assets.

It was very, very, important, I think particularly in the farm family backgrou nd, that the law provide for surviving spouses so they were not left in a lurch, because while certain marriages may have problems from time to time-and we can all recognize that simply by looking at the divorce and separation rate-but we must also recognize that marriage brings with it certain rights and also responsibilities.

Until a marriage has been fully and finally severed and property has been dealt with accordingly we must not judge the relationship itself but rather take it as that legally binding relationship, which means that the respon sibilities are clear and are there for a spouse in terms of adequately providing for a surviving spouse after death. The fundamental principle behind The Dower Act is that a surviving spouse be allowed to live in relative comfort.

Of course, that is a fluctuating standard which is going to be based upon the standard that they had been living prior to one spouse dying, but in terms of the overall estate that spouse should get half of the estate. In terestingly there is an exception to this. I agree with many of the critics of The Dower Act that it is an anomalous exemption, and that is if the spouse who dies leaves enough money to purchase an annuity which will provide $1 5,000 per year to the surviving spouse, then that is an exemption from giving half of the estate.

In other words, you can cut out your spouse when you die from receiving half of your estate by simply providing $1 5,000 a year. Now, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, you and I I do not think live excessive lives. but we know that $1 5,000 a year does not go a long way in today's world. I think that we can all take notice of that issue without disputing it. Fifteen thousand dollars does not allow for even the bare minimum I would suggest of leading a relatively decent, affluent life. We all know in our society many live with less than that.

That is indeed an embarrassment I would suggest to all of us and should be, but to have

an Act which says that if you provide $1 5,000 a year to your surviving spouse you do not have to give your surviving spouse half of your estate I think is quite out of step with today's reality. That is a product of the past when $1 5,000 was perhaps a lot of money. It is not today. I think we have to recognize there is a great danger in putting set figures like that into legislation. You never know when it is 5372 going to come back up before the House to be revised , to make sure that it is in keeping with the real cost of living today. I think we have to look at putting something into this Act or indeed just deleting that whole

section so that it is not an exemption, but certainly something to make sure that we do not put legislation into place with all the good will in the world which in fact does more harm than good. I think that we have to recognize we made a decision in this province when we brought in The Marital Property Act that we would not look at the specifics of the relationship between the parties which led to a breakup or a separation. * (15 00) What we look at is the assets of the marriage, and we divide it in half. It is a simp!e principle. It is a principle that we have adopted in this province.

I think it is an important principle to take if you will beyond the grave. I think we have to say that if you die, your property should simply be divided in half, so that your surviving spouse gets half of the assets of the marriage, and a minimum. I think that principle has to be carried. It is only right that it be consistent and go not just through a breakup of a marriage, through separation or divorce, but also the breakup of a marriage by death.

I think this Dower Act is seriously out of step with our time in that it puts in this fictitious figure of $1 5,000 per year, that you could cut your wife or inde ed your husband in a sense adrift after death for a mere $15 ,000 a year. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the other major area that I want to touch on with respect to this Act that is an omission is that this Act is rife with gender specific language. I think that in today's day and age-the Min ister of Labour (Mr s.

Hammond) across the way I am sure will sympathize with this comment-we have a Dower Act, which is not just out of step in its specifics of what it does but also in terms of the language. This Act throughout implies for instance that only men are judges. I think that anybody who has been around this province in the last few years will know that is certainly not the case. It is important that it not be the case, and we are continuing to have certainly sufficient numbers of very well qualified women lawyers who can take their place on the Bench and do a very fine job.

I think that what these prior comments speak to is that this Act requires what I would suggest is an overhaul. I think that we have some amendments before us today which are good, which should be supported. However, overall, it is too little and it has been a long time coming, and I think quite rightly it is being seen as a bit of a disappointment.

In terms of certainly the women 's commun ity, I have read and very much appreciated the brief put forward by the Charter of Rig hts Coalition, and in deed I have received correspondence from Mona Brown of the Manitoba Association of Women in the Law, which speaks at length about this particular Bill and what is not there in this amendment Act. I think we have to take those concerns seriously. While I do not profess to be an expert in family law as such, I certainly am appreciating this family law

Monday, February 19, 1990 package as it works its way through the Legislature because I am beco ming educated more so every day as I read these briefs and as I read the Acts and learn about what the state of the law is. I must say that I have a lot of sympathy for most, if not all, of the positions put forward by some of the groups who have taken the time to review this Bill and give me, and I would assume my friend the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), some guidance on not just what is in these Bills but what should be in these Bills. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I want to cite what I consider to be the principle behind this Act and ask that all Honourable Members, as we talk about this Bill in the committee stage, remember the guiding principle and be guided by that principle, which is, and I want to quote from the statement put forward by the Charter of Rights Coalition, that marriage is a partnership of equals and that anything acquired by a couple during marriage is assumed to have been acquired through the efforts of both. That is a principle we have already accepted in this province through The Marital Property Act.

That is a principle that has also been accepted at the federal level through the Divorce Act. That is a principle which should be accepted today in our society, and The Dower Act is no except ion. In deed The Dower Act being out of step with the others does a great injustice in my view to surviving spouses in Manitoba and of course in particular women, because women are by and large the surviving spouses. That simply is a statistical fact. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we want to be guided by that principle.

We want to remember that this legislation was designed to protect the economic security of both spouses during their lifetimes and of the surviving spouse at the time of a spouse's death. We want to remember that was the intention of this Act. It was a well-intentioned Act. It has simply been perhaps neglected over the years. It has simply become out of step. It is not doing the job it was intended to do. In the process, while other pieces of legislation have in a sense passed it, we find that it can often do a lot of harm.

I think that we have to rethink this Act and come forward with amendments which, as I have suggested , overhaul this Act. It has many, many problems. While the amendments today-and I do not want to speak about them particularly in detai l-d o some good in bringing this Act into modernity.

The fact is there is so much which is left undone, and we must always be cognizant of the fact that each of the partners in a marriage should have a right to an equal share of the accumulated assets, and that a surviving spouse in that regard should have the right to at least one-half of the estate at the time of the death of the other spouse. This Act unfortuna tely simply does not achie ve that. This Bill before us, I welcome, but I must also criticize simply because it is too short. The meat of what needs to be done to The Dower Act is not here and that is unfortunate.

My caucus, and myself in particular, held off coming forward with our own suggestions for legislative reform in the family law area simply because we were told month after month after month that a family law package was coming for ward . The Government has known about the very grave problems with this Act overall throughout this process, yet has chosen to put forward a tidbit, if you will, Mr. Deputy Spe aker, of reform on this Act. I think quite correctly it is being seen as a grave disappointment to the community in Manitoba that is deeply interested in these issues.

I do not know what plans the Mini ster has at the committee stage. I strongly suggest to him that prior to this reaching the committee stage, he rethink some of the things which he did not put into this amendment Act, and that he come forward at that time with some further amend ments.

While they technically may not be allowed to be brought in at a committee stage because they may not deal with the specific things that this amendment Act deals with, I will commit to him that if he comes forward with some amendments which deal with some of the concerns I have articulated today, and I am sure my friend, the Member for St. Johns (Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis) will also articulate, knowing her past concern and receptiveness to many of the women's groups, I can only speak for myself, but I certainly will not object to him bringing forward at the committee stage the substantial amend ments to be added to this Act. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker , on the contrary, I would welcome that.

Let me conclude simply by saying that to the extent that this Act does give priority to a spouse's fixed share of the estate over orders under the new Dependants Relief Act and does include some criteria under which a surviving separated spouse would lose his or her right to a claim of a portion under The Dower Act, to the extent that it works at those two problems, and I might add, not pe rfectly. There are still some problems in particular with the second thing which I have indicated this Act attempts to achieve. To the extent that it does make an effort on those two fronts, we certainly support this Act.

I hope that the Minister will come forward at the comm ittee stage with some more subs tantial amendments to the Act. If he does not, I simply serve notice at this point that given that he has had the chance, he has come forward with this package, we will have to take the initiative in another Session of this House. Again I cannot speak for my friend the Member for St. Johns (M s.

Wasylycia-Leis), but I am sure that Members other than the ones in our caucus are disappoi nted that this Act has not taken us firmly into the 1990s in this province with respect to marital property and the rights of spouses who are surviving spouses, because we have attempted to deal with that. • (1 510 ) We have had the debate in this House over the principle of the quality of share of assets during a marriage and after a marriage breakup.

It seems to me absolutely illogical not to take this second step and to take it beyond the situation where the two spouses are living and into the situation where one spouse is left surviving the other. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Ms . Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to begin 5373

Monday, February 19, 1990 debating the Bill No. 49, The Dower Amendment Act, but also to make my initial comments on the family law package including Bills 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52. This is an incredibly important package of legislative proposals. This is an incredibly important issue for families and for women in our society today. As the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has just said, it is important that we carry out this process of updating our family law, of bringing in reforms in this very important area in the most compr ehensiv e meaningful way possible.

As many have noted and the Mini ster himself, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) has noticed, when he introd uced his package of Bills, Manitoba has long been considered a leader in this area of progressive family law, in laws that reflect ch ange s in our soci ety, the changing na tu re of relationships in the modern family, and the persistent pursuit of equality between women and men. As he goes on to say, our Government is determined to continue Manitoba's record of leader ship and innovation in this area. We want to hold the Minister and this Government to those words.

We want to ensure that Manitoba's record for progressive family law, for innovative initiatives in this area, is held. There is a concern that I want to enunc iate right off at the start of deba te on Bill 49, but also at the start of debate on this entire package of legislative proposals, a concern that this package is not up to standard, is not up to the progressive model that we have presented to the rest of Canada, that it falls far short of what is absolutely needed in terms of recognizing the changing nature of the family and the ongoing pursuit of equality between women and men.

It does not make much sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to bring forward six Bills, a major legislative package in a vitally important area, pertaining to family issues and pertaining to equality for women, if that package does not attempt to meet every outstanding concern in that area and does not attempt to grapple with the critical issues that have been brought to the forefront of life here in Manitoba society.

It is with great concern that I enter this debate, a great concern for the inadequacies of this package, the weaknesses inherent in many of these Bills, and the fact that we are taking the time, the effort and the resources to bring into being progressive, modern, up to-date statutes, and it falls tar short of that. All Members in this House will remember and hearken back to the '70s when Manitoba was a leader in terms of family law reform.

Of course, all Members in this House will remember it was the NOP administration that led that battle, that listened to the voices of women and community activists and family members everywhere and brought forward significant proposals pertaining to equitable division of property and reform when it came to financial support, custody and access arrangements.

Manitoba at that time, as a result of the leadership from the NOP administration at that time and as a result of the persistence of the women 's movement and the courage of women activists in Manitoba at that time, brought to life The Marital Property Act and The Family Maintenance Act, the most progressive pieces of legislation of their kind anywhere in the country. I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) is sincere when he says, we want to maintain that leadership position, we want to uphold that tradition, we want to keep steadfastly moving in the right direction.

I believe, given those statements and that sincerity, that he will be open to some suggestions that we want to make here in this Chamber, that community groups, women's groups and family members will be making to this Government at the committee stage of all of these Bills. I believe the Minister of Justice and his colleagues will be open to those suggestions, because I dare say we would not want to let this opportunity pass of bringing forward the best possible family law changes anywhere in this count ry. That is within our grasp, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker. We have the resources. We have the knowledge.

We have the experience. We have the commitment to do just that. I believe that the Minister of Justice, in his haste to bring forward these Bills, has perhaps missed some of the widely held views of the women's community and the broader community at large. I believe that his lack of experience with consultative processes perhaps resulted in some of the inherent weakn esses in these Bills, because let us remember, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the process to reform existing family law, to extend the principles of true equality into the areas that are add ressed in these Bills, into the areas of succession matters, into the areas of equality upon the death of a partner in a relationship, that process began back in 19 86. It began under the NOP administration, a Government of which I was a part. It began out of a sincere desire to carry Manitoba the next step forward, to update our statutes in line with the pioneering work that was done back in the late '70s.

It was during the NDP's time in office that the work was begun, a consultation process was begun, that a White Paper was drafted. It was our expectation and our sincere hope that the Min ister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) would have worked from that point, built on the work that had already been done and circulated that White Paper on Family Law Reform to have an open democratic process for input and feedback from all interested parties in our society.

I am sure that if the Minister had embarked on that process we would have before us a set of Bills much more complete and much more sensitive to the needs of families and women in our society today. In fact, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I asked the Minister of Justice his intentions with respect to that White Paper early on in the term of office of this Government and was told that things were coming and that I would be pleasantly surprised. So I had anticipated that some sort of discussion paper would have been forthcoming for input from all sectors in our soci ety. Nothin g ap peared , as we all kn ow.

No Wh ite Pape r was forthcoming, not the one that was drafted during the NOP administration and dated January'87 and no other version of a discussion paper was forthcoming. Now that White Paper, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was by no means the answer to all of the issues. It was by no means complete in terms of recommendations. It was 5374

Monday, February 19, 1990 oy no means totally responsive to the requests and the demands put forward to Governments by women's groups and by community organizations. It was an important start, and it was to have been an open dialogue.

It was to have been a mechanism by which an open dialogue would have occurred so we could have had all the necessary input to make sure that our legislation was as up-to-date as possible. * (15 20) The significant organization in all of this, in terms of inp ut, in terms of the id eas, the kn owl edge, the expertise, the Charter of Rights Coalition in Manitoba also wrote to the Mini ster of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) to ask about the White Paper. In fact, they wrote back on June 28, 19 88.

I will read briefly from that letter: I write on behalf of the Charter of Rights Coalition, a coalition of equal ity-seeking groups committed to ensuring Manitoba's statutes, regulations, programs and poli cies comply with and fulfill the Ch arter guarantees of equality for women and men. To this end we have comple ted two audits con taining recommendations for the provincial Government. One area dealt with in considerable detail in our first audit was family law. Since that time the Attorney General's Department has also undertaken similar review leading to the preparation of a White Paper on Family Law.

It is CORC's und erstan ding that the Family Law White Paper is completed, printed and ready for release. We, along with many others, have been anxiously awaiting its release, given that the process first began in 1986. Shortly after that, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I wrote to the Minister as well and asked him to release that discussion paper on family law.

I believed, along with members of the CORC and other organizations that it was important to get public input early on in the process, so that we would be using our time and resources most jud iciously and ensuring that our legislation was as comprehensive as possible and not requiring incredible work that must go into this process because of the need for major amendments. As I said, the Minister responded.

In one response on August 18, by way of a letter, he said to me that the White Paper that was being prepared was in part obsolete, because the Government has decided to proceed immedia tely with the Access Assistance Program, a statement which baffled all of us, given the fact that Access Assistance was but one tiny part of the discussion paper on family law and only one small aspect of this very critically important area. However, he went on to say that he recognized the importance of changing the legislation in family law matters to reflect current realities, and he looked forward to constructive

part ici pation in the deba te on the appropriate adjustments to be made. Here we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having missed an important step in this whole process, the step of open consultation and dialogue with interested individuals and community groups, now we are having to make up for that step that was missed. We are having to spend some time now slowing down the process to ensur e that this onc e-in-a-l ifetime oppor tun ity of bringing into effect major family law changes is done in the best way possible and in the most comprehensive way possible.

As we all recognize, family law changes are made or recommended because of a number of factors. One, of course, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) said in his letter, it must reflect evolving relationships in the modern family- absolutely. Family law must also be updated and changed to keep us in line with our ongoing struggle to achieve equality between women and men absolutely. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker , this family law package and this set of reforms is absolutely necessary to bring us in line with the Charter guarantees of equality.

As Members well know, the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been mentioned by Shelagh Day in a book entitled "Family Law in Canada, New Directions." This Charter offers an opportunity to reform Family Law, thereby reducing inequal ities which particularly affect women. Historically, as we all know, the status and legal right s of women have been subsumed under those of their husbands. However, over the last century women have gradually won improvements with regard to property, maintenance, custody, divorce and other issues.

We are now at an important stage in the history and life of this province and that is the updating of our existing legislation in the Family Law area to bring it in line with the Charter of Rights provisions. To elab orate a bit, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , on that point in terms of how much has actually changed and how much remains to be changed in order to truly reflect the provisions of the Charter and truly reflect the princip les of equality between women and men and to actually tie in the importance of this legislative package, this Family Law package with respect to the broad Status of Women policy area, because I am sure, as the Mini ster respon sible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Hammond) will agree, this is one of the critical issues facing women today.

It is a critical economic issue that must be add ressed in modern, progressive terms in order to make a significant step towards that definition of true eq uality between women and men. We know that despite a century of change, reform is not complete. That is why these Bills are here today. We want to ensure that reform is as complete as possible, because in many ways family law, as Shelagh Day writes, still trails clouds of patriarchy. At the core of women's inequality in the family is her economic dependenc y.

The reforms which have occurred to date have not totally altered this basic inequal ity, so it is our duty as legislators to ensure that we embark upon a process that brings in the most complete package of legislative reform in the family law area as possible. When this package of legislati ve proposals was released to the public in October 1989, which is quite a long way from the first time the Min ister of Justice (Mr . McC rae) committed himself to dealing with this area on a fairly urgent basis, it was received with mixed reaction.

Certainly some of the amendments in this total package have been seen as very positive steps. As we go through each Bill and as we go through each Bill on a clause-by-clause basis at the committee stage, we will not hesitate to ind icate the positive aspects of 5375

Monday, February 19, 1990 these pieces of legislation, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many weak nesses in the proposals before us and there are many areas that have been missed completely in the drafting process. The key organization involved in this whole area, the Charter of Rights Coalition in Manitoba, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, reviewed this package and wrote to the Minister of Justice on November 13 and said, we are pleased that the legislation has been introduced and that your department has made a concerted effort to involve individuals in discussion, but as you are aware, CORC in Manitoba and other women's groups have been vitally interested in seeing amendments to the Acts which are covered in this proposed legislation. We have begun our review of the proposed legislation, a big task for a voluntary organization.

Our preliminary review has revealed what we believe to be drafting errors and significant ommissions in the proposed legislation. Jeri Bjornson, on behalf of CORC, the co-ordinator for CORC, goes on to say, as I have just said and as the Minister himself has said, Manitoba has led the country in progressive family legislation and we want to see this continue. We want the final form of this legislation to reflect Manitoba's co mmitment to compliance with the Charter's sex equality guarantees as we are sure you do.

Once major revisions are made to existing statutes, we are well aware that it is a long wait before there are any new amendments. Precisely my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a once in a lifetime opportun ity. It is not something we can do easily and lightly. It must be as complete as possible. It must not be hurried; it must not be partial; it must not be half hearted. It must reflect the fundamental principles behind the goal we all share of equality between women and men in our society today. • (1 530) As the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) has mentioned, there are some flaws in all of these pieces of legislation, in particular the one before us. One of the overriding concerns that I want to address at the outset of any more detailed overview of this Act and the other pieces of legislation has to do with the absence in many cases of gender neutral language, something which came as quite a surprise to us in the New Democratic Party and I believe also to the Member for St. Ja mes, given the efforts on the par t of this Government of late, I want to stress of late, to update Members in this House around gender neutral language. (Mr.

Mandrake, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) In fact I refer specifically, Mr. Acting Speaker , to the Minister's seminar she held just several weeks ago, I believe, to try to familiarize Members in this House with the importance of removing the bias, sex bias, in the way in which they add ress women and men and to move towards gender neutral language. That seminar produced some very interesting material.

It talked about the fact that language can be used to promote equity and that the guidelin es the Min ister herself had presented as part of that seminar are designed to help all of us recognize and use fair, accurate and balanced 5376 expression in everyday communication, whether it be in the classroom, in the workplace, the Legislature or any part of our society. So it came as a bit of a shock to see that we are still dealing with legislation that is not free of sex bias and is not gender neutral. That is why , Mr .

Act ing Sp eaker, I asked the Min ister responsible for the Status of Women in her Es timates of what was the official policy of this Government on gender neutral language. What was the directive that had gone out to all Min isters? What was the direction when it came to the drafting of legislation? I was assured that this Government was committed to gender neutral language.

I would assume on the basis of that commitment, on the basis of that seminar, that this Government will have no hesitat ion in ame nding the leg islation, particularly The Dower Act, to ensure that it is totally drafted in gender neutral language. Specifically when it comes to The Dower Act, let me just read the comments from the overview presented by CORC, the Ch arter of Rig hts Coalition in Ma nitoba. That organization states, the language of The Dower Act, the one before us, Bill 49, is gender specific even though there is a

section which states that specified terms are interchangeable, continuing to use phrases such as, "the testator and his wife; a married man and his wife, the owner and his wife," all of that perpetuates the stereotype that women are likely to be dependent upon their spouses in most cases. I think if this Government is committed to showing leadership as the Min ister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr s. Hammond) says it is prepared to do, then I think we start with legislation.

We start with the kind of message we as legislators send out to the broader public so that ther e is no chance for assu mptions of equality to be gl eaned from our legislation. That I would ask, Mr. Acting Speaker, be seriously considered by the Min ister of Justice (Mr . McCr ae) and his colleagues. Let us not slide back in time and in this day and age, the 19 90s, allow a piece of legislation to go through that is gender biased, is sex bia sed . Let us ensure that it is gender neutral in every sense of the word. Mr.

Acting Speaker, when one analyzes The Dower Act and all of these pieces of legislation obviously from a set of principles, I hope we are all working from the same set of principles. I am not sure, based on some of the gaps in these Bills. I am not sure in terms of some of the language in these Bills whether or not we are operating from the same set of princip les.

The principles that I apply and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party Caucus apply are very consistent with the principl es enunciated by women's organizations in this province, by the Charter of Rights Coalition when it analyzed these six Bills that are all part of the Family Law package. I want to put those principles on record because they will guide us as we work through these six Bills, as we study them clause by clause at committee stage and as we seek to ensure that some progr essive amendments are made to this package.

The first principle that must be applied as enu nciated by the Charter of Rights Coalition pertains to what I have just

Monday, February 19, 1990 said about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As CORC says, the Canadian Cha rter of Rig hts and Fre edoms gu arantees equalit y between men and women , pr ovincial legislation must be free from discrimination based on sex. This includes blatant discrimination, for example, laws which are written to treat women and men differently. It also includes laws which have an unequal or disparate impact on one's sex. For example, in succes sion legislation any provisions which discriminate against surviving spouses can be argued to discriminate against women on the basis of sex.

This is because, as I am sure all Members in this House know, the majority of surviving spouses are women. An Honourable Member: Well, that is changing. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says that is changing. Certainly he is right, but I am sure he is interested in erasing any traces of sex bias in a piece of legislation sponsored by his Government. I am sure he is interested in working towards assuring full equality between women and men.

One of the ways he can do that is by working with us to ensure some significant amendments are made to The Dower Act and to this entire package of Bills. An Honourable Member: You have my support. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: A principle-the Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) will agree I am sure with the second principle that guides the NOP in assessing these Bills, and it is certainly a key principle for an organization like the Charter of Rights Coalition here in Manitoba. That principle is, very simply, that marriage is a partnership of equals.

Anything acquired by a couple during marriage is assumed to have been acquired through the efforts of both. That means, therefore, that legislation should protect the economic security of both spouses during their lifetimes and of the surviving spouse at the time of a spouse's death. It also means, Mr. Acting Speaker , that each of the partner s has a right to an equal shar e of the accumulated assets at the time of marriage breakdown, and it means that a surviving spouse has the right to at least one-half of the estate at the time of a spouse's death.

Those are critic al princi ple s in asse ssing the effectiveness of a Bill like Bill 49, The Dower Amendment Act, and all of these Bills in the legislative package. A third principle enunciated by CORC, and I hope all Members in this House, that must be a guiding light in terms of dealing with this legislative package, is as follows: Where there is no will, the law should reflect the majority of wills, and that is a principle that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), in his overview of this package says is present in this legislative package.

He says it has been a guiding light, it has been a part of the framework for putting together this legislative package. But, Mr. Acting Speak er, we are not so clear about that. In fact, it would appear that in many in stances, when one assesses all of these Acts, particularly The Dower Act, that principle has not been applied widely and constructively. * (1 540) The majority of spouses leave their entire estate to their surviving spouse.

Therefore, it is our view and the view of women's organizations that the law should ensure that a widowed spouse receives the entire estate where there is no will, and I am sure Members in this House will recognize that principle as one that has been described as all to the spouse. Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker, a principle that must be kept in mind in terms of assessing The Dower Act and all of the Bills in this package, and is enun ciated again by CORC, states: Parents have a legal obligation to support their minor children.

Once children reach the age of 18 , parents may choose to support their adult children who are dependent for some reason. Parents do not have an obligation to support adult children unless dependent due to severe mental or physical incapacity, or to leave them a portion of their estates. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker , let us keep those princi ples in mind and let us hear from Members in this House if there is disagreement with those principles before we even start the clause-by-clause analysis of these Bills at the committee stage, because if we are talking from different principl es, if we are coming at this whole policy area from different perspectives, then that should be made clear because the future of women is very much tied up in our response, as legislators, and how in tune we are to the principles that they uphold so strongly.

These principles give us a way to assess the legislation before us, particularly Bill 49, The Dower Act. The Dower Act, as Members know, is intended primarily to provide some measure of economic security to spouses. It provides for the right of a surviving spouse to choose a fixed share of the deceased spouse's estate where the deceased spouse has left less than that share to her or him in a will. It provides for the right of a surviving spouse to a life estate and the deceased spouse's homestead or home for the duration of her or his lifetime.

It provides for the written consent of the non-owning spous e for the di sposition of or encumbrance on the homestead . We have to look at The Dower Act in terms of those provisions and recognize that there are some important amendments to this Act. It does give priority to the spouse's fixed share of the estate over orders under the new Dependant's Relief Act. It includes criteria under which a surviving separated spouse loses her or his right to claim a portion of the estate under The Dower Act.

However, having acknowledged the major objectives of this Act, and the amendments which significantly adhere to the principles I have enunc iated, it is important for us to pause and focus on the major problems that are still in this Act that have not been addressed by the proposed amendments. It would be a shame to move forward in this direction without doing as complete a job as possible, without ensuring that our legislation is consistent with the principles that I have enunciated, 5377

Monday, February 19, 1990 the principles about equality in a marriage, about the all-to-a-spouse question and about being in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Acting Speaker, as the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has already enunciated, there are some very major deficiencies with this Act. We certainly share that concern, and we certainly believe that amendments must be put forward to correct those deficienc ies. We are hoping that the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mccrae) and all of his colleagues, since they have expressed an open ness to hearing from women's groups, even though they did miss an important step in the whole process, an important consultative step, they have expressed an interest to hear from women's groups and other citizens about their re::iction to these six Bills and seem to be interested in receiving constructive amendments to these Bills. I hope, and I am sure the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr s. Hammond) will be leading the charge.

I would hope she would be, given her work around the Women's In itiative, even though we have much disagreement with that whole exercise, if it does not translate into things like progressive Family Law legislation. We are looking to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to work with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae), who has expressed an openness, and together come forward with amendments that deal with the major concerns in this legislation. Specifically, Mr.

Acting Speaker, it is absolutely critical that The Dower Act be amended to reflect that principle of all to a spouse and it be amended to reflect the fact that the principle that has been enuncia ted not only by court but also by the Law Reform Commission is included in this legislation, and that is that a fixed share scheme be repealed, that is a minimum entitlement on the death of a spouse who leaves the will to surviving spouse receive a deferred one-half share of the spouse's marital prope rty.

That I think is an incredibly important area to be addressed in this Bill and must be addressed in terms of concrete amendments. As CORC itself has said, The Dower Act-we back up, Mr. Acting Speaker. As CORC has said very clearly, of major concern are provisions in The Dower Act which allow a spouse to ensure that her or his surviving spouse receives less than one-half of the net value of the estate. Those exemptions as outlined in

Section 16 allow a testator to make a limited request such as providing an annual income of $1 5,000 for life, and if a testator includes one of the exemptions in her or his will, the surviving spouse has no right to choose to take a fixed share of one-half of the net estate under The Dower Act. As CORC has said so well I could not say it better myself, these exem ptions are both illogical and discriminatory . They in effect afford widows spouse's rights which are inferior to the rights of a spouse upon marriage br eak down . The Dower Act should be amended immediately by deleting the exemptions in

Section 16. Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker , as I believe my time is coming to a close-two minutes, thank you-we will have an opportun ity of course to go in more detail over these deficiencies and proposed amendments at the committee stage.

However, I think it is important to 5378 mention another major deficiency in this legislation, and that is, it needs to be amended to ensure that surviving separated spouses are afforded the right to choose to take a fixed share of the deceased spouse's estate unless there is an appl ication pending for an accounting and equalization of assets under The Marital Property Act or their affairs have been finalized through a final agreement or a court order. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair) It is not consistent, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for this Dower Act to ignore the principles that have been enuncia ted and to set out criteria under which a surviving separated spouse would lose his or her claim to a fixed share of the estate of the deceased spouse, because clearly that kind of criteria are problematic. They do not require that the couple's affairs have been finalized before a surviving separated spouse loses her or his claim on the estate of the deceased spouse. I could go on at some length about the problems with The Dower Act.

Let me conclude, however, by saying we look forward to a thorough clause-by-clause analysis at committee stage and an openness and a willingne ss on the part of the Members of the Government to propose and suppor t amendments to ensure that we use this opportun ity to bring forward the most up-to-date, complete, progr essive and meaningful Family Law legislation anywhere in this count ry. Thank you. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 51- THE MARITAL PROPERT Y AM ENDMEN T ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae), Bill No. 51, The Marital Property Amendment Act; (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). * (15 50) Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): If I might, I would like to deal with these in some succession. We had done 47, 48 and 49. I wonder if we might deal with Bill 50 at this point, with Bill 51 being left to stand in my name. POINT OF ORDER An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs, on a point of order. Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): With respect, I believe you inadvertently called Bill No. 51 rather than Bill No. 50. Maybe you would wish to do it as initially reque sted by our House Leader, that would be to proceed to do 50 and then 51. I think the House would appreciate that. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Monday, February 19, 1990 BILL NO. 50- THE WILLS AMEN DMENT ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill No. 50, The Wills Amendment Act; (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les testaments), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Well, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I do not intend that my comments on this Bill will be long, but they will be extremely illuminating to all Honourable Members I can promise. This is another in the series which makes up the family law package. It is a Bill which amends The Wills Act which is of course an extremely important Act in our' province and in fact governs the capacity of individuals to make wills and the fo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-128a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 128a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8e3a987001f0544a869ec188fc4c6239837a97cd

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