Manitoba Hansard — 27 June 1995 (Sitting 26, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 26-1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 27, 1995

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

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

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Anhur- Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norben St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fon Garry Swan River 13m N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P.

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

2763 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 27, 1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 35-The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to introduce Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Ernst: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia Loi electorale, Ia

Loi sur !'election des autorites locales et . apportant des modifications correlatives. Motion agreed to. * (133 5) Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the public gallery, where we have with us this afternoon sixty Grades 7 to 9 students from Salisbury Morse Place School under the direction ofMrs. Pat Weis, Ms. Lisa Savinkoff and Mrs. Rosemary Greenway. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).

Additionally, I would like to draw all honourable members' attention to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Donald Orchard who was the member for Pembina from 1977 to 1995. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets Operating Losses Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the acting Premier. Madam Speaker, of course we have received information from the City of Winnipeg, not from this Legislature, that deals with, again, some scenarios dealing with the Winnipeg Jets.

Now, of course, there are two scenarios, both negotiated by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The one scenario is the operating loss agreement negotiated by the Premier and Mayor Norrie, the former mayor of the City of Winnipeg, and the other deal is the proposal now being forged between Mr. Filmon and Mr. Asper for the so-called Spirit of Manitoba. Under the memo yesterday, Mr. Frost presents two scenarios in terms of the operating losses of the Winnipeg Jets team. A, quote, normal range of losses would be $17 million, and a lame-duck scenario would be losses up to $25 million.

2764 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 I have asked this question to the Premier before. Will he confirm the numbers of Commissioner Frost as the possible loss range in terms of the operating loss agreement that he signed in 1991? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): The information that has been consistently utilized over the last few months by governments, by the Manitoba Entertainment Complex, more recently by the Spirit of Manitoba, has been that the losses over the next two years are projected at between $28 million to $30 million. Mr.

Frost, I understand, was asked to prepare a memo on behalf of the mayor and City Council under so-called worst-case scenarios, and at this particular point in time, those are purely speculative. As the Leader of the Opposition knows-we had a discussion in Estimates on Friday-there are some very significant contracts coming up in the next handful of days for the Winnipeg Jets. Those are going to be integral to what the future operating losses might we11 be. The fiscal year-end for the Jets is June 30.

We will be receiving the audited financial statements, Madam Speaker, but, as it is everybody's objective to find a Manitoba solution here to keep the team in Manitoba, if that occurs by August 15 of this year, losses will become the responsibility of the Spirit of Manitoba, of the private sector. Winnipeg Jets/Arena Provincial Funding Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The second deal and scenario forged in the words of Commissioner Frost, forged between Mr. Filmon and Mr. Asper, indicate that we are still short the $17 million for the $Il l -million arena.

Of course, the $Il l -million arena comes on the promise of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the election that he would limit his contribution from the provincial government to $10 million, and he would not cover operating losses of the team past May I, 1995, words that ring rather hollow now when we look at the two scenarios and the two doors we may go through based on the two deals the Premier has negotiated with this hockey team.

I would like to ask the Premier today to table the business plan dealing fully with the shortfall of the $17 million and dealing with the other scenario that we may have to look at as taxpayers in terms of the facility, the $111 million which is going to be supported by the taxpayers of Manitoba. *

(1340) Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked a similar question many times. We have discussed this same issue in Estimates, and he fails to understand the difference between the Spirit of Manitoba taking over the operations of the hockey club and the three levels of government building a facility here in Manitoba. We have acknowledged that there still is $17 million to be put in place, and we have outlined a series of options to come up with that $17 million, Madam Speaker.

One of them is pursuing that with the federal government in terms of pointing out to them the significant economic benefits that they will derive from the building of a facility. They will derive some $20 million in direct taxes if a facility is built. They will also take in approximately $12 million annually in taxation revenue. There are very significant economic arguments as to why the federal government should make a more significant contribution.

We also have indicated to him that for the building of the facility, the rights to the naming and the rights to the clock, those revenue sources will also be a part of building the facility and will ultimately take up a significant part of that $17 million. So there are a series of options that will be pursued to come up with the additional $17 million that is required, Madam Speaker. Standing Committee Spirit of Manitoba Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the government has been giving us a series of options, a series of scenarios, a series of possibilities for the last five and a half weeks in this House. They have not given us yet a business plan to deal with the $111 million. They have not dealt at all specifically with these concerns.

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2765 I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in light of the fact that the government itself was briefed last night in a closed-door meeting here at the Legislative Building, would the Premier of this province have the so-called Spirit of Manitoba come before a legislative committee so that all members of this Legislature who are all responsible to the taxpayers of this province can all be briefed and ask questions on this proposal, not a select group of people that the Premier chooses, Madam Speaker? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, again, we have indicated on many occasions to the Leader of the Opposition that as this issue moves forward, if deals are concluded, if contracts, if arrangements are ultimately entered into between levels of government with the Spirit of Manitoba or with any other entities, it is certainly our undertaking to make as much as we possibly can available, not only to the members of this Legislature but to all Manitobans because I think that will be a healthy part of the ultimate decisions around this entire issue, to share as much information as we possibly can.

But if we all had the attitude similar to the Leader of the Opposition, today in Manitoba we would have no Concert Hall, we would have no Convention Centre, we would have no Art Gallery, we would have no aqueduct, we would have no North Portage, we would have no Forks. We would probably have a province with no people living in it, Madam Speaker, if we had that kind of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition in this province. Winnipeg Arena Design Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I want to table a letter. Mr. Jerry Shore, who is the second-largest tenant of the current arena, and Mr.

Frost, who is the city commissioner, and .Mayor Thompson have all confirmed over the last few days that the new building for the Winnipeg Jets is just that. It is a stripped-down, bare-bones hockey rink. Mr. Frost's rather delicate wording on this is that much private-sector work has gone into the costing of the building, but it is quite evident that this proposed building is at the low end in comparison with other new facilities, a rather delicate phrase. Will the Premier now confirm that this deal with Mr. Asper is based on a bargain-basement rink and is not in any sense a multipurpose entertainment complex?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Absolutely not, Madam Speaker, and the members of the design team of Manitoba Entertainment Complex totally and categorically reject that assertion. Private-Sector Funding Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, will the Premier finally require the private sector to put some money on the table here and to advance the design funds that are now required to forward the project from the club and luxury-seat and box deposits, which are due on July 1, instead of putting further public-sector funds on the table, where no private sector funds are at risk? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as has been stated many times, the arrangement is that the public sector will create the facility that will be there for the long-term enjoyment and benefit of generations ofManitobans to come, and the private sector will buy, own and operate and be responsible for all costs and losses of the operations of the team in the future. *

(1345) Cost Overruns Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the Premier confirm that last night at the briefing, Spirit of Manitoba showed that, in fact, design costs were to go to Spirit in the third

section of the documents which they tabled, and will the Premier, finally then, require that Spirit put forward some of these funds and that it will require personal covenants from Spirit's directors, so that the cost overruns which are almost certain will not fall on the public sector but will fall on the private sector, as promised?

2766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as a member of Thin Ice and as a member of Choices and as a member of all of these loony, left-wing organizations that have been- Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's is very clear that all members are honourable members and not only that, are referred to as representing their constituencies. Perhaps the minister should wake up to the fact that the member is the member for Crescentwood and should be referred to as that in debate.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I did not specifically hear the Premier refer to the member for Crescentwood as those adjectives he used which regrettably are really not very parliamentary, but, indeed, I will peruse Hansard and, if necessary, I will report back to the House. I will remind the honourable First Minister that indeed all members are referred to as honourable members. *** Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I categorically did not refer to the member himself in the term that I chose.

I will say this, though, that he has been the guiding genius behind the development of such organizations as Thin Ice and Choices and the Manitoba Medicare Alert Coalition and all of those organizations that offer no vision, no hope and no opportunity for the future of Manitoba, Madam Speaker. He merely mouths the words of all of those who operate out of ignorance and who operate with such a sense of negativity towards this province and this city's future.

Having said that, the answer to his question is that the designers, the architects, the engineers and those in charge of the construction of this facility did confirm last evening that they are confident in the price, they are confident in the quality of the construction of the facility, and they are confident that it will meet all of the needs and all of the tests and all of the future opport unities that will be created as a result of the development of the Manitoba entertainment complex, Madam Speaker. *

(1350) Immigration Agreement Application Fee Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, this Tory government has been self-righteously critical of what has been generally described as racist policies of the federal Liberal government in imposing a head tax and bond requirements which the honourable minister of immigration, heritage and culture himself had called exorbitant. The Canadian Embassy in the Philippines has been using, in addition, a high exchange rate in calculating the number of Philippine pesos needed to cover the new fees of nearly $1,500 Canadian dollar fare for adult immigrant applicants.

My question is to the honourable minister himself. Will the honourable minister today table in this Assembly any correspondence he has had with his fellow counterparts expressing his concern and calling for the reversal of federal government racist immigration policies? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, we covered this topic in some detail in the Estimates process just last week, and I regret the honourable member was not able to attend that.

We have taken a very strong stand with the federal minister and the federal government opposing the bond system that he is putting into place, the head tax that he is putting into place. All of these things are going to be detrimental to Canada and Manitoba receiving more immigrants. I have written to the federal minister opposing those, and I have requested a meeting with him so that we could sit down on a face-to-face basis to discuss these issues.

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2767 Negotiations Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): What is the status of the negotiations started since May between the federal government and the provincial government on the desired objectives of reaching a bilateral agreement on immigration policies in this province? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, again, we covered this in some detail in the Estimates process, and that is available in Hansard.

We have been very disappointed in the federal government's lack of response to our attempts to get an immigration agreement. It seems that, while we do get agreement at the local level with staff from the Immigration department, as it works its way up the federal bureaucracy we are not getting the type of co operation we need to achieve an agreement, and, as a result, I have written to the federal minister indicating a desire to meet with him at his earliest opportunity. Family Reunification Mr.

Conrad Santos (Broadway): Will the honourable minister commit himself today to make it clear to the federal Liberal government that he disagrees with the racist immigration policy put in place by that federal Liberal government and that he will call for family reunification as a top priority objective in the recruitment and selection of immigrants to Manitoba? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I have already done that, and we have communicated that to the federal minister. Again, we covered this in the Estimates process.

I note that one Liberal member of Parliament from north Winnipeg Dr. Pagtakhan has been very much onside on this, and . we hope that perhaps other members of that Liberal caucus will see the errors of their ways and talk to Minister Marchi to make the adjustments that we think are desirable. Forest Fires Leaf Rapids Evacuees Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Without question, the citizens of Leaf Rapids have endured a difficult couple of weeks.

On the first evacuation, we heard reports of a convoy caught with fires on both sides of the road en route from Leaf Rapids to Thompson. Citizens returned to LeafRapids on Friday only to be re-evacuated on Sunday. Today, a convoy of 50 vehicles will leave Lynn Lake and will be escorted through Leaf Rapids to Lake Suwannee, where they will be left on their own to travel south to Thompson, a total distance of approximately 180 kilometres.

Can the minister tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure the safety of these travellers, given that they have only just been evacuated out of this area and given that the last update from Leaf Rapids stated that wind conditions will be unpredictable. *

(1355) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Madam Speaker, predictions are no perfect science by any means. I have mentioned this before, that we have a committee that meets at ten o'clock every morning, does an assessment in terms of what the conditions are, what the conditions of the fires are, what the wind conditions are, and then they make predictions in terms of whether we should be on an evacuation watch or not. Many people play a role in this, and certainly when the decisions get made to make any move, whatever it is, it is then always done in conjunction with the RCMP.

So if there is any evacuation or movement that takes place of the people from Lynn Lake, or anywhere really where evacuation takes place, it is always done in conjunction with many of our civil servants and the RCMP. So without really going into the details of it, great concern is always taken in terms of trying to make sure that safety is the No. 1 concern.

2768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 In spite of that, what happened last time when the ftre broke and raced across, people have to understand many of us probably have never been exposed to a forest fue and have never seen what happens when the wind is 50, 60 kilometres an hour, and the ftre jumps literally two, three miles at a crack and tops through the top of the trees. It is very hard to always project when we have circumstances up north that are very volatile, as they are now. Hopefully, the people who are out there are making the right judgment. Leaf Rapids-Disaster Assistance Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Government Services. Can the Minister of Government Services tell us when evacuees in Lynn Lake will begin receiving their daily allowances for expenses other than gas and food? It has been a week now. Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I thank the member for the question. The daily allowance the member refers to is an amount of funds that is made available on a short-term basis, on a bridge basis, to those who have been evacuated who do not have access to any alternate source of funds.

That is to say, it is not an entitlement, but it is an amount of funds that would provide for those who have needs such as laundry expense or to procure toiletries, these types of items. There may be a basic misunderstanding on the part of the member as to the intention of these funds. It is not an allowance per se that is paid to every evacuee regardless of situation; rather, individual circumstances are taken into account in the payment of these funds. Host Community Assistance Mr.

Gerard JennisseD (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my ftnal supplementary to the same minister: What additional assistance will be provided to the small community of Lynn Lake to cope with the larger-than- expected stay of hundreds and hundreds of evacuees from Leaf Rapids? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): In terms of the host communities, whether it be Lynn Lake in this case or Portage Ia Prairie in the past week, other communities are on standby, based on the emergency preparedness. plans that have been developed by northern communities which have fortunately anticipated the possibility of this type of action. All host communities are supported certainly by my department and other government departments in their efforts.

We feel that perhaps the greatest degree of support that they can have is the ongoing support and co operation of all government departments which will work together with community representatives. The fact of the matter is we have heard from numerous communities and through various comments we have received that the plans that have been put into place are working more effectively.

We have learned from previous experiences, such as in 1989, and I believe that these people are working together very effectively as a team to do the best possible job they can under difficult circumstances to host these folks and to make sure that they are accommodated as best as is possible. St. Boniface Courthouse Relocation of Bail Hearings Mr. Neil Gaudry (St Boniface): My question is for the Minister of Justice. Madam Speaker, residents of the community of St. Boniface have repeatedly expressed concerns relating to the use of the St. Boniface courthouse as a location for bail hearings.

The government has promised to move the process to 408 York. However, we have learned again yesterday that hearing officers have been replaced by magistrates, and they remain at the St. Boniface location. When can we expect the bail hearings process to move from St. Boniface to 408 York?

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2769 Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I did inform the member it was the intention to move from the St. Boniface courthouse to 408 York. Madam Speaker, I will look into any issues of delay. To my knowledge, that is progressing, and the full intention is to have that move made as quickly as possible. To my knowledge, it was certainly by the end of June. *

(1400) Mr. Gaudry: Can the minister tell us if the move to 408 York is dependent on the completion of a video system linking the Public Safety Building and 408 York, and, if so, how long will it take to implement the system? Mrs . Vodrey: We are looking at a video link from 408 York with the Public Safety Building. That is important in terms of looking at reducing the amount of time that police officers are required to travel from one building to the next. However, to my knowledge, it was not contingent on the completion of that video link, but as I said to the member, I will certainly look into any delay.

It is not our intention to delay that move. Mr. Gaudry: Is the move dependent on renovations to be completed at 408 York? Mrs . V odrey: As I said to the member, I will certainly look into the reasons for any delay. As I had told him earlier, it was our intention to have that move accomplished by the end of June. If there has been any holdup, I will make sure that this is looked into. Forest Fires Damage/Compensation Assessment Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

At some point, the fires throughout northern Manitoba will be out, and at some point, officials of this government will be assessing the damage done. Can the minister explain to the House the procedure that will be utilized to assess the amount of damage and the compensation necessary? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Basically, Madam Speaker, we could have covered that, I guess, in Estimates yesterday in a little bit more detail for the member, but suffice to say that a process is in place which involves the various municipalities, whereby claims that the member is referring to, Disaster Assistance, and I believe he is, where claims are filed through the municipal levels of government and are forwarded to the Disaster Assistance folks. They will evaluate those and have been progressing nicely in doing that.

In fact, the vast majority of municipal claims that have been filed have been assessed, and, now, it is individual claims that we are progressing on. Some of those, of course, remain to be evaluated and others are forthcoming. In the case of flood as well as fire, certainly it takes a certain amount of time for us to make sure, for the safety of assessors, that the conditions are such that they can fully evaluate the damage that has been done and do a fair appraisal and determine the compensation that would be paid, if any. Mr.

Struthers: Will the minister guarantee to the House that the aboriginal community will be represented on any committee struck to assess the damages of the fires of 1995? Mr. Pallister: The Disaster Assistance process is one where the board evaluates and assesses claims as they are received from whichever jurisdiction sends those claims in, so, certainly, government officials and people working with the Disaster Assistance age_ncy will be involved in assessing claims as they are forwarded.

As far as the assessment of those claims, the process is one that is the same, whether for aboriginal areas or for nonaboriginal areas. It is one that calls for the forms to be brought forward, for claims to be filed and for them to be assessed, similar to any insurance claim that any member of this House might file.

2770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 The other issue of ultimate payment or compensation is another issue. That would depend on the jurisdictional obligations that are involved in the specific area that files the claim. Mr. Struthers: Can the minister verify whether or not there is a person serving today as an aboriginal co ordinator, as there was during the time of the 1989 fires? Mr. Pallister: I cannot give clarification to the member on that specifically. I will take that as advisement, that question.

Already at this stage I have been in contact with local officials in various regions, some of whom are aboriginal, some of whom are not. I think, frankly, that the overriding concern we all share in this House is that the people who file claims are treated fairly, that they are compensated fairly, and that should be the overriding issue, not the racial origin of the assessment people or of any official in the given area.

I will continue to work with all the people involved in Disaster Assistance to be sure that people who file claims are treated fairly and to make sure that our department does its very best to be fully compensating those people who have suffered damage as a result of fire or flood or other natural disaster. Y ellowquill College Funding Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): This issue was raised at the recent Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

The Community Health and Human Services Workers diploma program delivered by Yellowquill College in Portage Ia Prairie and aimed at providing accredited training to both CIIRs and NADAP workers and First Nations communities will no longer receive funding for tuition and book expenses for the '95-96 school year, and there is no guarantee of further funding for this program, as well. Now, we have 30 CHRs and NADAP workers currently enrolled, and they face the risk of having to withdraw from this program. My question is for the Acting Minister of Education.

I would like to ask the acting minister if the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) has written in support of this program and whether or not she can table a response from the federal minister. Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Acting Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Education. Mr. Robinson: I would like to also ask the minister whether or not she believes that ending support for programs like this and Access are steps backward which will result in fewer graduates in northern communities. Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take that question as notice for the Minister of Education, but I would think it was very important to note to the member our continued commitment to Access programming. Community Colleges Aboriginal Support Services Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my final question is this. What strategy does the minister and the department have to increase the number of aboriginal students in community colleges when courses, funding and staff are being cut? Bon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Acting Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I know that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) has discussed certain initiatives which are present in each of the community colleges to look at encouraging participation of aboriginal students and also aboriginal staff. I will take the specifics of that question as notice for the Minister of Education. Home Care Program Restructuring Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we understand the government is already planning to make

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2771 some major changes to home care, and the last time the government made major changes to home care, it resulted in massive cuts and a great deal of diminution of service to many Manitobans, and I hope the government consults widely before making any changes.

My question to the minister is, we have already heard that the minister is going to privatize some aspects of home care, and I would like the minister to provide to this House and the people of Manitoba an outlined statement today that will confirm to this House that the government is not planning to change the one-entry system, the consistent, comprehensive nature of our home care system that we enjoy in Manitoba and that we are not going back to a fragmented private system as we had before. Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the honourable member should not try to have it both ways. Either the Home Care program works perfectly and does not need any change, or it does not work perfectly and does need change. Madam Speaker, the honourable member has done nothing but raise issues and examples. He has written me, to his credit, many times to set out problems in the home care system. I recognize that there is room for change. I recognize that the clients of the home care system could get a better deal.

I hope the honourable member will be supportive when we try to improve services for the clients of home care in Manitoba. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister, prior to making changes that will see many services in home care privatized, table in this Chamber and for the people of Manitoba those studies, cost benefits and analyses that justify providing services through private companies that make profit versus the nonprofit, government-run home care that presently offers those services? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, I believe with regard to the Home Care program, my vision is clear, and it is directed at the client. The needs of the client will come before the needs of union bosses who happen to be friends of the honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Health critic of the New Democratic Party. Madam Speaker, the clients are the people who need to see the improvements, and through whatever mechanisms we use, we will never lose sight of the objective. *(1 41 0) Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary: Will the minister, since he has made that statement, assure this House that they will not make massive changes to home care prior to consulting with the public of Manitoba and, in particular, those people getting home care services, so that they do not fall into the trap of making the cuts and changes they made two years ago that severely hurt the home care system? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, unlike the honourable member, I have no intention of defending a situation where people go without service because home care providers happen to be on holidays.

I do not think that is defensible. If the honourable member wants to defend that, let him go ahead. I do not see that as appropriate. I do not see it appropriate that our hospital beds are blocked with people who should be at home receiving I. V. therapy at home. I do not see why we should have our hospital beds blocked by people who should be at home and who are only in hospitals because the system has not been able to see them discharged in an expedient time period, Madam Speaker. People heal better at home and we can do a better job.

If the honourable member wants to stand in the way of improvements, it will be at his peril, Madam Speaker, because there are Manitobans who deserve better. Health of Manitoba Children Report Compulsory Health Education Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Yesterday it was confirmed that the Youth Secretariat would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the

2772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 many excellent recommendations in this report, the report on the Health of Manitoba's Children. At least six sections of this report, the

section on injury, adolescent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, nutrition, smoking, alcohol and drugs, all recommend compulsory health education in Manitoba schools for all children. I want to ask the minister responsible if the intention of this government is to comply with that recommendation and ensure all Manitoba's school children will have compulsory health education. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the Health of Manitoba's Children report the honourable member refers to is something we in Manitoba should be proud of. It is the first report of its kind in the country. Dr.

Postl and his committee have done excellent work, and the report does indeed form the framework of much of the efforts of the new child and adolescent secretariat. For the first time, we have departments working in a much more co-ordinated way, not that we have not always been co-ordinated, Madam Speaker, but here again I think that we have operated to some extent in a system of silos in our delivery system as a government, as a health system, as a family services system, and it is time we began working more closely together, and with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson), the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) and others, including myself and our departments, there is a much better working relationship at work today than previous to that report. As far as education issues, the Education department is also part of that group, and that recommendation will be the subject of discussion amongst the ministers involved. Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, is the government going to comply with the recommendation in this excellent report to ensure that all school children in Manitoba will have compulsory health education? Are you going to give us an answer, Mr. Minister? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, I just did. In addition, I think the report makes it clear also that Manitoba's aboriginal population could very well benefit from some of the recommendations in that report, and we intend to work very closely in those areas and to work indeed with aboriginal communities. The honourable member asked for an answer. I gave her one a minute ago. I said that that recommendation and others will be the subject of further review, discussion and refinement. There is no question about how important health promotion, health education is.

I mean, there are a lot of people in this province who simply need to understand a little bit about the nutrition rules that could make a very, very big difference in the whole life of a youngster starting out today. So I think the honourable member's question is an important one and will be addressed in due course. Ms.

Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister responsible for the secretariat, also the Minister of Family Services, given that she said yesterday this secretariat was considering the recommendations in this report, can she tell the House if that recommendation on compulsory health education has been reviewed and analyzed by the staff in the secretariat? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.

We did have, I think, a really good dialogue around the Children and Youth Secretariat in the time we had allocated last evening in the Estimates process, and I indicated quite clearly at that time that I appreciate some of the issues that were raised by my honourable friend and some of the ideas for constructive and positive solutions to some of the issues that we face in co-ordination of services and in ensuring that children get off to a healthy start and have a healthy quality lifestyle. That is something that we desire as a government for all Manitobans and all Manitoba children.

We will be working co-operatively among departments to ensure that we deal with and address all

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2773 of the issues and the recommendations that were brought forward to us through the Postl report. Winnipeg Development Agreement Winnipeg Adult Education Centre Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, Isbister School, home of the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre since 1966, is both a provincially and municipally designated heritage building. The International Downtown Association has cited education facilities as one of the best engines of downtown revitalization.

One of the objectives of the Winnipeg Development Agreement is to assist projects designed to create long-term employment through helping citizens prepare for employment opportunities. I would like to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs if he can tell the House the status of the February 1995 request of the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 for WDA funding for a much-needed addition to and refurbishment of the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre. Hon.

Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington is right in her assessment of the opportunities that avail themselves to the WDA, the Winnipeg Development Agreement, in the enhancement of local areas and the fact that the component she is referring to regarding the educational facilities is part of that. The individual aspect of that particular school and the application within WDA param eters, I will have to take as notice and get back to her on the exact status of that application. Ms.

Barrett: Will the Minister of Urban Affairs commit today that he, as well as the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), will take a leadership role with the other Winnipeg Development Agreement partners to ensure that this project, which meets at least three of the major programming criteria of the WDA, receives the highest possible priority for funding? Mr.

Reimer: Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that any type of request that comes forth which requires consultation and input between the various departments will take precedent in trying to come to some sort of understanding and an agreement and a direction that would come forth, but as to the specifics regarding that particular project, I will have to take as notice and try to get better information back to the member. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, do I have leave to make committee changes?

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have leave to make committee changes? [agreed] Mr. Helwer: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey); the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Rossmere (Mr.

Toews); the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for Riel (Mr. Newman). Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett); Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for Tuesday, June 27, at 7 p.m. Motions agreed to. *

(1420) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Darren Pramik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, before I call government

2774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 business, I would just briefly like leave to revert to Tabling of Reports. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines have leave to revert to Routine Proceedings to table reports? [agreed] Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the 1994-95 Annual Report of the Department of Manitoba Energy and Mines. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask, first of all, if you could canvass the House to seek leave to call Bill 35 for second reading?

SECOND READINGS Bill 35-The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: Is there leave to proceed with second reading of Bill35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave? [agreed] Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi electorate, la

Loi sur I' election des autorites locales et apportant des modifications correlatives, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Film on: Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking all members of the House for their courtesy in allowing the second reading of this bill. I know they all recognize the importance of dealing with this legislation prior to our adjourning the session at the end of this month. I am pleased to introduce The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act for consideration by all members of the House.

As all members of the Legislature are aware, these amendments arise out of circumstances identified during the recent provincial election campaign and previously. Our government has taken measures to provide enhanced security to individuals in abusive relationships, in strained marriages and in other circumstances. These have included tougher policies on domestic violence and stalking.

During the recent provincial election campaign, concerned individuals pointed out that the time honoured process of conducting enumeration and making public complete voters' lists as part of our open democratic process put some individual Manitobans at risk. Specifically, individuals who have restraining orders or have fled abusive relationships or who had been stalked were potentially identified through the public posting of these lists. The purpose of this bill is to protect people who are seeking. increased personal security and wish not to have their name included on a voters' list.

The bill accomplishes this objective with respect to provincial and local government elections in Manitoba. The requirement in The Elections Act and The Local Authorities Elections Act to post voters' lists outside polling places is now removed. Instead of posting lists, The Elections Act will now allow the returning officer of rural electoral divisions to place the lists in the local municipal or other public office. Returning officers in all constituencies will have available for public inspections copies of the voters' lists.

The bill will also permit a voter in both a provincial and a local election to ask to have his or her name and/or address omitted or obscured from a voters' list in order to protect the person's personal security. This provision is modelled on a

section in a recent British Columbia bill that has not yet become law. The obscured or omitted information will not be publicly available, nor will it be available to candidates or political parties. The returning officer will have the

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2775 obligation of ensuring that the individual is entitled to vote and thereby participate in the democratic process. Election officials will be obliged under both acts to advertise or take other steps to inform the public about the new security protection. Each act is also being amended to prohibit the use of voters' lists except for political or election purposes, this provision being modelled on a recent amendment to the Canada Elections Act.

The amendments put forward in this bill will enhance personal security while ensuring public scrutiny of amended voters' lists. Candidates or their official agents will continue to receive copies of the amended voters' lists for election purposes. Copies of voters' lists will no longer be distributed as freely as once was the case. Unfortunately, this is now necessary in order to accomplish the important objective of providing enhanced public security for persons at risk. Not proceeding with this bill would diminish the effectiveness of other measures that have been taken to enhance personal security in Manitoba.

Passage of this bill prior to June 30 will allow it to be effective for the local government elections to be held in Manitoba in October of 1995. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I was hoping to be able to just add comment, because we do believe that the bill, it will be beneficial to see it pass second reading today. Ifl can have leave to speak to the bill. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to make comment on this bill? We have just agreed to stand it in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). [agreed] Mr. Lamoureux: I do appreciate the Premier's Office, through the government House leader, notifying our caucus that, in fact, this bill was going to be coming before us. We do see the need to pass this bill before the end of June, as the Premier has indicated, in order to protect those individuals who have required restraining orders for good reason.

Madam Speaker, I recall the issue actually coming up in the most recent provincial election. I think that there are a lot of valid arguments to be made for amending The Elections Act to allow for individuals with restraining orders to be erased off of the voters' list that is made available to the public. So with those very few words, we are quite prepared to see it pass into committee in hopes that it would pass today. Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). *

(1430) Bon. Darren Pramik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could now please call Bill 25 for second reading, as well as Bills 3 and 7 for Report Stage. Bill 25-- The Real Property Amendment Act

(2) Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill25, The Real Property Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les biens reels, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present for second reading The Real Property

2776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 Amendment Act (2). While some of these amendments cover the correction of typographical errors or introduce changes in the wording for improved consistency and administrative efficiency, others address more technical aspects of the act. The proposed amendments will clarify the fact that the Land Titles office is not responsible for checking or verifying the standard charged mortgage terms, number and name in mortgages presented for registration.

These proposals will also reflect more accurately current land title practice on the publication of notices in the newspaper. The proposed amendments to The Real Property Act before this House will remove the requirement for utilities to file survey plans in all cases where registering easement agreements. Under these new proposals survey plans will be filed only in those situations deemed necessary by the district registrar.

This amendment will provide improved protection for the public by facilitating registration of utility easement agreements which disclose the location of utility installations such as telephone, power or gas lines which are often underground. The implementation of these amendments to The Real Property Act do not represent any additional cost to government and will reduce costs associated with utility easements. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to submit this bill for second reading in the Manitoba Legislature. Thank you. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. REPORT STAGE Bill 3- The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), THAT Bill 3 be amended and the proposed subsection 56(4 ) as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill, (

a) at the end of clause (

a) by adding "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master;" and (

b) in clause (

b) by striking out "taking into consideration any concern expressed by the person, may" and substituting "where the person entitled to payment objects in writing to the order made under clause (2)(

e) within 28 days after the day the order was made, shall." Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, in light of the rules of this House, we are of course limited in the amendments that we can propose to a bill before this Chamber, limited to proposing amendments that deal specifically with the clauses in the bill. Of course, one of the main problems that we have been arguing about this bill is that it is so limited in scope.

Indeed, I think the best argument about the limitation of the scope of this bill was made by the minister in committee when in amendment after amendment after amendment proposed by us, she said this was beyond the scope of the bill. Indeed, the scope is so narrow that it is, as I have argued on second reading, an affront to our women and children in this province.

This amendment to subsection 56(4 ) of The Family Maintenance Act as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill restores the right of a person entitled to maintenance to have the matter heard by a judge or master where the deputy registrar has made an order based on a payment plan proposed by the person in default. To restore this right, two amendments to subsection 56(4 ) are proposed. The amendment to clause (

a) of subsection 56(4 ) is to add: "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master" at the end of the clause, so that the designated officer has the duty to advise the person entitled to maintenance of the appeal ri�t.

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2777 I suggest, Madam Speaker, that this also provides a substantive right.

To ensure the substantive right, the second amendment to subsection 56( 4) is to clause (b): "to provide that where the person entitled to the payment objects in writing within 28 days of the order being made, the designated officer shall issue a summons within 28 days of the order for the person in default to appear before a judge or master." Madam Speaker, in the committee, we heard pres entation after presentation from people, particularly custodial parents, women in particular, complaining and grieving the removal of the right of appeal from custodial parents in this bill.

For example, one custodial parent Rosella Dyck stated: with what little rights the payee has, rights are being taken away. We had the custodial parents coalition say that the provision will render the recipient powerl ess. The decision to appeal is left, they said, entirely to the discretion of the designated officer, while at the same time arr ears orders made by the deputy registrar are no longer considered to be interim but permanent orders, they argue.

They also stated that in effect this order is then a variation procedure but does not allow the input of the payee or her council, as would be the case in a regular variation procedure. Another presenter before the committee, Louise Dyck, said that this represents a stripping away of the rights of the custodial parent to in fact succeed in getting support payments due. I know what the minister's arguments have been. She said that this amendment was put in in order to protect the payee, to protect the payee from pressures or intimidation from the defaulting spouse.

I ask then, Madam Speaker, why the government is not then removing appeal rights wherever they exist, where there is a debt owing to, for example, a vulnerable party. I suggest that this is not protecting a vulnerable person but in fact just intensifying the vulnerability. It is making the vulnerable party more vulnerable, especially to the courts and to the maintenance enforcement regime, to the designated officer. It is making that individual more vulnerable by removing her role. If the concern truly is intimidation why then does the government even leave a role for the payee here?

The government still maintains the role of the payee's views. In other words, the designated officer may listen to the payee's views, the custodial parent's views. That defeats the minister's argument. Custodial parents, Madam Speaker, have already shown and proven their urge to have action and have the arrears collected. They have overcome the many difficulties that follow on separation and divorc e. First of all, they have secured an order. Second of all, they have had it filed in the Maintenance office. Third, they have had to endure what we have heard is the inaction, the red tape, of the Maintenance office.

By the time the custodial parent gets to this stage of the proceeding, I think that the urge, the self-sufficiency of the custodial parent in terms of being able to withstand any pressure at that point has been shown that it can be withstood if we pay any heed at all to the minister's argument. * (1440 ) But I do not know what evidence the minister has of intimidation of custodial parents in similar circums tances. No one at the committee, none of the custodial parents, none of the organizations on their behalf spoke of such a concern.

In fact, to the contrary, at the committee, the presenters said that we must maintain this right of appeal. We are the ones being most affected. We are the ones with something at stake. We are the ones with the insights. We are the ones with the needs. We are the ones who have the children with the needs. Do not shut us out. Do not tell us what is good for us. We must have a role. So what this

section in the bill does, Madam Speaker, is it disempowers the most affected party, and it is not, as the minister argues, comparable to a criminal matter where the prosecution of a case is handled by the Crown, because there the prosecution is handled by the Crown as the agent for the people, as the agent for the state, and it is not to enforce a debt owing to a particular person or persons. So it is not a comparable situation. It is wrong, Madam Speaker, for this bill to say that a custodial parent must rely on a bureaucrat, a civil servant, to appreciate the effects of a repayment order.

2778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 There must be a check on the desires, the conclusions of a designated officer, especially given what we know are the concerns and the problems of maintenance enforcement and the demands on designated officers in this province. It is too much to ask, Madam Speaker, that designated officers be put in the position of being the sole discretionary authority, deciding whether to appeal when a payment is to be made and how a payment is to be made.

Those matters are way too important for custodial parents to give to the discretionary authority of a designated officer, and even more important, Madam Speaker, there is an inherent right in custodial parents to have a say with this important decision. So we ask that members of this House reject the patronizing and paternalistic position of this government on this

section of the bill and ask that the House support the Report Stage amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly speak against that amendment, and believe that it is borne of a misunderstanding by the member on the other side which he has continued to foster, though he has had an explanation several times.

First of all, let me say to the member and to the members of this House that this bill is a very large-in scope bill, and it is the toughest piece of legislation in the area of maintenance enforcement that is available across this country. It is very wide in scope, Madam Speaker, because it deals with enforcement measures that include increased jail terms, that include increased fines and, in fact, deal with a large number of enforcement measures. In addition, it deals with the attachment of resources never previously available.

One of the difficulties that has always been evident in the payment of maintenance enforcement is that people have, it appears, made an attempt to hide their assets and to say that there were not any resources available. What this bill does is it makes available resources that were never previously there before. It allows the attachment of joint assets, and it alscr- Point of Order Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the minister is speaking on the merits of the bill.

The debate before the House now is on the amendment at report stage, which is very specific in dealing with the right of appeal from a designated officer or a decision of the deputy registrar as to the repayment schedule. I ask you, Madam Speaker, if you would direct the minister to deal with that matter. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, indeed, does have a point of order. The debate at this point should be on the amendment proposed by the honourable member for St. Johns to the proposed bill.

The honourable minister will have an opportunity to debate the principles on third reading of the bill and to stress the merits of the bill at that time. *** Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, my response was just to the comments of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that the bill was narrow in scope. I felt that he needed some correction and perhaps some enlightenment about the purpose of the bill. However, let me speak directly to the amendment, because I believe that the member has in fact been misunde rstood. This is why we cannot support the amendments put forward by the other side.

Individuals are not required to register with the Maintenance Enforcement Program. In fact, if they wish to conduct their enforcement matter totally on their own that is certainly available to them, in which case they would have complete control over how certain measures would be taken between the parties. However, where individuals do choose to enroll in the Maintenance Enforcement Program they then say that the maintenance enforcement officer will have conduct of their particular case or file. Many people choose to do this because they are in fact intimidated by the payer.

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2779 The payer may choose the person at a vulnerable time or in vulnerable moments of their life and exercise pressure on that person to cause that person to make decisions about repayment or payment of arr ears which is not in the best interests of the payee, but the payee is vulnerable, Madam Speaker. What this does is, it puts, as in all other cases, the carriage or conduct of the enforcement file into the hands of the maintenance enforcement officer, and the maintenance enforcement officer becomes the third party so it is not a pressure exerted on the payee.

Where that pressure is exerted the best interests of the payment still falls to the maintenance enforcement officer, so it is a useless pressure on the payee. This amendment, Madam Speaker, that the other side of the House has put forward is one which increases the vulnerability of women, which increases the vulnerability of the payee and subjects them to possible pressures of the payer, which we believe is not in their best interests .

The bill, as it stands, and the reasons that we re ject this amendment are, first of all, the bill as we have presented it with this provi sion make it consistent with other enforcement provisions of the act. It prevents the recipient from being subjected to pressure by the payer to change enforcement actions of key importance in relationships where violence or power imbalances are at issue. That is why we do not support the amendment put forward by the NDP critic, because it changes that power balance.

The government is responsible for enforcing support orders registered with the program , and it is important that they have the power to do that. It also must be remembered that the program officers have knowledge of curr ent levels of support and default payments, as well as, financial circumstances of the payer that are rele vant to what is an appropriate payment amount The program officers and their legal counsel are also able to assess the likelihood of a markedly different repayment order being pronounced by a judge or a master.

The member opposite would have you believe that the views of the payee are simply not taken into account, that the views of the recipient are simply shut out. In fact, that is quite wrong. If he reads on in the bill he will see that the bill ensures the views of the recipi ents are taken into account but the final decision to appeal, like all other enforcement decisions, is made by the program . It also must be remembered that when a deputy registrar's repayment order is reviewed by a judge or a master, the program has conduct of that action.

It is the program that makes the submission as to the appropriate repayment amounts to the court at that time, not the payee. So the bill, had it not been as it stands now and as things are at the moment without this bill, it is still the maintenance enforcement officer who actually takes the case forward before the judge or the master. It is not, even now, the recipient or the payee. * (1 450) So I believe the member has put some confusion into the mix.

I would like to make sure that it is clarified for the people of Manitoba, particularly for the women of Manitoba, that amendments such as this put forward by the other side of the House, by the NDP, are ones which we believe will increase the vulnerability of an individual payee or recipient. This government cannot support that. This government will not support placing women in a position of vulnerability, perhaps violence and increased jeopardy, Madam Speaker.

So I end by saying with the bill as it stands, it is the strongest in Canada, and we would not in any way want to weaken the position by accepting the amendment of the member opposite. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On behalf of the Liberal members of the Manitoba Legislature, I would like to give support to this amendment At the committee hearings on this bill, we heard from many presen ters, and one of the reasons to have those committee hearings is to hear from the public. Many of the people who appeared at the committee had concerns about the elimination of their right to appeal.

So if we are going to bother to have committee

2780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 hearings to hear from the public, then we should be Some Honourable Members: Nay. taking some direction from them, and I believe this amendment speaks to a direction that the public has Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. requested in regard to this matter. The view put forward that the people have the right not to go into the Maintenance Enforcement Program if they want to retain the right to appeal is a weak argument, I feel.

An analogy would be to say to an adult child, if you want my support and you want to live under my roof, then you have to throw out your self-esteem, your principles as an individual. If you want my help, you must ask when you can go to the fridge. You must ask when you can go out. No, I do not think that is a reasonable answer to the concerns about this, that people do have the right to opt out of the Maintenance Enforcement Program.

The argument about vulnerability, I guess every person who goes to the police with a report of domestic violence, or any type of report, it could be argued that you know we have to protect them from exercising the due process. I do not think women should need to fear using the due process of law that has been aff orded by legislatures and governments, that they should fear anything from it, so we, the Liberal caucus of members of the Manitoba Legislature, support this amendment. Thank you. Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Formal Vote Mr. Mackintosh: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. * (1 520) Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. The motion before the House, moved by the honourable member for St. Johns, THAT Bill3 be amended in the proposed subsection 56(4), as set out in subsection 7(2) of the Bill, (

a) at the end of clause (

a) by adding-[interjection] Dispense. THAT Bill 3 be amended in the proposed subsection 56(4), as set out in subsection 7(2) of the Bill, (

a) at the end of clause (

a) by adding "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master"; and (

b) in clause (

b) by striking out "taking into consideration any concern expressed by the person, may" and substituting "where the person entitled to payment objects in writing to the order made under clause (2) (

e) within 28 days after the day the order was made, shall". Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lath/in, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGiff ord, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers.

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 278 1 Nays Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stef anson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey. Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 24, Nays 28. Madam Speaker: The amendment is accordingly defeated. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings), thatBill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act;

Loi sur l'execution des ordonnances alimentaires-modification de diverses lois, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be concurred in. Motion agreed to. * (1 530) Bill 7-The City ofWinnipeg Amendment Act Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move that Bill No. 7 be amended by striking out subsection 8(2) and substituting the following: 8(2) Subsection 100(3) is amended by striking out "in an election until he or she files an audited statement" and substituting "until after the next election described in

section 89 (election of council)". Motion presented. Mr. Reimer: I will be very short in my remarks in the sense that the amendment that is brought forth is a grammatical error that was put into the original bill that was passed in committee last week. This is a correction of a grammatical error. Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Reimer: I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could canvass the House to see if there is leave to call Bill 35 again for second reading. Madam Speaker: Is there leave to recall Bill 35, previously agreed to standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns? [agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 35-The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): I think this bill indicates that sometimes, perhaps rarely, if enough pressure is put on this government, indeed, sometimes something can get done, and that something can get done for the women in particular in this province, particularly the vulnerable women, the women who are hiding from people who are abusers and who are stalkers, and for the vulnerable seniors in this province.

It is unfortunate it is with this delay that we have to deal with this bill, because we have just come through an election where I suspect that almost every member in this House heard complaints, particularly from women and from seniors, about the voters' list and how its conspicuous posting is putting at risk the safety of those individuals. This is not just a privacy issue, Madam Speaker. This is an issue of safety. When we look at the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer going back to June of 1992, and when we look at the Report of the Chief

2782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 Electoral Officer which again in the strongest words on March of'94 urges-in fact, the wording was, strongly urge this government to change the law regarding the posting of the voters' list and the access to the voters' list. We have to ask, where was this government? Where have they been? Where have they been since June of 1992, at least? I want to refer to the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer respecting the general election for September of 19 90, where he warns: The Elections Act does not restrict the purposes for which a voters' list may be used.

He said: The act permits anyone to inspect or copy the voters' list in the returning office during an election. Post-election, the act provides for public inspection of the list. These provisions are in need of review in light of privacy concerns. The Chief Electoral Officer said and warned: There have been routine requests from salespeople, direct mail firms and bill collectors to copy the voters' list for business purposes. I myself was contacted by an agency just two weeks ago asking for a copy of the list for St. Johns.

The purpose of the request was not for electoral purposes, but was to raise money and to use the list, a list created solely for the purpose of enabling people, to vote for soliciting individuals-a purpose that is wrong. The Chief Electoral Officer went on in his 1990 report by warning that in 19 86, 19 88 and 1990 many returning officers also received privacy-related complaints concerning posting of the voters' list. Following the 19 88 general election, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women wrote to Elections Manitoba to raise concerns about the posting of voters' lists in public places.

As a result of such concerns, some qualified voters have refused to be enumerated. Concerns have also been raised regarding the public posting of voters' lists for voters who are residents of mental hospitals or institutions for mental retardates. I want to then cite the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer that was received by the Speaker's office in March 1994 and which was tabled in this House. It says there: A number of complaints were again received from voters regarding the posting of the voters' lists. The majority of these complaints came from individuals living alone.

Complaints of this sort have been brought to our attention in every general election and by-election since 1986. The seriousness and urgency that voters' list not be publicly posted on street comers has grown steadily over the years as the fear of personal safety has increased. I strongly urge that

Section 36(2) of the act be changed so as to delete the public posting of the voters' list outside polling places and other conspicuous places. Madam Speaker, finally, and that is the word that is associated always with this government, we have a provision before this House that deals with this.

As a result of pressures, not only, I think, from the Chief Electoral Officer, but from individuals and from concerns raised on this side, both during the campaign and during Oral Questions in the last few weeks, this government has now done what was the right thing to do a long time ago and has brought in this legislation. Madam Speaker, we support this legislation.

In looking at it, it does contain not only the removal of the requirement to post the voters' list in a conspicuous place or on the street comers of Manitoba, but also does what I think the government said it was not going to do in Question Period just a couple of weeks ago, that is, restrict the use of voters' lists after the election. It was our argument that it is not enough simply to say, do not post voters' lists up on the street comers before an election.

You also have to control those voters' lists after the election, and it is often a person who is hiding from an assaulter, from a stalker, who will get sworn in on election day so that her name is not on the street comer. But then the day after the election, her name appears on the voters' list and is given out to whomever may obtain access to that list. So we support the legislation, Madam Speaker. We will support it on second reading and look forward to its early enactment, and, of course, it is critical that this legislation be given Royal Assent before the municipal elections unfold.

We understand from information received on this side that the construction, if you will, of the voters' list for the municipal campaign, at least in

June 27, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2783 the City of Winnipeg, is now ongoing or is about to begin. So it is important that this legislation receive the support of all members of this House as soon as possible. Having said that, we think it is important for the public to have notice that this legislation is before the Assembly and going before a standing committee of the House, It is important that this House do ever ything it can to ensure that the public enjoy that privilege of attending before the standing committee to express any concerns that it may have.

So with that concern about due notice being provided to Manitobans, we look forward to the passage of this legislation on second reading in principle and that it go to the standing committee perhaps as early as tomorrow or the next day but so long as it is given that the public of Manitoba has notice that this bill is being considered. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I, too, want to put some remarks on the record because I believe this is an important amendment, and I, too, received complaints during the election campaign.

In fact, my guess would be that probably almost all of us here received complaints during the election campaign. [interjection] Well, it was certainly a big concern in the city of Winnipeg. Perhaps people in rural Manitoba do not share that concern. * (1 540) I personally took some of those calls in my constituency office or in my campaign headquarters, I should say, and the voters in Burrows constituency who phoned fall into a number of categori es.

I think, as a previous speaker mentioned, there are individuals who feel vulnerable because of their particular situation respecting former partners, but the individuals who phoned me were seniors, people who were single, people living alone, and they feel vulnerable as well. In our neighbourhood, the reason is their fear of crime, a well-justified fear, and they did not want people who might be contemplating breaking and entering into homes to find out that they were living alone, and I think that was a very valid concern on their part.

And so when they phoned, they expressed surprise that these lists were still publicly posted, and I pointed out that it was allowed under The Elections Act and that the Chief Electoral Officer, on two previous occasions, in his reports to the government had recommended that this be changed and that there be an end to the public posting and that other arrangements be made. So we are glad to see that the government is doing this, but as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out, they have been very tardy in doing this. They could have followed up after the 19 93 report.

They could have followed up after the 1990 report, and they had many sessions. I believe we had six sessions of the Thirty-fifth Legislature in which they could have passed this amendment. We also know that people not only phoned people running in the election campaign, like myself , but they phoned radio shows. In fact, I encouraged them to phone the Chief Electoral Officer and put in a complaint. So I hope that part of the reason that the government is acting is that they heard recently, since April 25, from the Chief Electoral Officer that his office received many complaints as well.

Since the election, I too received a solicitation from a hospital in Winnipeg. I will not name the hospital to spare them embarr assment, probably the same institution that phoned the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and asked for the voters' list for the Burrows constituency. I declined, and instead I suggested that they phone the Chief Electoral Officer. I hope they did that so that he became aware that people were using the voters' lists for the purposes of fundraising in order to compile a data base to use for mailings for fundraising.

Now, I am just guessing, but knowing the nature of the institution that was phoning, I think that is probably a very good guess that it was for mailings or fundraising. I think that was inappropriate, is inappropriate, and I am pleased to see that this amendment takes care of that concern. So we, in this caucus, are supporting this amendment. We plan to send it to committee on Thursday night so that they can hear the concerns of the public. We will

2784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 be supporting it, but, once again, we are very critical of this government for taking so long to do what should have been done many sessions ago. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I also want to rise to support the bill, but put a few comments on the record with respect to some issues that I encountered, concerns that I encountered with respect to the posting publicly of the voters' list.

I would like to start off by saying that I would hate to think, Madam Speaker, that there was one person in Manitoba, even one person, who did not vote because they did not want to have their name on the voters' list so it could be made public. I think that could happen because I think that there are a lot of people who do not understand the procedure and they think that if you are not on the list, then you cannot vote. I think that with this new provision, there will be a need for a greater explanation of the provisions for people to maintain their confidentiality and still be able to vote.

I am sure there are a number of people who did not use their right to vote because they did not understand that they could still vote if their name was not on a list and they did not want their name to be on a public list. I want to talk about a woman in my constituency, whom I have worked with repeatedly over the last couple of years, who is, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has made reference to, one of the women who has been pursued by a previous partner. I was really pleased that she voted on election day, but she only did that because I went to the door and I got her and put her in my car.

I had to give her a ride with her two kids and her neighbour's child. She was one of the women that we are talking about who would not have voted and did not have transportation and would have really been concerned about having her name posted publicly. I also want to talk about some of the, quote, phone scams that are going on. Just recently in Transcona we had a pay-by-phone system where a phone company would solicit using a voice-programmed computer to contact homes. This program was misprogrammed and was phoning people from one o'clock in the morning to 7:30 in the morning on a Saturday.

I had phone calls to the constituency office complaining about this, and I would hate to think that kind of error could be supported and encouraged by using the voters' list for the province of Manitoba This is one of the many phone scams or problems that could occur. Other situations that we know occur are people intent on breaking into the homes of people who live alone or are otherwise vulnerable who can simply find that information out by looking at the voters' list and then contact those people by the phone and pretend that they know them by using their names.

That is something that we know has happened with elderly people in the province, and again we would not want to see that occur from people getting the name and particulars about that household from the voters' list which is publicly posted. I meant to make reference when I was talking about this woman in Radisson that she was in the process of moving.

I think that we have to realize that there are citizens in our community who move very frequently, and I think that the issues such as this that are being looked at by Elections Manitoba have to be taken seriously when we want to ensure that all Manitobans are eligible to vote even if they do not have a home address, that we have to ensure that we have provisions for all citizens to be given the right to vote. This was not as much a problem in the recent provincial election, but I know it was a very large problem in the federal election.

I think that there are also other issues related to this that need to be looked at by Elections Manitoba, and I would bet that there are recommendations dealing with that in these reports that this government has been tardy in implementing. This government, as we have heard, has had this recommendation to no longer allow voters' lists to be publicly posted, recommendations since '86 and in reports since the early '90s. I just want to conclude by saying that we are pleased that the government has taken this step to protect vulnerable citizens and to protect the privacy.

We hope that they will go one step further and ensure that voters'

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2785 lists are not misused after elections as well as when the lists are posted during elections. With that I will conclude my comments and hope that people will have an opportunity to be aware that they have the chance to make public presentations on this issue. Unf ortunately, with the way that the government has handled the legislation, that is not likely since it is going to have to be rushed to committee over the next two days.

I find that regrettab le in the way that they deal with legislation coming before the House, but I also want to commend Elections Manitoba for their work in ensuring that this government is reminded again of this issue. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bon.

Darren Pramik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please canvass the House to see if there would be leave to allow for the third readings of both Bills 3 and 7, and, if there is such leave, I would ask you to please call those bills for third reading. Madam Speaker: Is there leave to proceed to third reading ofBills 3 and 7? [agreed] * (1 550) THIRD READINGS Bill 3- The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, by leave, seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.

Reimer), that Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act; Loi .sur !'execution des ordonnances alimentaires - modification de diverses lois, be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): Well, it is with regret, Madam Speaker, that we are put in a position of having to support legislation that is so half-hearted, particularly following the presentations to the standing committee the other night and the work that this side has done and indeed the Liberal members in this House have done to raise awareness of the shortcomings and in fact the travesty of justice that is taking place within maintenance enforcement in Manitoba We note, when the minister moved second reading of this bill, she said, and I quote: with these amendments we are strengthening the Maintenance Enforcement Program and creating the most effective deterrents for those seeking to evade its reach.

Then she went on to say, and I quote: We are doing everything possible to force individuals for defaulting on maintenance and support payments to live up to their obligations. I ask how the minister can possibly say that, put it on the record, when she comes in with a bill which is such a pitiful half-hearted effort, there is no way in this bill the most effective deterren ts. We, in presentation after presentation to the committee, told this minister what indeed could be the most effective deterrents . The minister said no, after no, after no.

We had presentation after presentation that talked about the need for interest payments being applied to arrears . The organization Reseau, the Coalition of Custodial Parents, we had a local lawyer who apparently acts for both custodial and noncustodial parents who said that indeed interest was a main issue. We had a very insightful presentation by a single mom by the name of Rhonda McCorriston who said: My bills were stacking up at 24 percent and 18 percent interest, he was paying 25 bucks a month with no interest; this does not seem fair.

We had another single mom by the name of Louise Dyck, who said to the committee: Interest should be

2786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 automatically assessed for all monies in arrears. The government will not accept that I cannot pay my income tax or my property tax because my support payments have not been made. I get charged a penalty in interest, so should the payer. The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law said: We feel strongly that interest should also be charged on arrears. What incentive is there for the payer's spouse to pay his maintenance regularly while interest accumulates on every other debt but this one?

At the same time the former spouse, entitled to receive maintenance payments for herself or for her children, needs this money to live and must pay interest on outstanding taxes, on credit card balances, on loans and on lines of credit while waiting for the maintenance payment to which she is entitled. It is profoundly unfair that interest is not accumulated on all support arrears, and we strongly urge the government to remedy the situation.

I think the presentation by the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law speaks to the argument put forward by this minister in responding to the demand that interest be allowed. She said, well, what is the use of pursuing interest when the payer is in arrears on the payments itself? Well, as the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law says, interest provides an incentive, it is proactive, it will help prevent arrears. The minister fails to acknowledge that. When one has a series of debts, it is nature, it is common sense that you look to see which debts I can aff ord to put off.

The debts that one can afford to put off will be those that have either no interest or low interest, Madam Speaker. When will this minister understand that interest will make a difference, interest will prioritize the debts owing to children in Manitoba? I fail to understand why, when every other civil debt for the payment of money in Manitoba attracts interest, a civil debt owing, of all people, to our women and children goes without interest. What a profound statement from this minister.

What a sad commentary on the lack of respect for our women and children and the priority that must be given to maintenance payments. On the issue of arrears, again we heard presentation after presentation say that these arrears should not be written off. It was said, and we know that the larger the arrears, the more likely they are to be written off. Reseau strongly urged that arrears not be allowed to be written off. We had one woman, Ms. Bonnefoy, who told that $4,000 of arrears was written off and she was not even told about it.

People like Louise Dyck, the Coalition of Custodial Parents, Rosella Dyck, pleading with the minister to stop this erasure of arrears. We need to make sure that the collection of this debt be given the first priority. As the Coalition of Custodial Parents argued, there is no more important a debt owing than that from parents to their children, but it is a priority that this government has not been respecting. Madam Speaker, we wonder, we have asked the government, why is it that taxes, payment of wages, workers compensation premiums all come before the debts owing to our children? It does not make sense.

If indeed women and children and their needs are the first priority in this province, this government had an obligation to ensure that priority. We know that, from the presentations and from the casework that each member has in this Chamber, for by far too many people priority is not given to the children of a marriage after separation or divorce. I suggest that this government, by its half-hearted bill, and by the rejection of needed improvements that have been suggested and drafted for it, gives moral support to and acknowledges that lack of priority that those noncustodial parents give to the children.

I suggest that this government is complicitous in this betrayal of our children. * (1 600) It is interesting, Madam Speaker, in addition to the particular changes sought to the legislation, presentation after presentation spoke of how this government was failing the women and children in this province. It is interesting that we have people like Marilyn McGonigal who said, I hear from so many clients that they are not getting any satisfaction from the Maintenance office; from Sue Spiece who said, the Maintenance office has done nothing; from Ms. Cornell, who talked about why there was a snitch line

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2787 regarding welfare, but of course nothing for maintenance. Because indeed ifhe does not pay, we all pay. We also heard from Ms. Cornell that when arrears are signed over to social allowances, files are closed. Her file was closed. It was critical for this government and this minister in particular to hear the circum stances that these single parents are living in. I want to quote from Ms. Judy Cornell who said, quote, I worry about my children's emotional well being and future education.

I cannot afford swimming lessons, hockey, gifts for birthday parties, field trip costs and student fees. There is not enough money to buy fire or life insurance or car insurance. I am in need of major car repairs on a 1982 car which has a cracked windshield, unsafe tires, holes in the muffler, and I have not taken the car for a tune-up for three years. I do not have money to repair my appliances, vacuum cleaner, dryer, washing machine, etcetera. There is not enough money to own a pet or even the daily newspaper. Rhonda McCorriston said, we have not had one holiday to anywhere. What does this mean?

It means that the chance to see other people and other places, to grow and learn about the world around us is not there . She said, and I think this is particularly instructive for the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), can we blame youth gangs on child poverty? Yes, we can, she said. Single parents work part time in evening jobs. This is when kids are wandering the streets. Children do not have people at home to listen to them. They go to friends, gangs and groups that will make them feel like they belong--(;ar theft and break-and-enters.

You are saying, oh, come now, but you have never, ever had anything, you saw your parent working very hard and getting nowhere . You knew that jobs were few and there was just no money. If you thought the chances of you ever owning a new-smelling, nice shiny car were nonexistent and you knew that you could experience that just for one moment, one minute .in heaven, that was your one chance, you would grab it too. The system is unfair. I know that, you know that and our youth know that. We can say it is the best we have.

We can say it is not that bad but the kids know better, kids that watch single parents trying to make ends meet, kids who go to visit the other parent and see stepbrothers and sisters with shiny new bikes, taking trips, CD players and walkmans. Noncustodial parents laugh at custodial parents. It is okay to beat the custodial parent. It is not okay to beat the kids. We need enforcement which sees this issue as being a societal issue. She concludes: Custodial parents should not have to fight individually, single-handedly against child poverty.

At the risk of offending anyone she said, looking at the members, at the committee: is that not your job? Madam Speaker, as I said in committee in response to presentation, I was raised in a single-parent household. I know first-hand of the demands, the pressures, the loneliness, the pain but sometimes great joy of being a single parent.

On top of all those demands and the stresses and the loneliness, it must be so discouraging when one has an ex-partner who, although not present in the house, is perpetuating an abuse, the most sinister of abuses, and that is financial abuse through the nonpayment of spousal payments and child payments. My father died when I was two years old. While I thought that was the worst that could happen, I know now that there is something worse. That is where the spouse continues to live and continues to abuse.

What is even intensifying that situation is when the Maintenance office then comes into play and the custodial parent says, I need help, I need the enforcement, someone to help me with these maintenance payments, and goes there thinking that the office, because it was designed for that purpo se, will help enf orce the order, the payments--(;omes up against the wall, the wall that we heard presentation after presentation about, where the Maintenance Enforcement office is not there. As Sue Spiece says, the Maintenance office has done nothing. As Ms.

McGonigal said, they are not getting any satisfaction from the Maintenance office. As I know first-hand in phone call after phone call, visit after visit, the Maintenance office is falling flat on its face despite the good will of people working there .

2788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 That office neither has the resources nor the enf orcement tools and legislation to do the job. This government is going to ensure that continues. With half -hearted eff orts in the bill it is saying to the women and children of this province, you must continue to suffer that sinister abuse; you must continue to fa ce the wall, the inaction, the red tape of the Maintenance Enf orcement office.

When you have a government that purports to have a zero tolerance policy on violence against women, you have to ask, how could they dare continue to say that when they are perpetuating the status quo. The government, by this bill, is continuing to ensure the oppression of those custodial parents , the women and children. It is continuing to ensure that this will remain the land of poverty and will continue to ensure that the have-nots in this province will grow and grow and grow in number. With those comments, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see this bill pass.

At committee we asked the minister to put on the record a commitment to pr oclaiming the sections of the bill within weeks. We are here talking about this bill today because there is urgency in getting these, albeit, limited provisions into fo rce. So I again ask the minister to put on the record on third reading exactly when this bill will be proclaimed in full. Indeed I want to know from the minister, has she already provided instructions to the various government departments to put in place any fo rms or regulatory provisions that may be required under the act? Thank you. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, Bill 3, and indicate our support of the bill. This in fact has been an issue fo r a number of years. It is somewhat sad to see, to a certain extent, that it took seven years fo r this particular administration to address this very impor tant issue.

It seems from the view of many that are out there that the primary motivating fa ctor fo r introducing this legislation or bringing fo rward the. suggestion of introduction of legislation of this nature was prior to the provincial election which was announced just a few months back. Having said that I do not necessarily want to impute too many motives of the government but rather to acknowledge that this is legislation that many people have been waiting fo r. * (1610 ) As the member fo r St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has pointed out, there are many other aspects to this legislation that could have been added to it.

I note the member fo r St. Johns during committee stage did in fa ct bring fo rward a number of amendments and then attempted again to bring fo rward an amendment fo r the report stage. We believe, in most part, that these have been very positive amendments, and that is why earlier today we supported what the member fo r St. Johns was attempting to do. Whether it is the Coalition of Custodial Parents or the many diff erent individuals that appeared bef ore the committee, I think each and every one were quite successful in articulating a very strong message.

I do believe that all members of this Chamber acknowledge the importance of that message. During the campaign we talked about child poverty and the importance of the province in addressing the whole issue of child poverty. Madam Speaker, the correlation between child poverty and maintenance enf orcement is very strong. That is one of the reasons why so many of us, in particular, individuals, friends and fo rmer colleagues of mine, have fe lt so strongly on this issue is because we recognize the importance in terms of getting the financial resources to the children.

Even though a vast majority of the custodial parents are, in fa ct, women, the first priority has to be the children. We have seen some of the hardships that have been experienced as a direct result of government's fa ilure to be able to give the resources that are necessary, take the actions that are again necessary in order to alleviate the problem with respect to maintenance enf orcement. You know it was interesting when the member fo r St. Johns made ref erence to the Maintenance office and so many believe that it has done nothing.

It is not necessarily a reflection on the civil servants that work within the enf orcement office or the Maintenance of fice. I fe el fa irly comf ortable that they are doing

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2789 whatever they can, given the restrictions that they have, to be able to get monies owed to the people that need it. There are very strong limitations, a good number of limitations. Some of it would be legislative. Other aspects would be financial resources in terms of staffing and so fo rth. These are the types of issues that are not going to die after this particular bill passes today. There are many other issues fac ing maintenance enf orcement, in particular The Maintenance Enf orcement Act.

We hope and trust that the minister respo nsible, who says now today we have the strongest maintenance enforc ement-after this receives Royal Assent-across Canada, is not prepared to sit back, because that is in fa ct what the government did fo r the first six years of being in office. Yes, this, many would say, is a starting point, but it is not good if this government decides that it does not have to do anything fo r the next three and a half years leading up to another election when they once again might choose to talk about fa mily maintenance.

I know in discussions that I have had previously with, in particular, Ms. McCormick regarding fa mily maintenance, I can recall her talking about the whole question of arr ears and how a judge can virtually wipe out a portion of those arre ars. I know what limited research fac ilities we have within our current caucus and the discussions that they have had, along with my colleague from The Maples, with some of the individuals that have made representa tion or presentations at the committee. There were a number of other concerns that were brought fo rward.

One of those concerns was dealt with in terms of the amendment that was being pro posed. Again, there is a lot of validity to it, and at times government sets its agenda and says, this is what it is that we are prepared to pass. Maybe that does not necessarily approach things in a open-minded fa shion. I have seen that. I recall the drinking and driving legislation and the then-minister, Attorney General brought in this legislation and was not prepared to accept amendments.

There were a great number of amendments that were brought fo rward, only fo r us to see them being denied but then the government incorporating them in future legislative changes. We would, of course, applaud the future changes-or those changes that the minister did bring in eventually. There are some amendments-and I believe that the current minister recognizes diff erent areas of this legislation that could again be further enhanced.

To that end, I would conclude my remarks by strongly encouraging the Minister of Justice to not leaving The Maintenance Enf orcement Act as it is after this amendment has been passed but to see it once again bef ore the Chamber sometime, in the not too distant future.

One could ultimately argue, it would be nice to see it in the next session, Madam Speaker, where the minister will take the time to reflect over the public hearings, because I like to believe that the public hearings can have a very positive influence on legislation, and also to take into consideration representation and presentations that would be given to her and reflect on the current legislation, the amendments that we are passing, in hopes that the minister will see fit to bring in some of the amendments that have been possibly proposed in committee stage earlier but, quite possibly, maybe not given notice to the minister, or addressing some of the concerns that were specifically addressed and legitimately so, such as the right of appeal being taken away type thing if they want to go through the Maintenance Enf orcement Pr ogram .

I do believe that there is a lot more to be done, and we hope that this government will not wait another six years bef ore it starts acting on it. With those fe w words we are prepared to see it pass. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I just would like to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) by Rosella Dyck in May of this year. Ms. Dyck has been very active in the various groups that have been appealing to the minister to make major changes to the maintenance enf orcement legislation. She also made a very good pres entation at the public hearings.

It will be a very brief letter. Dear Mrs. Vodr ey: Thirty-seven million dollars promised by Mr. Filmon to save the Jets, a private business venture that has become unprofitab le mainly

2790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 because its players are paid more money in one year than most Winnipeggers see in a lif etime, an additional $57 million promised by other levels of government-no need to tighten their belts, no wage rollbacks. Twenty five percent of Manitoba children, more than 70,000, living in poverty; 62 percent of these children live in lone-parent homes; $27 million owing to Manitoba children in unpaid court-ordered child support. It is quite obvious that the government can come up with money when it wants to.

I challenge all levels of government to give to the poor children of Manitoba an amount equal to the amount they have promised to the Jets. The first $27 million should be sent to those children who are owed child support. The rest should be used to ensure that all poor children in Manitoba have sufficient nutritious fo od and the basic necessities of lif e. Imagine the long-term consequences of children being adequately prov ided fo r, how cost-effective this would be in the long run, and they do not even expect the government to build them a big new expensive playhouse.

The arena will not be accessible to children who cannot aff ord the price of a ticket. For many Manitobans it is difficult enough to find sufficient money fo r fo od. A trip to the arena is merely a dre am. The reality is hunger pains day after day, year after year. Where are our real priori ties? Sincerely, Rosella Dyck. * (16 20) Madam Speaker, I think that sums up quite nicely the issues fa cing the province of Manitoba and the government of Manitoba in dealing with maintenance enf orcement issues. I thank the House fo r allowing me the time to read that letter into the record. Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Speaker, leave to addre ss this matter. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice have leave to speak to the third reading? [agreed] Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak at third reading to Bill 3, the maintenance enf orcement bill. It is a real pleasure because it is this government which is breaking new ground. It is this government which is bringing fo rward the strongest legislation across this country to deal with maintenance enf orcement. Let me start by reminding members of this House that this bill was borne of consultation.

This bill was developed based on a consultation process which took place with people from all across Manitoba. This bill does several things. First of all, it brings fo rward the toughest enf orcement measures, the toughest combination of enf orcement measures available across this country, enf orcement measures such as the removal or revocation of a drivers' licence, increased jail terms, increased fines to a thousand dollars, report to the credit bureau.

That is very significant, Madam Speaker, because in the past we have been able to try and deal with those people and enforce their maintenance payments where they are employed by someone and we had the ability to garnish wages. However, we have always had dif ficulty with those people who are self -employed. We have not had a way to provide the incentive, the motivation or the consequence to those individuals who are self -employed. The measures which are put fo rward in this bill, reporting to the credit bureau, the revocation of a drivers' licence, those are very meaningful. It does not matter where you work.

It does not matter if you work fo r someone else. It does not matter if you are self -employed. It means that there is a consequence that we believe will be meaningful very specifically to that def aulting payer. Madam Speaker, in addition to the toughest combination of enf orcement measures, we also have brought fo rward the greatest availability of resourc es. In the past, one of the difficulties has been that there have not been resources available fo r the Maintenance Enf orcement Program to reach in and secure them on behalf of the recipient and the payee.

In this case, what this bill does is it allows us now to look at joint assets as a resource now that we can look at to see that money flows into the hands of women and children. We can now look at seizing pension benefit credits, never available bef ore. This is a bold move by this government to make sure that there are resources

June 27, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2791 available fo r the payment of maintenance enf orcement rightfully to the recipient. Madam Speaker, I can say that these incentives are the strongest incentives available, I believe, within the civil law. It is one area where there is a debt owing on the civil side that you could just go to jail if you do not pay. That is a consequence that we believe is a very serious one. The member fo r St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) brought fo rward amendments at the time of the committee hearing.

Though there was lots of opportunity from the time the bill was tabled till the time of the committee hearing, he did not bother to do that. Those amendments were brought fo rward on the night of the committee hearings. What the eff ect of those amendments would be is to have us delay the bill, because the amendments were significant. The amendments were such that if you made them, there would be an eff ect, not only on other parts of the bill but also on other legislation.

Madam Speaker, it seems to us that the other side of the House was more than happy to continue delaying the passage of this bill, but it was our promise that we would pass this legislation, that we would bring fo rward the strongest legislation and see that it was passed to get money into the hands of women and children in this prov ince. We took very seriously -and I commented individually to all presenters, except one whose case was before the court. I made that clear, that I could not respond to any recommendations brought fo rward by that speaker. However, to all others, I responded.

I made it clear that the bill, as it stands, is the strongest bill, and we are not ruling out, in the future, the opportunity to add and even stre ngthen the bill further. That was a commitment I made that evening and I have also made in this House. I also made the commitment that we would continue to work co-operatively with other provinces across Canada, the provinces and the territo ries, because as members speak about outstanding payments to women and children, they know very well that some of those payers do not live in the province of Manitoba.

The measures available in other provinces are not as strong and not as significant as the ones here in Manitoba In fa ct, the enf orcement actions may not be as strong. This issue has been raised at the ministers of Justice conference and at the ministers respon sible fo r the Status of Women. There was an agre ement to look at the barriers across this country and to try and break them down so that we have a more reciprocal opportunity to enforce maintenance orders, so that when a payer does not live in Manitoba, we will be able to locate that payer and see that that payer pays.

We also have asked the fe deral government to assist, because one of the other problems, when there is a debt outstanding, is you have to know where the payer lives, you have to know where the payer wor ks. If fo r some reason we do not know that, we need access to data banks, particularly fe deral data banks, which would be the most helpful, that will help us locate that payer and bring that money back into the hands of women and children.

We look fo r the support of the other side in our approaches to the fe deral government to make sure that they will look at possible amendments and action so we can get that money into the hands of women and children . Madam Speaker, there has been some comment about the Maintenance office. I fe el that it is very important to speak about the very hard-working individuals who work there and their successes. The success of the Maintenance Enf orcement office: collection is in the range of 74 percent. If you live in Manitoba, every effort will be made to have you pay.

I would just like to take a moment to speak about the very dismal record when the NDP was in power, because I can tell you, in 19 87, the amount of money collected was $16 million. The amount of money collected now in 1994 is $33.2 million, an almost 80 percent increase since this government has been in power. So let not anyone suggest that the Maintenance Enf orcement office is not doing its work. Let them not suggest that the Maintenance Enf orcement office is not eff ective, because the figures speak fo r themselves, an almost 80 percent increase in the amount collected.

2792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1995 The files have increased, but they have increased only about 35 percent. The staff increase-the members have spoken about a lack of staff. The staff has increased, since the NDP was in government, by 50 percent. This government has increased staff , has increased the collection from the dismal record of the party opposite when they were in government. Madam Speaker, what this bill does is it brings fo rward now an additional strong measure to make sure that money flows into the hands of women and children.

In addition, we have tried to assist in terms of the client service by increasing resources , by putting in place an automated voice system which will allow any recipie nt to phone up 24 hours a day, seven days a week and find out the status of their account. No longer do they have to try and phone within government working hours and wait on the phone until they reach a maintenance enf orcement officer, who then would simply prov ide inf ormation and not be working on the enf orcement files.

Now, what this government has done is put in place an automated voice response system so that individuals can phone and check the status of their file, and maintenance enf orcement officers can actually work on maintenance enf orcement. * (16 30) We have also enhanced the computer system so that the ability to retrieve material is much enhanced from where it was previously, particularly when the other side was in government We have also fo und that some people have said, well, you know, we would pay, but it is hard fo r us to get downtown.

We have now put in place that you can use a debit card system so that payments can be made from places other than just walking into the Maintenance Enf orcement office, and that money can flow now into the hands of women and children. This government has made improvements on the administrative side, on the staffing side, and, in addition, we have brought fo rward the strongest legislation across this country. Madam Speaker, we look fo rward to the support of the other side, and I am very pleased to have brought fo rward this legislation on behalf of our government.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready fo r the question? The question bef ore the House is third reading of Bill 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordere d. Bili 7-The City ofWinnipeg Amendment Act Bon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, by leave, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to. House Business Bon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, bef ore I move the motion fo r Supply I would like to announce that the Committee of Law Amendments will sit on Thursday morning at I 0 a.m. to consider such bills as will be sent to it by this House, I believe Bill 35 being one of those bills. Madam Speaker, I would now move, seconded by the honourab le Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns), that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourab le member fo r La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair fo r the Department of Labour; the honourable member fo r Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair fo r th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c67cc976f357129ae0317377f671c8f11f6b2643

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