Manitoba Hansard — 30 June 1982 (Sitting 87A, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-87a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti- tions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit tees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Munici pal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave to make a non-political statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I would invite members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me to extend congratulations to the Neepawa Co-op Service Sta tion at Neepawa who have been presented with the Excellence Award by Federated Co-operatives Ltd. in recognition of their high standard of service to the motoring public for the 11th consecutive year. The staff members are Neil Rempel, service station manager; Earl Harding, Dwayne Chapman, Diane Zaruk and Terry Lostay. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion of Bills ORAL QUESTIONS . Introduction MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Highways and Transportation. In view of the reports that the Port of Churchill is not going to be fully utilized or there is a possibility of it not being fully utilized, what has he or his government done to ensure those people who have been long-term sup porters of the port and the farm community that use that outlet for their grain that it in fact will be maxim ized and fully utilized this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Gov ernment Services. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, that is one of the items that I intend to discuss with the Minister of Transport for Canada. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the grain is now being moved through the Port of Thunder Bay which I'm not against, but I'm wondering if that may not be too late. If he doesn't, Mr. Speaker. would he not put an immediate request to the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the Federal Minister of Transport requesting that Port be fully utilized immediately? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, there is the short-run consideration; then there is the long-term future of the Port of Churchill that is in question and put in ques tion by a number of people that have some following in this country including members of the Conservative Party in the Federal House. It's my hope that we get some clarification from the Government of Canada as to what their intentions are with respect to the Port of Churchill. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would agree there's a short-term and a long- term situation, but would he not agree, and I ask him directly, that the ultimate, long-term use depends on what amount of grain that has been put through in the immediate years? I would think there is some urgency for him and the Govern ment of Manitoba to put a request through to the Federal Government asking for full utilization of that particular Port. It was done other years under our term of office, Mr.

Speaker, and with, I would say, pretty good results so I would request or ask the Minister if he wouldn't consider putting an immediate commu nique through to the federal officials as well as the Canadian Wheat Board? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member implies there is no ongoing dialogue with respect to the Port of Churchill. That's been something that's been with us for many many years as he knows, long before the last term of their government, Mr. Speaker. and it's been a problem that we've not been able to sort out with the Government of Canada.

Millions and mil lions of dollars have been spent at the Port of Chur chill, federal and provincial, on the basis that Port authority was going to continue; on the basis that the town site was going to have some future and notwith standing those commitments, Mr. Speaker, the Gov ernment of Canada at the same time, has reduced its economic involvement in that area. 3707 So we are in a situation where we can't read the intentions of the Government of Canada. They seem to be rather ambiguous and it is one of the items that I intend to discuss with the Minister when we meet on the 15th of July. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker. specifically to the Min ister of Highways and Transportation. Will he, today or immediately, put a communique through to the Federal Minister of Transport and the head of the Canadian Wheat Board requesting the full utilization of the Port of Churchill this year? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, we have always main tained that position. It's a historic position on the part of this government. during the eight years prior and currently. So our position on that question is well known, Mr. Speaker, but that doesn't mean there isn't ongoing discussion on the subject matter. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of

Wednesday, 30 June, 19 82 Highways and Transportation appears unwilling to directly communicate with either members in the Federal Government responsible for grain movement through the Port of Churchill. In view of the fact that he 111ade reference to an upcoming meeting with the Federal Minister of Transportation. would the Minister assure the House that during this meeting with Mr.

Pepin that he will press that Federal Minister to follow through on some of the very valid recommendations that were developed at a transportation meeting con cerning the Port of Churchill held in Dauphin last June and attended by the three Prairie Provinces plus the Federal Government in which for the first time some very definitive recommendations were made to the Federal Government? Will this Minister be carry ing those recommendations to Mr. Pepin to assure Mr.

Pepin that with a change of government the attitude towards Churchill has not changed and press the Federal Minister for those kinds of very positive changes to the operation of the Port of Churchill? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I merely want to suggest to the members opposite that the track record of this government on the question of Churchill is well-known and is credible on that question. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the track record of our government last year was even more definitive in which. as a result of that Dauphin meeting, there was roughly 50 percent more grain put through the Port of Churchill. Can the Minister assure us that his con tinued efforts to utilize the Port of Churchill will see a 50-percent increase in utilization of the Port of Chur chill this year?

I would ask the Minister, will he press the Federal Minister, his federal counterpart, to increase the utilization of the Port of Churchill by having the MV Arctic used by having an ice barrier put in place as was suggested last June in Dauphin, upgrading the last leg of the rail line into Churchill and to encourage more Soviet shipments via the Canadian Wheat Board through Churchill? Will he press the Federal Minister for those kinds of recommendations? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker.

I would like to suggest to the Member for Pembina that our job would be much more easily carried out with respect to the inter ests of Manitoba and the Port of Churchill if we didn't have to deal with the windfalls that are falling in front of our canoe put forward by the Conservative Members of Parliament from Manitoba who have suggested that the Port of Churchill is not a viable operation. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transportation once again knows not what of he's talking. He mentioned Members of Parliament.

There's only been one reference that I'm aware of by one Member of Parliament ever on the future of Churchill and it was not to close down the Port of Churchill as the current Minister of Transportation is trying to suggest. He by no means suggested that. It is his job now, as it was our JOb, which we successfully under took, to encourage the use of the Port of Churchill and he hasn't told us this morning whether he intends to do that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, following on that line of incisive questioning by my colleague. the Honour able Member for Pembina, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Health and ask him of the 85 -( Interjection)- It doesn't involve the Port of Churchill, it may involve the Churchill Health Centre. Of the 85 budget hospitals in Manitoba, some 77 or 78 of which would be regarded as rural hospitals and some seven or eight of which would be regarded as major urban hospitals, how many have come in off the 1981-82 fiscal year with a budgetary deficit? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don't have that information at this time. MR. L. SHERMAN: Could I ask the Minister to explore that question and provide the information to me, Mr. Speaker? Could I also ask him with respect to the 1982-83 fiscal year. how many of those hospitals have indicated to the Commission that the budgets that have been struck for them are not going to be, in their view, sufficient? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker. yes, I'll take this under consideration. Apparently we'll be here for a few days anyway, so I might have time to give the information. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although I appreciate the Minister's co-operation, it's not predi cated on our being here for several days however. I'd appreciate the information from him -(l nterjection) Well if he can provide it in the House, fine. but if not I'd appreciate the information from him anyway. I'll make sure that my colleagues know about it when we receive it.

Thank you. 3708 Could I ask the Minister if he can confirm that the Brandon General Hospital has appealed to the Com mission against its 1982-83 budget on the grounds that it has a deficit for '81-82 and it's anticipating that if it has to conform to the '82-83 budget struck by the Commission that it will have to cut services? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't have any of this information. I'll try to get it all as soon as possible MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Community Servi ces and ask him whether there is any reason why he should be less alert to the challenges of the Brandon General Hospital now that he's on that side of the House than he apparently was when he was on this side of the House? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that the Member for Brandon hasn't changed at all. He's bugging me for Brandon and the Hospital and trying to get something extra every day. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker. can I direct my earlier question then to the Minister of Community

Wednesday, 30 June, 19 82 Services and ask him if he can confirm that the Bran don General Hospital has suggested that it's going to have to cut services if it has to conform to the 1982-83 Commission budget? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Com munity Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, obviously that ques tion is totally out of order, but at any rate I can assure you that I've had extensive discussions with the Minis ter of Health. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that it's rather presumptuous of the Minister to suggest that the question is out of order.

I would then ask him whether he is out of touch with the main urban Gen eral Hospital in his constituency? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Previously I was in possession of a Written Question respecting one Mr. Rod MacKenzie and his employment with the Department of Northern Affairs. I'd like to provide the information at this time. Mr. Rod MacKenzie has been under contract to undertake a feasibility study of the continuing opera tion of the Pi-Mi-Chi-Ka-Mac Development Corpora tion in Cross Lake.

Of course, as the member is aware, the Pi-Mi-Chi-Ka-Mac Development Corporation is a sawmill operation MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Minister is responding now to a Written Ques tion. It is my understanding also, Mr. Speaker, that the correct procedure is to provide written answers to Written Questions and not take up the time of Oral Question period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: On the same point of order. Mr.

Speaker. there may be a tradition that is done from time to time. but there's no rule which requires it and therefore there is no point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. I believe I sent all members a memo sometime ago dealing with the matter of questions raised in Question Period and at Committees. It was designed to speed up the procedure at Question Period and I hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs will take that as a good indication. The Honourable Minister. HON. J. COWAN: Well. thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly apologize if I have offended the members opposite by providing this information. I will provide it in written form to the member as is the tradition and if he has any questions perhaps he can ask them of me today and I'll be glad to answer them in oral form. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Transport. I'll give it this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Mani toba Telephone System.

In view of the fact that the Federal Department of Communications has made indications recently that they would move to close down satellite dishes receiving United States' televi sion signals in Manitoba, my question to the Minister is will he be supporting, financially, efforts on behalf of affected citizens who now enjoy those U.S. televi sion signals? Will he be providing financial assistance to them to fight the Federal Government for retention of those signals? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Com munity Services. HON. L. EVANS: For the information, Mr.

Speaker, o'f the honourable member, that letter to which he refers is a form letter, a mimeographed form letter, that went out to various companies right across Canada. Mani toba was not singled out; it was a form letter which virtually went from coast to coast.

However, we've made a commitment and we'll stand by that commitment to back, in whichever way neces sary and possible, the various operators in the Prov ince of Manitoba to ensure that their interests are protected and the rights of Northern Manitobans are protected as well, that they have the opportunity to have a variety of television broadcasting or reception as we do in Southern Manitoba. 3709 MR. D.

ORCHARD: Then can I assume from the Min ister's answer that indeed, in this year's Estimate pro cess, funds have been budgeted in his department or elsewhere to fund legal action against the Federal Government should they move to eliminate satellite reception to Manitobans? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very optimistic that it will not come to that, but if it does come to that, the monies will be of course provided to give this backup that we promised earlier. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is the Minister now indicating that no such funds are formally budgeted at this time? HON. L.

EVANS: That is correct, Mr: Speaker, but that is not a problem. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I understand that there have been repeated difficulties ir. Brandon with the

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 release of ammonia from the Simplot Chemical Plant and some difficulties in gaining co-ordination between the company and the city who has to deal with this problem. I wonder if the Minister of the Environment could advise us whether or not he has been involved in attempting to resolve this situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: Yes, I can inform the Member for Turtle Mountain that we have, indeed, been involved as a result of specific complaints from individuals as well as from the MLAs representing the area who have taken the opportunity to call me up personally, some times quite late at night, to inform me of a discharge being noticed by residents in the area. The Simplot operation is under a Clean Environment Commission order and we are attempting to review that order - I should say we are reviewing that order - to make certain that it in fact does take into consideration the problems which are being experienced now.

I can provide to the member a very detailed, perhaps outside of Question Period, answer as to what is being done in respect to that particular order and what we've done in respect to specific complaints.

But I think to expedite the business of the House, it's sufficient to inform him that we are reviewing the order; we are quite concerned; we have had the mobile monitoring unit in the area over the past number of weeks on occasion to take monitoring tests to try to determine the extent of the problem from that perspective and we ar e also in the process of setting up continuous monitoring devices in the area to ensure that we have a better understanding of the actual levels which are being emitted. Those are technical things, we take this matter very seriously.

We want to look at the Clean Environment Commission order to see if perhaps the Clean Environment Commission should not be directed to review that order once again to take into consideration new developments with the construc tion of a new operation there. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise when the Clean Environment Commission will have issued its order? HON. J.

COWAN: I can advise the member that they are now operating under an order and that the consid eration that is being given now is whether or not to ask them to have another hearing on the Simplot opera tion and, if that is a decision which is to be taken, then I would suggest that in the near future we will be direct ing the Clean Environment Commission to review that situation in that way once again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Stur geon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, last year the First Minister and the Member for Brandon East were very concerned about record bankruptcies in the province.

I note by a report in the paper that the record has been broken again, Mr. Speaker, and under this govern ment there are 200 bankruptcies to date this year in the Province of Manitoba - up 117 percent. I wonder if 3710 the Minister of Economic Development could tell us what she is doing to stop these bankruptcies and what is going to happen in the future in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, we regret more than anything, I think, that is occurring in society today, that the economic downturn is still heading down and that all the indicators which are the result of that overall depression are of course increasing. They're even accelerating. Mr. Speaker, the government has put into place as stimulative and as supportive a pro gram as we can manage within our resources. Mr.

Speaker, the particular problems relating to bank ruptcy are being dealt with again within our capacity to protect those industries Which can survive in the difficult times with an outreach program that is giving advice that is helping if there is refinancing remedies that are available to it. At the same time we are work ing with the employees to see that if there are any options which they can collectively pursue or, if the worse comes to worse, to assist them should a full bankruptcy occur. Mr.

Speaker, we regret as much or more than the members opposite that we don't have a full range of remedies at hand at the provincial level. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the Minister, last year the Premier and the Member for Brandon East felt it was the fault of the government, could she now explain why it's now the fault of the economic situation internationally and the situation in Canada rather than the government? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure everyone rec ognizes that one statistic quoted in isolation from the context is meaningless.

If the member opposite felt that questions raised last year put him at a disadvan tage or his government's program at a disadvantage I regret that, but that's past history. Mr. Speaker, we are wrestling on this side with attempting to understand the causes and the structural weaknesses in the Mani toba and Canadian economy. We're doing our best witl1in our range of action and within our range of influence to put in place a healthier and more stable economic system, Mr. Speaker. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: I wonder then if the Minister could inform the House if she's taken a look at the policies we were putting in place because manufac turing investment had dropped up until 1977, rose continually until 1981, and is now dropping again drastically. I wonder if the Minister could look at our programs and see what the previous government was doing. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that some innovative measures were taken to encourage manufacturing during the previous regime. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the criticism that came from our group was ever focused on attacking the good things that were done by the members opposite. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, I think programs could have

Wednesday, 30 June, 19 82 been improved I think the main gist of the attack had to do with things that were left undone. It was the total package of the policy, Mr. Speaker, that was under attack from members on our side. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of house privilege. The Minister of Community Services responsible for Manitoba Telephone System this morning indicated that if necessary provision for legal funding would be made and he indicated that no such provision has been made. I would refer you, Mr.

Speaker. to Hansard of Thursday the 11 th of March, 1982, in which we were considering the Estimates of the Minister of Community Services and Corrections. We were considering the line in the Estimates to deal with his communications responsibilities. I asked the Minister, "Has there been any provision under Other Expenditures to undertake any legal support action that may be necessary to protect the television fare of Northern Manitobans?" Mr. Evans said.

"There is, if it is necessary to spend money for legal fees and so on, my understanding is it would be done through the Attorney-General's Department." My next question was, "Are you aware whether those provisions have been made because it is rather a hot issue?" Mr. Evans, "The answer is yes, we made some provisions three weeks ago, I am advised." Would the Minister care to inform the House which of his answers is the correct one, the one this morning where he says there is no provision for funding or the one given during the perusal of his Estimates on Thursday, March 11? Which answer is the truth, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: On that question of privilege, which is not a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, it is true. as the members opposite know and particulary those who have been on Treasury Bench, that the General Manual of Administration provides that departments may be provided legal services through the Department of the Attorney-General as required. That is always there. There is nothing new about that. There is nothing inconsistent between the two answers. (

a) that the provision is there and (

b) that it may be called upon if necessary. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might take the opportunity, when Hansard is availa ble, to peruse the answer given today by the Minister of Community Services in which he said there was no provision for funding, it would be made available if necessary. That, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit is quite the contrary to the specific questioning as to whether provision was made for legal aid to be pro vided to citizens of Northern Manitoba on the issue of television reception by U.S. satellite.

I submit, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that on perusal of Hansard of this morning and your reading of Hansard of Thursday, March 1 1th, you will find that this Minister has given different answers to the same question and I submit respectfully that is indeed a question of privilege of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member did not have a matter of privilege. I will take the matter as a question directly to a Member of the Treasury Bench. If he wishes to answer it he may do so; if not, Oral Questions. 371 1 The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question to the Honourable Minister of Government Services. Yesterday I had a very unique experience in as much as I have a constituent that arrived in a wheelchair to visit the Legislature and the only oppor tunity he had to visit the Chamber was to be moved up into the gallery with some difficulty and with a great deal of co-operation from Mr. Speaker and his staff.

I was just wondering whether any facilities are being arranged for in the future, to the Honourable Minister of Government Services, to allow a more convenient manner in which people in wheelchairs can arrive and view the proceedings here in the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Gov ernment Services. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, that is something that I'm open to as far as suggestion is concerned. The provision of ramps and things of that nature for access to this building, I believe has been provided.

The ques tion of elevator capacity to go up to the extreme top of this building, I'm not sure if it's logistically possible, but that's something I'm prepared to look at. There is nothing in the Estimates for that kind of a program, Mr. Speaker. MR. A. KOVNATS: I heard the Honourable Minister make some remark concerning the ramps. There is nothing wrong with the ramps, because I did assist this young gentleman down the ramp to get into the building. It's not the ramps that is the problem; it's the wall at the end of the ramps if you can't stop.

But anyways, this was the remark that this young gentle man had made and it was a little embarrassing because I would hope that there would be something in the future that would allow the people of these circumstances to view the proceed.ings. As a matter of fact, yesterday was a very good day for viewing the proceedings because there were so many unique things that had happened and it just doesn't happen that often. Would the Honourable Minister keep in mind in the future to make some provisions for these types of people? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker. that's an ongoing pro cess.

I know that we've had a number of discussions with respect to how to make existing buildings feasi ble for use by handicapped people and that is not a simple matter; that does involve a considerable amount of expenditure. With respect to this particular build ing, I must again repeat there is no provision for it in this year's Estimates.

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 --�------- ------�-----··---- MR. A. KOVNATS: I think that would direct this questio n now to the Honourable Attorney-General. If we were assisting these people up the stairs, eith er the staff or friends, and something happened - like I stumbled a little bit. not dangerously, but I did stumble - but what if we dropped these people and they were injured? Would the Honourable Attorney-General give us any advice as to whether there's any liability on the part of the persons who are assisting them, includ ing the staff? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Beauchesne is quite clear that a member may not ask a Member of Treasury Bench for legal advice and a Member of Treasury Bench may not give legal advice. That way lies disaster, particularly if it's my legal advice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize the Attorney-General wasn't capable of giving legal advice. I have one other question and I really don't know who to ask the question of, but I 'II ask the question and maybe we can get an answer. I know who I'd like to ask the question of, but he·s not able to answer.

If a person of this handicap, coming in a wheelchair. wants to come into the Chamber, would he be allowed to come into the Chamber as an important visitor rather than as an elected member and view the proceedings from the loge on a temporary basis. at least until such time as ramps and facilities were made to get him up into the top? I don't know who to ask. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: I see the Minister of Transport is in his place. Can the Minister advise what grains are in storage at Churchill at the present time? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Gov ernment Services. HON. S. USKIW: I'll take that question as notice. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I would beg leave to revert back to Notice of Motions. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Minister have leave? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: May I ask the Minister, what for? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. COWAN: I'd be pleased to answer. I'd like to beg leave to give Notice of Motion that we will be bringing forward Bill No. 67.

an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. at the 2 o'clock sitting this afternoon if leave is granted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, are there some unus ual circumstances that the government has just now learned that they're going to be introducing a change to The Legislative Assembly Act? My understanding is that it could have been placed on the Order Paper and dealt with in the usual fashion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: If the Opposition House Leader will reflect, he may recall that there was an agreement in the late hours of last night with respect to one particular item that falls under The Legislative Assembly Act. If he thinks about it for a moment, it's for that purpose that leave is being sought under Noti ces of Motion to place on the Order Paper for First Reading a bill to amend The Legislative Assembly Act MR. B.

RANSOM: Perhaps the Government House Leader could advise the House then of the nature of the business that the House is going to be dealing with. because perhaps it's unnecessary to be gaining leave for this type of bill at this time because there may be adequate time to put it on the Notice Paper. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Government House Leader, what is his intention with regard to Bill 30? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, it's clear from the way in which the question has been posed that the Opposition House Leader sees some inextricable connection between the two.

I wouldn't have thought that was necessarily so. Nevertheless , with respect to Bill 30, as I stated in the House yesterday, ii was and continues to be my hope to this moment that some agreement can be arrived at. I haven't given up hope on that. It's not my intention to call Bill 30 as the first order of business this morning until every avenue has been explored.

That's the way we would like to operate if at all possible and time is clearly needed for that so that it would then. in light of the explanation which I've JU St given, be my intention to call Third Readings, as far as we can go; subsequently, to go into Committee of the Whole and by this afternoon see whether every avenue with respect to Bill 30 and related matters has been explored.

If we've drawn a blank at that time, then an announcement will be made as to the gov ernment intention with respect to Bill 30 in the light of circumstances then pertaining. 3712 In the meantime. as I said, we will call the other business on the Order Paper so that the business of government can be proceeded with. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Opposition is being asked to assist the government out of a situation that has been created by their tho roughly inept handling of the business of government. I am. therefore, prepared to grant leave so that the

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 Minister may revert to Notices of Motion. MR. SPEAKER: It would appear the Minister has his leave to revert back to Notices of Motion. The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. NOTICES OF MOTION MR. J. COWAN: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I would then like to give notice that Bill No. 67.

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. will be introduced for First Reading this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you please call the Adjourned Debates on Third Readings as they appear on the Order Paper, Pages 3 through to 5, inclusive, in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper? ADJOURNED DEBATES ON THIRD READING BILL NO. 2 - THE RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 2. standing in the name of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye.

The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments with regards to this particular bill. As the Member for Tuxedo has indicated yesterday, I will be and the party will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. I would, however, want to put several things on the record.

First of all, I would like to say that with regard to rent controls. what has happened in the last number of years and particularly in the last provincial election, the hope that was held out by the members opposite by touting the rent controls, which they have intro duced at this time, was that there would be no increases in rent in the Province of Manitoba. The average person on the street, I'm sure if you would talk to them after the type of literature that members opposite put out, is really under the impression that there will be no rent increases or they will be very minimal. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have to say to you today that I think the Government's going to find out that people who are in this position will find that the rents, indeed, will be increasing by very virtue of the tax increases on property, by virtue of the cost of repairing, the cost of maintenance is going to be going up So I think it's foolhardy for anybody to leave the impression or try to leave the impression that rent controls are going to solve the problems of housing in this particular country. The problems of housing, Mr.

Speaker - and espe cially when you're talking about rental accommoda tions - the biggest problems were started in the early '70s when certain tax reforms took place at the federal level which didn't allow people to write off the depre ciated losses on their personal income tax. Mr. Speaker, I would say that was one of the biggest blows that we have seen as far as the continuation of proper housing stock when it comes to rental housing in Canada as a whole.

Instead of encouraging people to get into the housing in the rental market, successive different policies of different governments have made it virtually impossible for anybody, unless they received substantial government grants, to get into the rental accommodation field. I suggest that this bill will do nothing: as a matter of fact, will probably deter any body from really having a closer look at that whole situation. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I realize there are many people that feel this is going to really help them out in their particular situation.

I suggest to you that the increases will be coming on an annual basis to help the owners of the property to recoup the increased costs of doing business and that in the final analysis what will really happen with the different moves that all governments have made at all levels is you will see more pressure on the Provincial and Federal Govern ments to build public housing, which I think is a wrong-headed way of approaching the situation and is not my way of ensuring that there is a good housing stock available.

I think the best way of doing it, and it's been proven out time and time again, is for the landlord or the private owner to provide that particular shelter for the people who are in need. We've seen the problems that public housing has created and the problems that are related when governments are asked to evict people who aren't paying their bills properly and that. It just doesn't happen and those particular buildings have a tendency of being run down a little quicker, because there is nobody who is really watching them really close and has a particular investment in them. So, having said those few words, Mr.

Speaker, I once again reiterate that I will be voting for this partic ular piece of legislation. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Charleswood, that debate be adjourned. 3713 MOTION presented and carried. BILL 19 - THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable the Attorney-General, Bill No. 19, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had adjourned this debate earlier and in addition, as the Attorney-General reminds me, I had allowed it to stand so that it could be considered in Third Reading stage at the same time as The Residential Rent Regu lation Act, which at that time was still in Committee. Now that we have them together I, having made my remarks on Bill 2 last evening, would also like to remark that this particular piece of legislation is com panion because it does adjust references between the two Acts and allow for harmoniza!ion of the process

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 that is common in a variety of ways between The Landlord and Tenant Act and the new Residential Rent Rehabilitation Act. As well, Mr. Speaker. it pro vides for a number of opportunities for some equity and efficiency in treatment of certain circumstances that occur when tenants vacate suites and landlords are in a position to repossess suites for alternative rental to other tenants. I might indicate that it appears to me. having seen the amendment to Bill 2. the amendment to Clause 16(1) . I believe it was - which now permits for some partial freeing up of a suite when tenants voluntarily vacate. that the

Section 116(1.1) of this Act is now either in contravention with that new provision in Bill 2 or indeed is superfluous. It is unfortunate that this could not have been addressed in Committee at the same time, but obviously that is the case. Mr. Speaker. having made those few remarks I will again say that we on this side support this bill, as we have indicated our support for the amended Bill 2. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Fort Garry, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 20 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. (Stand) On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs Bill No. 26 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for SL Norbert. (Stand) On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General Bill No. 40 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. (Stand) Does someone wish to introduce a Third Reading of Bill No. 21?

THIRD READING - AMENDED BILLS BILL NO. 21 - THE COMMUNITY CHILD DAY CARE STANDARDS ACT HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 21, The Com munity Child Day Care Standards Act, for Third Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker. I welcome the oppor tunity to make a few further comments on Bill 21, The Community Child Day Care Standards Act at this time. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, let me repeat that my col leagues and I in the Progressive Conservative Opposi tion in the Legislature are in favour of the concept of developing worthwhile standards for implementation in the day care field in such a way as to assure quality day care for children and parents in Manitoba. We want accessible day care, we want reasonable fiscal responsibility where day care is concerned, we want day care that is affordable, and we want day care that is of high quality.

Further to that. insofar as it's possible, we want the day care spectrum and the day care opportunity in Manitoba extended as broadly as possible so that in conceptual terms we aim with our fellow citizens and with others in this Legislature for what could be des cribed, Sir, as universal day care.

Flowing from that we derive our position with respect to Bill 21, which has been expressed by col leagues of mine in this debate earlier and certainly has been put by me and should be clear on the record, we have no difficulty with Bill 21 in terms of what it speaks to, the development and implementation of standards in the community child day care field that would pro vide the base and the framework that could be expected to lead to the kind of day care system that contains those ingredients to which I have referred in my remarks in the past two or three minutes. As a consequence, Mr.

Speaker, the government can be assured that we will not be opposing the pas sage of Bill 21 no more on Third Reading than we did on Second Reading and of course, Sir, we did not oppose it on Second Reading, we supported it, we encouraged its movement to Committee Stage, where it could be examined in fuller detail and where delega tions and representations from the day care commun ity and the public in general could convey their views, their thoughts and recommendations to the Commit tee, to both the Government and the Opposition, and we accepted passage of the bill at that stage with no substantive objections in terms of the goals contained in the legislation, but with, Sir, a number of sugges tions for improvement of the approach which we felt were constructive and positive and would help to rein force that objective of a fair, equitable or reasonable quality day care system.

Now, Sir, we come to Third Reading and again, we wish to make it clear that it's our intention to pass the legislation. However. before doing so, I think it's important to reinforce for the Minister's attention, the government's attention and indeed, Sir, for the pub lic's attention, some of the points that we have attemp ted to make in the debate up to this date. In fact, where this legislation is concerned, I think it's perhaps more important to attempt to reinforce some of those points at Third Reading than would be the case with a great deal of legislation with which we deal in this Chamber.

The reason I say that is because the content of this legislation in terms of its substance differs very very greatly from the normal kind of bill that we are asked to address and debate in this House. Normally, one sees within the written content of a bill what it is the government intends to do and how it is the govern ment intends to go about doing it.

As a consequence, the House in total, the Opposition in particular and the delegations. who appear at Committee Stage addi tionally, have the opportunity to examine all the fore seeable ramifications of the legislation and its impact on the people of Manitoba. 3714 Thus, when one comes to Third Reading on many pieces of legislation, the range of the effects of the legislation proposed has already been explored and

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 examined to some depth. In this case, Sir, it's quite a different situation. as has been pointed out in the debate earlier.

The bill is merely enabling legislation and indeed says very very little, if indeed anything at all, Sir, about how this conception of a day care sys tem is going to work, how it's going to operate, what it's going to cost and what its impact and ramifications are going to be, not only for the people of Manitoba in general, but for the system that's out there now for the day care community as it exists at this present time and for individual groups of parents and children who desire and deserve access to day care; so debate on Third Reading becomes more important in this legis lation than perhaps would be the case in some other cases; than perhaps would be the case with respect to some other bills; some other pieces of legislation that come forward in Legislative Sessions.

The government has indicated by the bill in front of us that it wants to move to ensure implementation and establishment of the kind of day care system that I referred to a few moments ago.

Then it has gone beyond that to say we are asking the Legislative Assembly, the elected representatives of the people, to agree with us on this and to buy this package so that it can be put into place and then it has gone on to say all the details, all the mechanics will be worked out, formulated, determined at some later date and they will be done so in a process that will actually be out side the technical process of the Legislature. They will be done through the formulation of regulations determined by the government and will not be done through debate and cross-debate in the Legislative Assembly.

That, Sir, is where we have our primary difficulty with Bill 21 and although it's been expressed before, I believe it's important that it be expressed and recorded again at Third Reading stage in the hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the government may take steps to ensure to a greater degree than they have ensured to date that the process of developing those regulations, the process of devising these mechanics of Bill 21 will be a fully democratic one, a fully respon sive one and will be one that permits the widest possi ble legislative input, notwithstanding that it's being done outside the normal processes of a legislative sitting or a Legislative Session.

Mr. Speaker, this is not our only difficulty with Bill 21, but it's the main one. I wish to utilize a few moments of the time available to me this morning to emphasis or reemphasize some of our other difficul ties with the bill, but I think it's important at this junc ture in my contribution to this debate this morning to stress that this is our main difficulty with Bill 21, that it is merely enabling legislation.

We don't know what we're buying when we pass this legislation and what's worse, we don't know what we're buying on behalf of the people of Manitoba, on behalf of the electorate, on behalf of the taxpayers, on behalf of the constitutents and constituencies who have sent us here. II we were to say we don't like this process and therefore we're not going to accept Bill 21, I think that would indeed be damaging. Certainly, it would be politically damaging, but quite apart from that con sideration, I think that would be damaging for the day care community and the day care system.

We do not want to do that and we do not want to be damaging to the system. We want to be helpful and constructive to the system. We do not want to create difficulties in terms of the sense that the day care community and the day care system has of a united and cohesive will on the part of the Legislature and on the part of Manit oba's elected representatives for high-quality stan dards in day care and for a good day care system. We don't want to create any seeds of doubt in that area because there should be no seeds of doubt in that area.

There is no question of the cohesiveness and the unity of this Chamber as 57 representatives speaking for the Province of Manitoba and its citizens in totality when it comes to that objective, that quality day care system.

That's the reason, Sir, why we would not con sider for one moment implanting ourselves in the middle of the road in such a way as to obstruct the intent to move to that kind of a quality system with the standards that are desirable, but we would be less than responsible to the trust that is placed in us, Sir, if we didn't raise the objection that we have raised about the method and manner in which this legislation has been drafted and brought forward, the legislative approach that the Minister is taking.

There is absolutely no disputing the fact that the fair and responsible way to approach a subject of this kind would have been for the Minister to bring in a piece of legislation that told the House and told the public o.f Manitoba what the government hoped to do and what the legislation would provide if it were passed.

To turn the equation the other way around, to stand the pro cess on its ear, and to come in with legislation that merely says, "This is what we're dreaming about, now let us do it; give us the authority to go into a room somewhere and work out the details," flies directly in the face of the responsible, traditional, conventional process that we are sent here to observe. We would be less than responsible, as I say, Mr. Speaker, if we did not cite that very serious flaw in this legislation.

And it is a very serious flaw and it's a very serious indictment of the government's approach and the Minister's approach to this subject. It's also a serious indictment of the government's attitude and the Minister's atti tude towards the role of the Legislative Assembly and the role of the Opposition where legislation is con cerned.

In this case it's doubly worrisome because this is legislation that will have enormous social impact that speaks to a subject that's been described by the Honourable Member for Wolseley correctly and other colleagues of the Minister as one that is of major priority importance to people and that addresses one of the most valuable resources in our society, our children and their parents, and it therefore deserves the most intensive scrutiny by the Legislature and the fairest examination by the Legislature that could be brought to it.

It's not going to receive that kind of scrutiny and that kind of evaluation in the full legisla tive sense, because of the manner in which the Minis ter has proceeded. 3715 However, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that by reemphasizing this weakness and this serious flaw that the Minister and his colleagues will conscien tiously take into consideration now the unconven tionality of the position that they've taken, the approach that they've taken, the irresponsibility involved in it where proper legislative scrutiny is concerned, and that they will open up the process of development of

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 th ose regulations as I've said to the fullest examina tion and the fullest legislative input that is humanly possible. Going beyond that, Mr. Speaker. the basic difficulty with the bill to which I've referred. I believe that there are at least two other realities about this legislation with which the Minister must come to grips and with which the public is going to be extremely disap pointed. pending some satisfactory resolution of the problems contained.

The first is that the government. by laying out its hopes and dreams for a quality day care system based on standards. has raised the expectations in the day care community and certainly among the public that they are going to be able to deliver to Manitoba a day care system that will be the best in North America, if not the world, that will be a model for all other jurisdic tions to follow and that will contain the highest ingre dients of training qualifications, of support systems for fam1l1es and children. of opportunities for families and children. to be found in any social program or any health delivery program anywhere in the world.

They are not going to be able to do that. Mr. Speaker, with out hurdling some extremely difficult obstacles that lie in the path of not only of this society, but every society today as a result of the economic circumstan ces in which we find ourselves. The government is talking about an increase in the day care budget in 1982-83 of $2.4 million over the budgeted figure for 1981-82. It's an increase of $2.4 million on a base of $9.3 million. which translates into an increase of 26 percent. In percentage terms that's a pretty good increase. Mr.

Speaker. if one were just simply to sta11d up and say that a certain program was enioying a 26 percent increase. one would be very impressed by that. but when you look at what the Minister and the government are contemplating or hoping for in the day care system to which they aspire and then consider. that 26 percent translated into dol lars comes to $2.4 million. the bloom comes quickly off the rose.

At the same time as they talk about a day care system based on implementation of standards, and substantial standards. they've talked, Sir. about increasing the number of spaces in our day care spec trum in 1982-83 by 750 Well, there's absolutely no possibility that they can do both. In fact. there's abso lutely no possibility that they could implement stan dards of the type not only as the government envis ages but that many delegations appearing before the Committee envisage for the kind of money that is included in the budget.

First of all. they're going to have to make the choice as to whether they have to go standards or have to go spaces. they're going to have to make the choice as to whether they can provide the 750 new spaces and put the drive for standards aside for the time being, or decide to move ahead with the implementation of the standards. all of which are going to cost an enormous amount of money. and forget about the increase in the spaces 1n the exi sting day care spectrum for a while. But that's only decision number one. Mr. Speaker.

If they should decide that they're going to put the emphasis on the system that they've talked about and the standards that they've talked about. they're then going to have to decide how they can implement meaningful standards for $2.4 million. It 1s no exag- geration to suggest. Mr.

Speaker. that to implement meaningful standards that would bring the level of day care up to the quality that the Minister is thinking about in this legislation and up to the minimum level that some delegations appearing before the Commit tee described, would constitute a staggering fiscal challenge and financial problem for this province. I think it's no exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. to suggest that to achieve that level would require a budgetary expenditure of at least $30 million on day care, for starters.

If the province wants to move to I suppose what could be described as the total objective implicit in the government's legislation, that is a quality day care system operating on a 24-hour basis, one is look ing easily at a $100 million annual bill. The current budget for day care is $9.3 million. so those figures put the problem and the challenge into its perspective, Mr. Speaker. To go from $9.3 million to $100 million is untliinkable in today's economic conditions.

To go from $9.3 million to $30 million is impossible in terms of the budget, the fiscal situation and the deficit situa tion in which the government is locked at the present time. To go from $9.3 million to $11.7 million is what the government intends to do according to the Esti mates for '82-83, but that, Sir, as I say will not pay for a fraction of the system envisioned by and implied in the legislation brought forwar d by the Minister. Unfortunately, Manitoba and Manitobans cannot contemplate a $100 million day care budget.

Unfortu nately, the deficit position this year in the Province of Manitoba will not permit a $30 million day care pro gram. We're facing a $353 million predicted deficit in print We are facing an additional borrowing initiative, at least an intended borrowing initiative of $900 mil lion in this province. We're facing Supplementary Spending Estimates of some $46 million, which the House has just addressed and passed in very recent days.

We're facing in Canada and we're all part and parcel of the same fam ily, a $20 billion deficit revealed by the Federal Minister of Finance on Monday night and it is absolutely impossible. It would border on insanity. Mr. Speaker, to suggest that this government or any government in Manitoba can move very much beyond the limits of the appropriations that it has requested for 1982-83 in the Estimates relative to the individual departments that we have already dealt with during this Session.

In fact it's our position that the Estimates, the spending program. brought for ward in this Session on which the government has sought and is receiving critical approval, exceed the capacity of the Manitoba taxpayer to a very dangerous degree and that the direction of the government for '82-83, where spending is concerned, should have been much more prudent, should have been carefully tailored constraint on public spending. rather than expansionary public spending. 3716 Certainly the bottom line.

Sir. is that the expansion ary spending that they're talking about is potentially highly dangerous in terms of the health of the Mani toba economy and the health of the Manitoba tax payer and once one takes into consideration the sup plementary spending of $46 million or more which has been approved and to which I've referred. one cannot. in all conscience condone or endorse the spending. the appropriation of one additional dollar in 1982-83. and its likely to be much the same for '83-84 and

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 '84-85. while we work our way out of this economic difficulty. So that when we're looking at a $2.4 million increase for day care. we're looking at the top limit That's all the taxpayers of Manitoba can afford. In fact. overall. the taxpayers of Manitoba cannot afford the spending estimates that have been pro posed in this House by this government for 1982-83. It's going to be a struggle to meet those. so that the figur es then fall into perspective in terms of what they mean and a 26 percent increase is not much of an increase when it's measured against that kind of a scenario.

The 26 percent means nothing. It's $2.4 mil lion in a conceptual program that would cost a min imum of $30 million to do it up to a reasonable level in the eyes of the government and would cost $100 mil lion to reach the overall goal of 24-hour high quality day care, which is unquestionably at the horizon of the goverment's objectives. In addressing the subject in the way the government has addressed it. in making the promises about day care and day care standards and a much improved day care system and a day care bill that they did during the 1981 election campaign, Mr.

Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party and the New Democratic Go vernment caused Manitobans a11d the Manitoba day care community to expect some real action. something truly meaningful in this field. Real action and something truly meaningful means much more than simply the rhetorical concept of standards. What it means is the actual development and imple mentation of standards and to develop and implement the kinds of standards that would be required, is going to cost the kind of money that I've just described. Sir.

It is impossible and therefore the expectations of the day care community have been raised to a point beyond all reason and to a point beyond all logic. The government cannot meet those expectations and the first thing they've got on their hands now is an insip- 1ent wave of disappointment in the day care commun ity. So, that is the other challenge, the other problem that they're going to have to address. How they're going to deal with that. I do not kn ow, but they cannot deal with it by bankr upting the Province of Manitoba.

Therefore. what's going to emerge from this if they make the decision to go for standards rather than spaces are a minimum set of standards that will not produce the abstract day care quality, which I think is at the heart of their legislative objective. Of course. minimum standards that don't produce that quality are going to be an enormous disappointment to the day care community and the advocates of standards, who have had their enthusiasm whipped up to a very high level and a very high degree by the government's promises in the day care field.

So, Sir. as I've said. first of all they've got to make the choice between spaces and standards and then if they make the choice for standards. they're going to have to deal with the disappointment of the day care com munity in respect to what those standards will mean and what those standards will do, because on the dollars that they've got and the capacity of the taxpay ers of Manitoba to pay for programs of this kind, the standards cannot. Sir. be very meaningful. Go ing beyond that. if and when that problem is hurdled and resolved and that will take I think some considerable time.

Sir. we've got the whole question of what the ultimate standards in day care for Mani toba are going to be. There is the problem to which many of my colleagues alluded earlier of the existing system and the differences in society across the prov ince that require a very sensitive approach on the government's

part I spoke earlier in Second Reading about the error and the problem that would be presented if the gov ernment approached this subject with a view to mak ing the day care system and its standards homogen ous across the province.

I would hope there has been and will continue to be recognition by the government of the fact that there are vast differences in Manitoba society. insofar as its capacities and its needs in the day care field are concerned, insofar as its require ments and its resources in the day care community are concerned and insofar as the actual makeup of the social tapestry of the province are concerned. It is urgently to be hoped. Sir, that the regulations finally to be developed and promulgated and the standards ultimately to be implemented will take all those differences into accounts very sensitively.

If they don't. there will be localities. communities, regions. in Manitoba being served by day care today which will lose their day care services tomorrow. which will be deprived of their day care services in the future because of their inability to compete in eco nomic terms for the ki nds of personnel, the kinds of facilities and the ki nds of programming that rigid homogenous universal standards would demand. The final problem is the one that I addressed through a proposed amendment that we attempted to receive support for, both at the Committee Stage and then at the Report Stage on Third Reading, Mr.

Speaker. That was the amendment that spoke to the individual problem of shift workers and persons in professional capacities such as nurses, many persons in the teaching field and others who are deprived of the opportunity to make use of day care facilities in their neighbourhoods and in their communities because their hours of work do not coincide with the hours of the day care facilities operation. e difficulty that we have with the bill. where this problem is con cerned, is the same difficulty that we have with the Bill where the total legislative approach to the govern ment is concerned on this subject, Mr.

Speaker. 3717 The bill is a piece of legislation designed to satisfy the government 's ambitions to create a hi ghly struc tured day care system. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an ambition to create a highly-structured system, depending on one's philosophy of society and the way society should operate. but leaving the philosophical debate aside, there is nothing intrinsi cally wrong with that. Mr.

Speaker The problem is that when the government speaks about a day care bill and day care legislation, one logically ex pects that they are speaking about addressing the problems of people. of parents and of children. It's disappointing to find that not only the bill, but the Minister and his colleagues are much more interested in the concept of that system and in the development of that struc ture than in dealing with the specific individual prob lems of people. That came through very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative Opposition attempted to win support at Committee S:age and again at

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 Report Stage for an amendment that would make some accommodation; go some small step towards helping those working people in our society who would normally have access to day care. but are denied that access because of the hours of day or night in which they work and I fail to see why, when the government is dealing with a subject that is pur portedly aimed at helping people because that's what day care is all about. it cannot shift itself one degree or two off that rigid route on which it's got itself moving, off that rigid adherence to the idea of structure and system to make some provisions, deserved provi sions. for individual people with individual problems.

The Minister has suggested that our amendment, which would provide support for shift workers who are single parents. who have children in need of day care. who would be taking advantage of day care in their neighbourhoods if they worked on daytime hours. is merely a paid babysitting service. would cost too much money and would deny the government the opportunity to do the job that it thinks needs to be done in the conventional day care field. Mr.

Speaker. when one considers that the govern ment hasn·t got enough money to do the job it wants to do in the conventional day care field. when one considers that the government is pumping $2.4 mil lion into a concept that would cost a minimum of $30 million and that could cost $10 0 million. I think the logical question arises. why scatter that $2.4 million on the wind? Why not do something meaningful with that $2.4 million? Something meaningful that could be done was repr esented in the amendment proposed by our party.

There. there could be some dollars specifi cally directed to specific individual people's problems and those dollars would be helping people who are taxpa yers. who are helping to pay for the conventional system and who are helping to provide that additional $2.4 million that the Minister is talking about. So that is the other obstacle and the other difficulty that we face, Mr. Sp eaker. as we move the bill through this stage of the process. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I move. seconded by the Hon ourable Member for Gladstone. that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: I move. seconded by the Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Transporta tion. that Bill No. 36.

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. be now read a third time and passed. We'll hold on that motion. Mr. Sp eaker. and have another. BILL NO. 23 THE LEGAL AID SERVICES SOCIETY OF MANITOBA LTD. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS presented Bill No. 23.

An Act to amend The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Act. for Third Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I'm not too sure that the arguments tha t have been put for ward by members of this side of the House or the arguments that were put forward in Committee were listened to by the Attorney-General.

I think he lis tened, but I don't think he was the least bit convinced of the validity of the argument and for that we tiave to probably give him credit that he is firm and steadfast, that his beliefs do not change, that his philosophy does not change and he will stand. no matter what. on the philosophical grounds that he has staked out before he brought this legislation in, or philosophical grounds that he has had for many many years. But, Mr. Speaker.

I happen to respect the Attorney-General because he has been first and foremost in the field of legal aid, being the first chairman of the Legal Aid Society when it was first set up; he has seen the whole concept of legal aid progress right from its beginnings. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think that even with his vast knowledge of the operation of Legal Aid, I would hope that he would listen at some time or another to the opinions that are being exp ressed by other members of society with respect to the direction that legal aid is going.

I know that he can very well stand up and say. well they are the government. they were elected with the support of 47 percent of the people of Manitoba and quite properly form the government; but the views expr essed by members of this side of the House repr esent 44 percent of the population of Manitoba, so there's really only three percentage difference between the support that they have and the support that we have on this side of the House. Legal aid, may I suggest to you, Mr.

Deputy Sp eaker, encompasses not just 47 percent of the peo ple; it's supposed to embrace the entire population where the need can be demonstrated. I think it's fairly impo rtant that one basic philosophy of legal aid should always remain. that there should be no legal aid except in cases where the need can be demonstrated. That is a fundamental. that if it remains the basic of legal aid, then we can support legal aid on all sides of the House without any undue concern as long as the criteria for need is clearly spelled out; but. Mr. Spea ker.

I think we are slipping away a little bit from that basic philosophy. 3718 We are now finding that changes are being pro posed that do deviate from that philosophy to some degree and the amount of deviation is one that is not clearly defined. It's a de viation is that is left in the hands of the Legal Aid Society to determine and that can be variable. it can be flexible and it can also deviate from that basic premise where need must be demonstrated.

So it leaves itself open to subjective criticism because we are now getting into a field where you're getting into the public advocacy role and that has been add ressed quite well, I think, by several

Wednesday, 30 June, 19 82 members on this side of the House. It has been addressed also by delegations that appeared before committee when this bill went to committee. I think the arguments that were put forward were good arguments, they were logical and in the public interest. Having said that, it was my sincere hope that the Attorney-General would see clear to remove the offending parts of this legislation before we passed it for third reading. So far, Mr. Speaker, I have seen no evidence of that and it causes me personally a great deal of concern.

The second thing that causes me even more concern is the attitude of the Attorney General and I know it's very improper, Mr. Speaker, for me to make reference to the absence or presence of the Attorney-General in the House, so I will not make any reference to that at all. It is disappointing to me though that when a member, who has the respon sibility to pilot legislation through this Chamber and indeed makes the arrangements to do so, is unwilling to listen to the constructive advice given to him. So, Mr.

Speaker, I have to indicate that I am not the least bit pleased with this legislation nor with the actions of the person who is responsible for the bill. I would hope that if this passes against my objections, that we will have the opportunity within the next 12 months to review the legislation with the possibility of removing those offending clauses from the legislation. Those are the comments that I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker. So it's with regret that I note that the Attorney-General would not be listening to it. I would only hope that other members would pass those comments on to him. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER, H. Harapiak: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 27 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Call in the Government House Leader. HON. L. EVANS presented Bill No. 27,

An Act to amend The

Summary Convictions Act, for Third Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're dealing with Bill No. 27,

An Act to amend The Sum mary Convictions Act. It's

an Act, Mr. Speaker, which to me flies in the face of the system of justice that has been firmly established in this country. In fact, it was only a few short months ago, Mr. Speaker, that we had a great fanfare with the Canadian Constitution and the Charter that went with it. It is one of the fundamental principles of British justice, and the whole system that we base our laws and our courts on in this country is the very simple philosophy that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But over the last several years, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen various Acts of Legislatures, House of Com mons, that have brought the reverse onus amend ments to our judicial system and that is where a man is guilty until he proves his own innocence. I find that system somewhat abhorrent. I know it is a system. At least, I've been told it is a system that is used in other jurisdictions but, Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the countries where that system is used. Perhaps the Attorney-General is, but I know that I do not know too much about that type of government nor, Mr. Speaker, do I have too much respect for it.

I believe very strongly that a man should be innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof must always rest with the state but we find these convenience clauses which serve the administration of justice or so we're told that is the intent. These clauses keep creeping in which, in my estimation, destroy the very fundamental of justice in our country. When you start handing out tickets which have an effect of saying unless you pay it by such and such a date, you will automatically be guilty. I find that somewhat abhorrent.

I would sincerely hope that our system of justice should be the para mount factor in the administration of justice rather than the inconvenience that may be caused to a few bureaucrats that have problems with the col lection of fines and fees. 3719 So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to register my own personal objection to this bill not because of the park ing tickets or anything else, but because it offends the basic principle of justice that our whole country is built on. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 31 - THE CHILD CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT ACT MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government House Leader. HON. L. EVANS presented Bill No. 31, The Child Cus tody Enforcement Act, for Third Reading. MOTION presented. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, this bill, as members have noted, deals with one of the most traumatic experiences that, I think, parents and chil dren can experience in our society and they are expe riencing it in growing and greater numbers every day as the rate of separation and divorce increases stead ily, not only in this jurisdiction, but in other jurisdic tions in Canada and certainly Nor:h America. Com-

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 ---- ----- - --- - bined with that. Mr_ Speaker. are statistics that indi cate quite clearly that where separations or divorces occur there are greater and greater dif ficulties as people move from one province to another. People in those situations. single or divorced. return perhaps to provinces in which they were born or raised or move for the purposes of education or move for the pur poses of finding employment and the heretofore happily married spouses are separated and. of course. custody becomes in many many cases the most serious matter outstanding between the spouses_ Although.

Mr. Speaker. we have passed legislation in this House with respect to maintenance and with respect to the division of marital assets upon separa tion and divorce that. except in very extraordinary circumstances, provide that a spouse shall receive maintenance where required or that the marital assets shall be divided 50-50 as a first presumption.

Mr_ Speaker, we have not eliminated and cannot eliminate the diffi culties of contested applications for custody where it has been said that all of the dirty linen that may have gone on in a marriage comes out as the spouses fight each other for custody of their children; sometimes with a true belief that they sincerely believe that they are the one to whom the child should be awarded custody because they think that they are the best spouse to look after that child or alternatively, perhaps out of some vindictiveness for the separation or the divorce. the children are used as pawns in a battle between the spouses.

So, Mr. Speaker, we see these types of battles and fights go on in cases of separation and divorces for custody of the children. We find in many cases where the one spouse will leave another and will leave without notice and with out warning and will take the children perhaps some where else in the province or in many cases to another jurisdiction_ Then, Mr.

Speaker. the legal battles start As the person who has taken the children to another jurisdiction applies for a custody order in that jurisdic tion. the spouse remaining here applies for an order for custody in this jurisdiction, then the battle is enjoined in the other jurisdiction as to which court has jurisdiction to grant a custody order. Although, of course, in many cases the spouses, one or other. will receive legal aid in this or in other jurisdictions. the cost of these legal disputes are tre mendous and that's not saying, Mr.

Speaker, in any way being critical of the lawyers who are involved because the time involved in these types of cases is very heavy because. generally speaking, the lawyer involved must virtually review the whole life history of the parties, the conditions under which they're living, the conditions under which they propose to have cus tody and. as a result of which, a great deal of time has to be spent by counsel for the parties involved in these proceedings and the expenses do become very very heavy. This bill. Mr.

Speaker. as I indicated previously, was under consideration by our government and, I think in fact. last September before the election was called I asked Le gislative Counsel to begin the drafting of this legislation for what I optimistically thought would be, if an el ection were called, another term for our government. So we would have proceeded with this legislation had we remained in government and I, Mr.

Speaker. commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward this legislation and any other legislation with respect to these family law issues with which this Legislature is very familiar, whether it be with respect to custody, whether it be with respect to enforcement of Maintenance Orders because these are the real problems. We can have the finest Family Maintenance Act that's possible or the finest Child Welfare Act that's possible, but one of the most serious practical problems in all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, is the enforcement of the Maintenance Order and the enforcement of the Custody Order. Mr.

Speaker, this bill which has been considered for a number of years by the Uniformity Law Conference and was again considered, I believe, a year or two ago in which they have recommended for adoption in all provinces is one which I think should go some way to helping people caught in this very emotional situation :o have the matter resolved. There is in the bill an attempt to define the basis upon which a court should consider a variation of a Custody Order, Mr.

Speaker, which is important because we have found in the past that some courts in some provinces tend to very quickly and easily assume jurisdiction and vary an order, making it very difficult, for example, for a spouse from Man itoba to enforce that Order. I ask members to contemplate the situa tion, Mr_ Speaker, where perhaps two spouses are residing in the Province of Manitoba and one spouse leaves, him or her, taking the children to another pro vince.

The remaining spouse in Manitoba obtains an Order for Custody in Manitoba and then attempts to enforce that Order in another province; let's say, it's 8-C . or let's say, Mr. Speaker, it's in the Maritimes_ Now_ if the court in one of those other provinces very quicl <ly and easily assumes jurisdiction, Mr.

Speaker. and varies the Custody Order that was obtained in Manitoba or assumes jurisdiction too easily, then the spouse who remains in Manitoba is in a very difficult position because he or she is then faced with the extrao rdinary expense of travelling to another juris diction which, as I say, may be far on the east coast or the west coast of retaining a solicitor there to again deal with the whole detailed question of custody, to provide counsel in one of those far off provinces with information from the witnesses. So, Mr_ Speaker. it can become very unfair to the spouse who remained in Manitoba. 3720 So, Mr.

Speaker, this Act attempts to define the basis on which the court here or a court in another province would assume jurisdiction to deal with an application to vary a Custody Order which has already been obtained and stipulates that the court may vary a Custody Order if the court is satisfied that (

a) the child does not have a real and subst antial connection with the province, etc ., in which the Custody Order was made or was last enforced and that the child has a real and substa ntial connection with Manitoba or all the parties affe cted by the Custody Order are resident in Manitoba. I think that goes some way, Mr. Speaker, to codifying the exist ing case law with respect to that principle, sometimes all of which may not be followed.

I do point out that, although I think that is a codifica tion of the existing precedents dealing with that ques tion, you can get involved in another situation, Mr_ Speaker. where for example. a spouse has left the province and applies for a Custody Order in another

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 jurisdiction and a judge, perhaps may in error, allow a Custody Order to be granted in that other jurisdiction and assume jurisdiction and then the applicant is in another difficult position. Does he, the person from Manitoba, appeal that decision of the lower court in another jurisdiction or does he agree to simply that court taking jurisdiction in dealing with the real issue? In both cases, Mr.

Speaker, the person resident in Manitoba is in the difficult position I described before of having to assume the burden and expense of deal ing with this custody issue in another province with counsel there. Mr.

Speaker, this bill goes on to deal with the mat ters to which the court should give consideration in dealing with a variation of a Custody Order and states that the court shall give first consideration to the wel fare of the child, regardless of the wishes or interests of any persons seeking or opposing the variation, and treat the question of custody as of paramount impor tance and the question of access or visitation as of secondary importance. In dealing with that principle, Mr.

Speaker, and in view of the questions in the past that I've placed to the Minister of Community Services, I would use this opportunity to impress upon him those principles in dealing with custody of children, which is appropriate also to the question of adoption. He should read that

Section very clearly and very carefully, Mr. Speaker, that first consideration must be given to the welfare of the child, regardless of the wishes or interests of any person seeking or opposing the variation. So, Mr. Speaker, when he talks about two sides to the question of adoption, I tell him again there is only one side and this is what must be given first considera tion.

When you have as of three weeks ago some 60 children being placed in institutions or foster homes and moved from one institution or foster home to another when there are people available who could provide those children with as some of the people have indicated and described as loving and caring homes, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the principle the Minister must operate on. I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that he would use this principle in dealing with this whole question of the moratorium and in view of the delay that is taking place with respect to Judge Kimelman's Report, that he would seriously consider this principle, deal with the whole question of these at least 60 children. deal with them on this basis and ensure that they are in a happy, caring, loving home and that they are given first consideration and not the wishes or interests of persons who are seeking or opposing that. I would urge him to do that. Mr.

Speaker, and in doing so I want to make it clear again for the record if there are proposals that can be developed that will allow for an increase in the number of Native persons to come forward to adopt Native children, then I sup port that. I support anything that can be done to deal with that problem. In the interim, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that these children can be, as the Execu tive Director of the Children's Aid Society said, placed on a shelf waiting for the Minister to make a decision. Mr.

Speaker, I must point out that the principle on which a variation must be dealt with is somewhat amended and I'm not saying that critically, but an exce ption is allowed where a court is satisfied that a child would suffer serious harm if the child remained in or was restored to the custody of the person named in a Custody Order. The court may vary the Order so that there is adequate discretion, Mr. Speaker, to allow the court to act in the best interest of the child, even if there is no real and substantial connection with the Province of Manitoba by the child.

Where the applicant can show serious harm, then the court will have that discretion to deal with a variation. Again, I think that is a codification of the case law on this subject matter and I think is a very acc urate reflection of it and a good provision to have in this Act. Mr. Speaker, there are given to the court some pow ers and some additional powers, as the Attorney General indicated previously, which I think will help the court to a great degree in enforcing the orders of the court. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker. for example in

Section 6(

e) and I stand to be corrected by the Attorney-General, certainly I haven't seen a case where the court ordered payment of the cost of rea sonable travel and other expenses. It may be the case, but in any event, Mr. Speaker , I think that's a good provision because of the impecunious circumstances that one of the spouses in these situations can find themselves in. Even if a person had Legal Aid, for ex ample, I'm not sure that Legal Aid would cover that kind of expense. I commend the bill for having that additional power in it, Mr. Speaker. · 3721 As the Attorney-General indicated, I think in a ques tion I asked of him after he introduced the bill with respect to

Section 9, there are Orders made at this time which allow or under which the court orders police officers to assist the applicant who has obtained the Court Order in enforcing that Order and going with the applicant to locate, apprehend and deliver the child to a person named in the Order. I think quite correctly as the Attorney-General indicated, it's not always done, it's not always included and certainly I think he's right on this point, that the police do not particularly like to involve themselves in these family situations, Mr. Speaker.

I think this kind of direction is needed because they have to get involved in these situations. They can be very dangerous situations, Mr. Speaker. I certainly have seen situations where one of the spouses has arranged for so-c alled friends to be available or on the premises and the party with the Order has been threa tened and has been literally afraid of his or her own life to attempt to go and take the children. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think the power to direct the police officers in that jurisdiction to assist the appli cant in enforcing that Order is a good one and the Act imposes a duty upon a peace officer to do all things reasonably able to be done. It may very well be in something the Attorney-General may want to con sider in his discussions with the RCMP and with, per haps, the Chief of the City of Winnipeg Police Force, those being the two main police forces in Manitoba to have some discussion with them on this question.

I believe that the police forces have tried over the last few years to give special training to some of their constables to deal with these difficult family situa tions. Mr. Speaker, it might be worthwhile for the Attorney-General or his department to have some discussion with them to particularly bring this matter to their attention and to the atten tic:i of all other police

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 forces in Man itoba The y migh t, in deed, give some consi derat ion to some special trai ning for constable s to deal with this situa tion, because maybe it's not special tr aining th at's necessary but cert ainly pa tienc e and un derst anding of the di fficult emotional situation is necessary for policeman to adequa tely deal with this situation. I think, Mr . Sp eaker, the power of entr y and search in this situa tion, gi ven the seriou sness of the situation, is one which is necessary. In some of the situations, Mr .

Speaker, ther e are parties in volved who will go to al most any extreme to keep cus tody of the childr en which the y have and in tho se situations this ma y very well be a power tha t will be necessary to be used in,s ome of these extreme situa tions. I ju st want to make a comment, I'm not being criti cal, Mr . Speaker, in the follo wing Sec tions 9(5) ther e is a lim ita tion on the tim e of entry, between the hour s of 8:00 a.m. and 8:0 0 p.m. unle ss the cou rt, in the Or der, auth ori zed entr y and search at another ti me. So we have a situa tion, Mr . Speaker, wh ere un der

Section 9(4), a peace officer on reaso nable and probable grounds may enter and search a place where he ha s reaso nable and pr ob able grounds for believing a child may be, then we have a lim ita tion on th at entr y and search to be between the hour s of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. un less the cour t, in the Or der, autho rized entr y and search at another time. Mr .

Sp eaker, this points out, I think, the ju stification for the pr ogram which we have in Mani toba where the Attorney-General's Department will provide couns el, Cr own Atto rne ys, to assist in enf orcement of Cu stody Or ders, beca use we migh t very well ha ve a situation where th ere is an Or der for Cu stody made, but at the time of makin g ther e was no concern about obt aining cus tody, so the court may not have order ed or al lowed in the Order police to en ter the pr em ises at other than hour s between 8:0 0 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

But I think with our pr ogram in Ma n itoba by pr ovi ding Cr own Attor neys to assist in enforcement and virtually having them avai lable al mo st on a 24-hour basis, I certai nly don't think it's req uir ed, but the y are the kind of loyal, aggr essive and eager Crown Attorneys in volved in this matter that time would no t be a particular prob lem. I don't think. with them. It 's crucial, Mr .

Sp eaker, tha t happen because I have seen many si tua tions dur ing the past four years wh ere in other pr ovir ,ces a person from Man itoba was trying to enf orce a Cu s tody Or der and none of the other provinc es fol lo w our system of provi ding Crown Cou nsel, Mr . Speaker. I kno w of one par ticula r in stance, and it may have been brought to the att ention of the Attorney-General. wher e a spouse had the kno wledge of whe re the child was for a very limi ted period of ti me.

Because the Atto rney-General's Department in tha t other province would no t assis t tha t spouse in the enforcement of the Cu stody Or de r. ther e wasn't sufficient time to react and reta in priv ate cou nsel to assist and by the tim e that was done, the child had been rem oved again from the ju risdic ti on. Th at par ticu lar case, I think, got some national publi city la ter on. It was another couple of years, I think, before tha t whole situation was resolved. Mr .

Sp eaker, we use that as an exa mple in talk ing to other provi nces because, if the y had pr ovided a Crown Attorney, custody would have been reg ained at that moment in tim e some two years prior to when it 3722 was actually and even tually res olved. So, Mr .

Speaker , with our program of provi ding a Crown Attorney, if it come s to the kn owledge of the Crown Attorney, th at this sort of an applic ation will be necessary to a cour t to obta in auth ority to enter the prem ises at other than betwee n the hour s of 8:0 0 a.m. and 8:0 0 p.m., which could very well happen, somebody who has taken the childr en may be drivin g thr ough the city and stopped at a motel for the evening with the childr en, in ten ding to mov e on the next morn ing, ther e has to be prompt action taken. With our pr ogram, Mr .

Sp eaker, the Crown Attorne y would be available im med iately to ass ist the spouse who is att empting to enf orce a Cu s tody Order could make an applic ation to the cour t to obtain permission for the police to enter and search and cou ld obtain custody. So, Mr . Speaker, I think this provision in Meni toba will work satisfact orily. I think ther e may be some danger because of the lack of enforcement or lack of ass istance from Attorney-General's Department in other provi nces th at this provision may im pose some di fficu lty for someone tr ying to enf or ce a custody order. Th ere are, in addition, Mr .

Sp eaker, additional borders tha t the cour t may re quir e wher e the cour t is satisfied th at a person pr op oses to move a child from Man itoba, and I think those are good ones and cer tainly would make it much mo re difficult and pr ovide at least some deterrent to a person who in tends to take tha t action when the cour t can order tha t the pr op erty be held or order payments or post bonds without su reties or maintain the perso n's passport or chi ld ren's passpor ts. Th ose are good provisions, Mr . Speaker .

Th ere are pro visions with respect to ob tai ning in format ion as to add resses which, again, deals with a very practical problem, Mr . Speaker, of tr ying to ge t in forma tion tha t is available in govern ment regulator y bodie s, but without specific access to it cannot be attai ned, and it's a di ffi cult qu est ion to deal with, Mr . Sp eaker, because in socie ty toda y we're very con cerned that reg ula tor y bod ies, pr ivate agencies, hav e a gr eat deal of in formation on people in our socie ty.

On the one hand we're very cautious and con cerned tha t the in formation is not used recklessly and without due regard to the int erest of the person about whom the y have tha t in forma t ion, but we do have some of the se situations, Mr . Speaker , wh ere people are de lib erately flouting the law, whether it be in the area of tr ying to avoid payment of mai ntenanc e, Mr . Sp eaker, or in this case where they are trying to avo id agr eeing to a Cu stody Or der and flou ting the cou rt and the law of this land. Th ese ar e situations, Mr .

Sp eaker, wh ere I supp ort this kind of pro vision which would allow a party to obt ain this in formation from any per son or public body to att emp t to deal with the se very, very serious situations. It 's only in the se kinds of situations of cou rse, Mr . Speaker, wh ere we would ag ree to the use of this in formation in this way. The Attorney-General, in closing debate later on, Mr . Sp eak er, migh t ind icate the stat us of our request to the Federal Min ister of Ju stice to pass legislation which might make some of the federal in forma tion avai lable. Mr .

Sp eaker, I know at one time I achie ved a com mi tment from Sena tor Flynn, the Mini ster of Ju s tice in the Clark Gov ernment, tha t he would bring forth tha t kind of legislation which would al low in for-

Wednesday, 30 June, 1982 mation from federal reg ula tory bodie s and depar t me nts to be made avai lable for the pu rpose of enfor cement of Cus tody Or der s and Mai ntenance Or der s and I'm not sure th at ha s been passed. I think the present Min ister of Ju stice, Mr . Chr etien, was sympa the tic to that requ est but I would be inter ested to know the stat us of tha t par ticular requ est and whether or not ther e's any in tention of the Federal Gov ernment to pass leg isla tion making tha t in forma tion avail able.

I'm glad to see tha t the Sec tion 13 (4) of this Act binds the Crown, in the right of Ma ni toba, to provide this in formation. Mr . Sp eaker. Th ere ar e, in addition, powers of the cou rt to pun ish, by fine or im prisonment, a person for contempt, for res istance, to the pr ocess or or ders of the cour t and I think th ose again ar e req ui red in the se situations to enforce these im portant Cu stody Or ders. Mr .

Sp eaker, the Act also goes on to deal with the Haig Convention on the Civil Aspects of In terna tional Child Abduc tion and agai n, Mani toba is a leader. cer ta inly in Canada. in having more ag reement s for mor e reci procal arrangements with mor e other provi nces, states and countr ies. and I think cert ainly mor e than any other pro vinc e in Canada. I think tha t acti vit y is conti nuing; I cert ainly hope it is, Mr . Sp eaker. as this pr ovince deals with thi s qu estion as a very high prior ity and as a leader in this par ticula r field.

I cong ratula te the Attorney -Ge neral in bringing forward this legisla tion which we had asked to be dr afted last fa ll and we on thi s side certai nly will sup port thi s legisla tion and will encou rage and sup port the Atto rney-Gener al in any other steps that he may wish to take to help solve this most difficult and serious pr oblem that so many people in our society are un dergo ing and find thems el ves in, Mr .

Sp eaker, all of course with the objective of hoping that the cou rts in our socie ty will act to pr otect the best in ter est of the childr en. the victims of the se ever inc reasing numb er of separati ons and di vorces th at are ta king pla ce. Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honour able Member for Mo rris. MR. C. MANNESS: I move. seco nded by the Mem ber for Em erso n, tha t debate be adjo urned. MOTION presented and carried. HON. R. PENNER: It is 12 :30, Mr . Sp eaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The time bei ng 12: 30, the Ho use is accord in gly adjourne d and will sta nd adjourned un til 2:0 0 p.m. this af ternoon. 3723

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-87a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 87a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e9bd304a59be0c7b4b9c1cc40b31799cf54cd896

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