Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 December 1977 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 3, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-la3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Le gislative Assembl y of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMMENDMENTS Chairman Mr. Wally McKenzie Constituency of Roblin Friday, December 9, 1977, 8:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie-Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Time: 8:00 p.m. Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MR.CHAIRMAN: Mr. J. Wally McKenzie (Roblin). Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. Ms. Bernice Sister. MS. BERNICE SISLER: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am appearing on behalf of the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, a non-partisan organization set up originally under the Conservative government of the day to make recommendations to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Since that time, MACSW has worked to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

That is why we are here today, why we have submitted briefs on the Family Law at each opportunity afforded the public, and why we support the coalition on Family Law. Our position with regard to the Family Maintenance Act and the Marital Property Act is that the legislation should be implemented as proclaimed, and that amendments should be made through the normal amending procedure, as is done for other laws. We believe that the new family law goes a long way toward rectifying the injustices women have suffered because their contributions have not had the recognition they deserve.

We believe that a law based on equality will enhance marriage, that the best marriages are those in which partners may have different roles, but roles which are recognized to have equal value. We believe that the struggle to improve the status of women is not a battle of the sexes, not a problem for women only. We believe that it is a further step towards a full democratization of our society. We note that Bill No. 5 suspends the Family Maintenance Act and defers the Marital Property Act. We also note that no time is specified for their re-enactment or for the introduction of other legislation in their stead.

The laws came about through a democratic process, one in which the people of Manitoba indicated a need for change. Our present laws are based on common law of feudal England, when women were the property of their father, and they then became property of husbands. In 1929, the Privy Council declared that women were persons. I think that in that time, nearly 50 years later, it is now time for the laws to recognize this change, that women are no longer property, they are persons.

In the democratic process that took place with regard to these laws, opportunity was provided for all to be involved, and have input along with sufficient time to do so. We responded to the working paper of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, to the report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, to the committee set up to hear the responses to the Manitoba Law Reform Commission; we attended the sessions where the committee studied the report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, and we made presentations when the legislation was presented to the Law Amendments Committee, and here we are again.

In a democracy, the people indicate the need for laws, or for amendment to laws. Legislators, as yourself, enact the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. lt appears to us that one interest group is undermining this democratic process. A group of lawyers, most of whom were not present during this long democratic process I have just outlined, some of whom appeared at the final hearing. The majority of the latter group indicated that the law should be implemented despite the difficulties they presented when they were challenged in this regard.

When we have asked for specific reasons for delay in implementing the laws, we have found two things: First, that the reasons given are not as insurmountable as they are made out to be. For example, in the area of tax difficulties. The problem raised with respect to Income Tax and the sharing of commercial assets, is not something that's insurmountable. If the commercial assets are shared with husband and wife, this does not constitute a sale of property, it's only a transfer. it's not a disposition for gain, so surely capital gains aren't applicable here.

Then we say that there's the problem with the federal government, that the laws of the federal �overnment don't jibe with the provincial laws. Gentlemen, who's going to start the ball in motion? !\re we going to wait for the federal government to do this, or are we going to initiate, make the step hat brings in the laws, and make the federal government respond to change the tax laws and bring �quity? lt would be political suicide, wouldn't it, for the federal government not to respond to this, to nake a change in the Income Tax laws if this province passed equal sharing legislation.

Then we have the problem of pensions. This was raised as a problem too. I have a communication rom the Attorney-General which I found in the mail when I went home, and this is another problem hat's listed, the problem with the pension. I'm not a pension expert, but I understand that a way of toing this is to have the pensions evaluated, split, and registered, just as the Canada Pension Plan !I lows, and if this is allowable under the Canada Pension Plan, surely this can be allowable under 1rivate pension plans. There shouldn't be the great deal of difficulty that's brought up in this case.

Another point that the letter from the Attorney-General points out is that the legislation appears to I iscou rage attempts at reconci I iation of spouses who are I ivi ng separate and apart on or prior to M ay ,th. Well, quite frankly, I don't think the legislation is going to either effect or encourage a separation. don't think that's relevant to this at all. I think the reconciliation goes on because two people want it ) go on, irregardless of what the law says.

And also, a spouse may obtain an Order of Separation nder the Family Maintenance Act without any reasons or grounds, and then require the other pouse to join in an accounting and equalization of the commercial assets under the Marital Property 49

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 Act. I don't think these two things are related at all. I think they're separate things and I can't see that one necessarily follows logically from the other, and that there is an inter-relationship between the two. I have question marks opposite those, because I can't figure out what the point of that is. Now, so much for the problems raised as being insurmountable. I think that I won't begin to attempt to list any more. I think Ms. Steinbart indicated to you practically every single problem that has been raised and gave a very logical response to the problems.

The other thing we find that happens when we say why are laws to be delayed - we find that the people who are protesting are not fully informed about the law, or about the report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, and they find this quite embarrassing if you challenge them on the details. Last weekend I was in a confrontative situation with a lawyer, who said to me, "There is no judicial discretion in the Marital Property Act." I had just checked this, and said to him, "Have you read the act?" Well, he flannelled on that one, and I said, "I'd like you to go home and get

Section 37{1) and {2). " And you know, even when you say this to people who are lawyers, they simply don't believe that anybody outside the legal profession knows anything about

an Act. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it, but I know that

Section 37{1) and {2) make room for judicial discretion under the Marital Property Act. I can't think that there's any other

interpretation of that. We frankly, because of this, wonder about the sort of opposition that we're hearing. it's our experience often, that people who are down on a subject are usually not up on it. And this would seem to be the case for many who are vocal in opposition to this law. We frankly feel very little confidence in the possibility of the presentation of a law that is better technically than the proclaimed laws.

Conflicting statements about what the laws say are made daily by people who are reputed to be well versed in the law. it's like economists, you hear one lawyer say one thing, and another lawyer say another thing. it's very difficult to know whom to believe. We do not have confidence that the difficulties will be changed by delaying the implementation of the law. We believe that the law ought not to be delayed because there is a genuine urgency for its implementation. Injustices inherent in existing laws have gone on long enough.

The time has come and the time is now for laws to be enacted which recognize equality between marriage partners. The time has come and the time is now for laws which recognize the economic value of work done in the home. The time has come and the time is now for laws to be enacted which recognize that fault is irrelevant to the assessment of maintenance payments which should be based on need and the ability to pay. Manitoba was the first province to give women the vote. Let Manitoba be the first province to bring in equitable family law. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam. Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: I have a few questions I would like to direct to you. Firstly, I didn't know the origin of your organization. You say it was formed by the Conservative government? MS. SISLER: lt was formed in 1967 as a committee to bring in recommendations to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and the Conservative government at the time asked Thelma Forbes, who was Minister of Municipal Affairs, I believe, at that time, to set up the committee and this "Was done. We recently had our 10-year anniversary and I was in touch with Mrs.

Forbes who got me the addresses and so on for the women who were originally on the committee. Subsequent to the publication of the report, the committee became an action committee to bring in the recommen dations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. MR. CHERNIACK: I hope you feel that at the end of ten years, you could report success to your members. MS. SISLER: Yes, it would be nice to do that, particularly in this area which is so close to us. A lot has been improved, it's true, but since we had a long way to go ... MR. CHERNIACK: When is your anniversary? When is the tenth anniversary? MS.

SISLER: Oh, it has passed. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the gist of it. No, we had it in October. MR. CHERNIACK: if you were going to have it in the next couple of months, you might have tc report differently. How are you structured? MS. SISLER: Well, it's a membership organization. We pay membership. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh, I see. MS. SISLER: We're not funded in any way. MR. CHERNIACK: Ms. Sisler, you've given an indication that you're familiar with the briefs and th1 discussions that took place at the law reform and at the intersessional committee of the legislature and in the committee last year during the session.

That is three separate groups of meetings, and 50

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 want to address you in the light of the fact that I'm not aware of one member of the Conservative party present today who participated , or was present as an active person, in any of those last three meetings. I want to ask you, really, for the benefit of those who have not had the opportunity that some of us have had of living through this experience with you, to -( Interjecti on)- Dying through the? ...

No, I found it invigorating .. . to ask you to reflect again on your statement that you feel that there was only one interest group that showed that they were not in support of this. When you said that, I wondered if it was right. Could you reflect, who do you recall that was really giving an opposition to the . . . MS. SISLER: Well, excuse me. I don't recall during the process a group being in opposition as a "group.

" What my point was, I think, was that subsequent, at the very end rather, at the last hearings, it just seemed that all of a sudden lawyers seemed to appear from everywhere and make their presentations that they weren't in on the process and everything seemed to be very negative in this regard and with due respect this is not all lawyers , a group of a group of lawyers. And of course, we're very concerned about this meeting of 500 who seem to be regarded as the fountain of wisdom or something, that that's where all the solutions to our problems are going to lie.

I might say that I myself, as well as being involved in organizations, I have made my own presentations at every stage of the game, have ended up with a submission to the review committee myself and this takes considerable time and effort and in so doing, you become more and more familiarwith the problems and it's a long hard struggle.

But I feel that this group of lawyers who have become "The 500," as they're called, when you get down to this, they certainly are not 500 people who are in agreement on this. lt seems that this was a session at which they had kind of a workshop on the legalities and it's just atstounding some of the things that one hears came out of that group. I'm afraid that perhaps some of the people who were managing the workshop either weren't familiar with what the law said or else they had some ulterior motive.

Of course, my feeling about the motive is that basically what I fear, as an individual-! won't say this for the action committee- what I fear is that they really basically can't face up to the recognition of marriage as an equal partnership or to the recognition of sharing my money. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm under the impression that there was no resolution adopted by that session that you refer to. Do you think that anybody has spoken in opposition to these laws as a representative of the an organized group of any kind? Or as individuals? MS.

SISLER: Well, I think as we find out more about it, it seems to be as you asked a question, I believe it was you this afternoon, about Mr. Mercury's statement. MR. CHERNIACK: No, it was Mr. Pawley. MS. SISLER: Someone else did - whom did he represent? My reading of the paper led me to believe that he represented the Bar Association. You'll excuse me if I get the different associations confused, I'm not familiar with them. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes. We're going to try and find out whom he did represent, but I don't want to take you too long in that direction.

The impression that the Attorney-General and the Premier have tried to give is that there is no basic quarrel with the principles of the law but that what they want to do is to make it more workable in that they feel that there are .. . well, that it's a dog's breakfast, if I may quote the Premier, and it's just a question of straightening out the d raftsmansh i p. Assuming that that is the fact, are you not prepared to wait six months or eight months for them to do that correction of draftsmanship, and carry on? MS. SISLER: Yes, I think I am prepared.

Heaven knows we've waited long enough now, what's another six months if that's what it's to be. I think our concern is about the review committee. I think this is our basic concern in this regard. We would feel reassured if we knew when the legislation was to be brought in and what the technical difficulties are. We will be watching this of course and if in the course of the study, we get a better law, fine. This is fine. We are apprehensive because of the composition of that review committee. MR.

CHERNIACK: The Attorney-General, when he introduced this bill for second reading, said hopefully it would be brought in to the next session. But when he closed debate, he said, "lt will be brought in the next session," so that you have some kind of recorded assurance that it'll be done. Do you feel apprehensive that the principles may be varied from what they are in the present law? MS. SISLER: I can only say that we'll have to wait and see. I can't get rid of the feeling that I had, personally again, when I read Mr.

Houston's submission, and when I realized that he is the person appointed to the review committee. I certainly hope the principles won't be diluted. As we have gone nound and talked to cabinet ministers, we've had their reassurance that they will not be diluted and I :ake them at their word. I certainly accept that, so we're very hopeful that they won't be diluted. 51

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MR. Ct1ERNIACK: Do you have reason to believe that they will not adversely challenge the concept of no-fault in maintenance. MS. SISLER: I myself believe that no-fault probably will be challenged, yes. And that disturbs me greatly. I think that would be a sad thing if fault were to be reintroduced. MR. CHERNIACK: What about the equal distribution of commercial assets? MS. SISLER: Well, I'm a firm believer that the increased value during the course of the marriage should be shared equally. MR.

CHERNIACK: Do you feel confident that that principle will not be adversely challenged. MS. SISLER: I know of instances where people will uphold this. I think we can only wait and see. I think it depends on the consensus of Cabinet. I can't say that, I don't think any of /y. Hopefully can. I think that's the rea lit of both the no fault and the sharing of t he commercial assets acquired during the marriage will be in the new legislation. MR.

CHERNIACK: Well would it be helpful to you and to your concerned, if you had the assurances before this present act is passed, to the extent that there will be a continuation of these principles and and the others that are in the act. MS. SISLER: We have said, as we have been speaking to the different cabinet ministers and backbenchers that we would like the assurance of the Premier in this. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Ms. Sisler. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Ms.

Sisler, I wonder if in your meetings with cabinet ministers and M LA's whether you received any indication on what I believe you would agree to be an important principle, and that is in relationship to unilateral opting out, if you received any indication that that would be . MS. SISLER: Kept in. We have as I recall one MR. PAWLEY: Not kept in but kept out. MS. SISLER: Oh, unilateral opting out. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm thinking retroactivity. No I don't believe we've gone into a lengthy discussion on that. No.

And that is no I'm not saying that they haven't gone along with this, it's simply that, as I recall, that was not one of the things that we discussed at length . . MR. PAWLEY: Did you receive any indication in connection with the equal division of commercial assets? MS. SISLER: Yes, I think that was support for equal division of commercial assets from several of the ministers that we met. MR. PAWLEY: I'd like to just ask, as I asked some earlier groups - did you participate in the demonstration on November the 28th? MS. SISLER: Yes, I did, and I do not belong to the NDP party. I'm sorry, Mr.

Pawley, but it's a fact. MR. PAWLEY: That was the information I wanted in view of the fact that there's been some counter suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, there's just one or two brief questions that come to mind that I'd like to raise with Mrs. Sisler, but I gathered from your remarks- you said that the concern that you have and that the members of t he organization have really centres on the Review Committee that was established and the personnel that occupy it.

If I could be so blunt, would your concerns be allayed, or appeased if, in fact, the composition of that committee was cbanged, and Mr. Houston was removed, someone else was put on, that you would feel it would be more open, or acceptable, or interested, or objective about what should happen? MS. SISLER: Yes, I think that there would be a great deal of good feeling if that were to happen. !, a1 52

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 one po int, sugg ested that I think that a very good thing would be to have someone who is not locked into the famil y law as it is now on the comm ittee, someone with a different perspective - it could be a lawyer, it cou ld be as some one suggested this afternoon, a lay person in this regard - to bring a different perspective to it.

My concern is that we have three people here who are lawyers practicing in the area of fami ly law, and they're locked into the system that is, so their perspectives - I think that they were clearly outli ned this afternoon how they perceive things to be, and it's very di,ticult to get new ideas across, - this is a very different kind of concept than has previously existed in law, this recognition of the work done in the home of eq ual partnership, and so on. it's a compl etely different game from the protection - I li ke to refer to it as the protection racket - but the protection that women have been un der in the past.

You kno w, it's a comple tely different concept. So we would feel better, yes, if someone of a different focus were put on this comm ittee, and I think, when Mr. Houston commen ts on equality, on judic ial discretion, on no change needed in the law - wel l, you could go on and on and document this - I have it docu mented there but won' t go over it for you -I think that we have cause to be alarmed when this is the man - he says he's no draftsman. What is he there for, it he is not there to draft the law? What is he there for? I hope he doesn't have in put into the meat of the law. MR.

AXWORTHY: So, jus t then taking it the next step further, would you or your organization prepare to withdraw your opposition to Bill 5, or at least take a wait-and-see attitude if, in fact, that review commit tee had different people on it, people whom you had a greaterd egreeof trust in, or felt that they would bring a different focus, as you say, or a different perspective to it, so that a lot of the particu lar kinds of anxie ties and oppositions that we're now hearing woul d be alla yed if, in fact, that one simpl e step was taken. Is that a correct judgment on my part? MS.

SISLER: I can't presume to speak tor an organization, and I'm sur e you can appreciate that in my position here. it's a new idea that, you kno w, the gr oup would have to discuss. lt would be presumptuous of me to speak for them, but my own feeling would be yes, very definitely, that would make a great deal of difference it that were to happen. MR. AXWORTHY: We ll, perhaps we've made some prog ress in other areas. Perhaps we can look at that. I' d lik e to ask another qu estion, Mrs. Sis ler.

After the bill was passed - the Family Property and Maintenance Bi lls last spring - did the organ ization go back and take a look at it once it was passed and review it to determine if and where you mi ght have seen weakn esses in it you rselves, and came up with any con clu sions on it? MS. SISLER: Well, we were certainl y examining it and made presentation at the time of the Law Amendmen ts Comm ittee ... MR. AXWORTHY: Yes , I remember that. MS. SISLER: And, for examp le, we feel that one of the areas that's been neglected is the area of maintenance payments. That's the large one that comes to mi nd.

You know, we certainly had other suggestions about it, yes. And we have been studying it again now. MR. AXWORTHY: Has there been any attempt to take a look atthe bill and apply it to specific cases or situations so to determ ine how workable or effective it migh t have been un der those circu mstances? MS. SISLER: No, we haven't really had time to do that.

I think with the summer sess ion and then the elec tion and then the quick sort of way this has happened, and having to present a brief to the Review Comm ittee and having to prepare submis sions to go to Cabi net minis ters and to backbenchers, and to do this has really occu pied, as you can appreciate, a great deal of our time. Unfortunately, you know, we do not have secretaries at work, nor do we have wives at home. MR. AXWORTHY: We ll, I share with you the first part of the proble m. MS. SISLER: Well, you 're one up on me, because I don' t have a wife at home. MR. AXWORTHY: Right. That's enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any more qu estions tor the witness? I thank you , Ms. Sisler. Thank you for your presentation. Mrs. Good win. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I would lik e to ju st ask a few qu estions because you ind icated that you feel thatthere :o uld be much changes in the mai ntenance payments, that there was some suggestion that the )Ublic guarantee any judgme nt against a husband tor maintenance payments. Is that the kind of ;uggestion that you're contempla ting. 53

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MS. SISLER: I believe that was a sugge stion by the Action Coalition at one point, that a way of doing this was to perhaps guarantee the amoun t that's paid through welfare. Rather than call it welfare, it would be granted as just a right, and it would dispense with that stigma. MR. GREEN: I'm happy to hear that. I think that that is very sensible.

I had gathered that what the suggestion was, is that the government guarantee the maintenance payment no ma tter what the figure was, but what you'r e sug gesting is that a maintenance payment, that the minimum, that is the amount that would be paid if the woman was on social assistance, be guaranteed, but it not be called welfare, it be ca l1 ed the state's obligation vis a vis the maintenance payment. MS. SISLER: I don' t want you, Mr. Green , as a lawyer to hold me to

chapter and verse in this regard. I am saying that my recollect ion of this is this, and that we felt that that was one way perhaps of doing it. I think there're are other ways of im plementing coll ection of maintenance across the cou ntry. Someone sugge sted at one point that, for example, your Social In sur ance numb er could be coded or colou red to indic ate that part of your wage was eo-opted, or whatever, for payment. That's another way that has been sugge sted.

I believe that at one time I was in corresp on dence with you years ago about a woman who was in a dreadful state because of non payment, and in the cour se of this, that came out as a possible solution for the coll ection of her maintenance payments. I think there' re many ways to effect inter-provinc ial agreements and this sort of thing. MR.

GREEN: Well, I certainly welcome any ideas along that line as to offering better means of coll ecting or facilities between one province and another, and whether you wish to be held lega lly to it or not, I am happy to hear that your sug gestion is not that the state guarantee whatever the payment is that is ordered by the court, but that the state gu arantee the kind of money that would be available to other people who were not being maintained, and that what you r real thrust here is that there be more effective proced ures for enfor cing the maintenance payments. MS. SISLER: I think that's the point, yes. MR.

GREEN: Thank you. MS. SISLER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Good win. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this would be a good occasion for my motion to be dealt with, as I agreed with Mr . Jor genson that we should lay it over un til this ev ening. If this is a good occasion, shall I introduce it? Well, Mr. Chairman, we know that there is a commit tee that has been appoi nted, consisting of three lawyers who've been instructed, apparently, to prepare sugges ted amendments to the existing legislation in order to make it ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der. I must apologize to the commit tee. I promis ed Mrs.

Goodwin- she has an appoi ntment ... MR. CHERNIACK: Oh su re. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we hear her brief and then you can raise the motion. MR. CHERNIACK: Of cou rse, of cou rse. MRS. GOODWIN: There's no problem. My appoi ntment has been changed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, it has. Ok ay, we'll hear your brief, and then we'll have Mr. Chern iack': motion. I promis ed Mrs. Good win. MR. CHERNIA CK: That's qu ite alright. MRS. GOODWIN: Thank you, Mr . Chairman and members.

On behalf of the Provincial Counc il a Women of Man itoba, I would li ke to express concern over the delay of the family law legi sla tion, Bi No. 5 Firstly, we find the manner in which this sub ject is being dealt with of prime concern. Those wh are addressing themselves to the sub ject are approaching the famil y law leg islation as being th culprit, which is creating all kin ds of dreadful problems. I sugge st that this is a truly negativ approach.

Laws are form ulated to reflect the values of a society. lt has been clearly demons trated i the past that most people look up on their marital rela tionship as a partnership. This leg islatia reflected that concept of partnership, and, in addition, it serves to giv e mean ing to the religious vo 111 54

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 many of us have exchanged, and/or reinforces the contract which we have agreed to. And as a point of interest, to refresh your memories as to what the vows are - from the Solemnization of the Matrimony Ceremony in the Prayer Book, The Common Prayer Book, which is customar ily used for the Christian services, the male makes the vow that "With this ring, I thee wed; with my body, I thee honour ; and all my world ly goods with thee I share." May I sugge st that there is no mention in that vow about whether or not comme rcial assets will be inclu ded.

The family law legisla tion is a good law, and the problem is not the family law. I sug gest that we deal with the real cul prit, the obstacle, which appears to be the federal In come Tax Act. Whil e the pu rpose of taxation is to raise reve nue, at the same time the man ner of taxing ind ividuals relates to the way our leg islators perceive the taxpayers to be, and presently the taxpayers are percei ved to be as one, which interferes with the prospect of partnership in marriage when deal ing with fiscal matters.

As a point of in terest, in 1967 the Carter Report on Taxation recommended the taxation of the family as a uni t- obviously a very progressive idea at that time. Tue cur e li es in this government working towards the el imina tion of all discrim inatory aspects in the In come Tax Act by pressuring the federal government to make the necessary amendments. This action will be timely because many other provinces are presently formu lating family law leg isla tion.

In the interim, as a short term solution, the provincia l government should al low this leg islation to proceed in amended form, dealing with all assets as deferred com mun ity, thus remov ing the immedi ate tax problem. When the federal In come Tax Act is amended, and hopefully that will be in time for the next spring sess ion of the legislature, the concept of ins tant sharing cou ld once again be reintroduced into this legisl ation. For those people who have a fear that the imple mentation of this leg isla tion will serve as a personal loss, provincial cou nsel sugge st that it will be society's gain.

This leg islation will serve to give mean ing to the institution of marriage. On reflecting over the events of the past t'wo months, I would sug gest that prior to the election the members of the provi ncial government, or the prov incial cou nsel were of the un derstandin g that a Cons ervative government would allo w this le gislation to stand, and would not hold it up in its imple mentation . Provi ncial Counci l felt that the committee hearings held dur ing the past year afforded the citizens of this provinc e adequate oppor tu nity to exp ress their concerns about the leg islatio n.

This partici pation by the pub lic exemplified democracy at its very best - democr acy, that form of government in which the supr eme power rests with the people , rulin g themselves either directly or indir ectly through representatives, A bra ham Li ncol n's appropriate phrase "of the people, for the peo ple, by the people." I present this brie f on behalf of the Provi ncial Counci l of Women of Man itoba, with representation of approxim ately 40,000 women within this province. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Go odwi n. Mr . Mercier . MR. MERCIER: Mrs.

Go odwin, do I take it ,rom your remarks, forgetting the tax impl ications, that you don't feel the immed iate vest ing of family assets is of any benefit? MRS. GOODWIN: The immed iate ves ting of family assets is any benefit . MR. MERCIER: ... is of any real benefit to spous es? MRS.

GOODWIN: Wha t I have suggested is that it is desirable to have the instant sharing concept, but at this immed iate time it's not possi ble because of In come Tax implic ations, so therefore to eradicate the immediate problem and allo w the leg islation to proceed tomorrow or next week, if you so desire, you can make the necessary amendments and apply the deferred commu nity concept to all assets and thus create a tax situation which is not dissimila r from the tax implic ations that exist at the present moment. MR.

MERCIER: Has your organization had someo ne with any expertise in taxation render this opin ion to you? MRS. GOODWIN: My organization hasn't; I have had a personal in terest. Free legal advice, I might add, over a period of years. -(1 nterjection)-1 speak for myse lf. I' ve worked it through and I woul dn't pretend to be an expert, but I certainl y un derstand that the deferred commu nity would be the answer at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pla ce Mrs.

Goodwin in an awkward pos ition, but let me ju st ind icate that I have considerable confi denc e in that same tax exper t that you've referred to, and I assume that the tax views that you exp ressed here, you had discussed with that same authority and he endor sed the sug gestion that you had made to us. 55

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MRS. GOODWIN: This is not a new sug gestion. lt 's some thing that I' ve been fa mil iar with, the prospect of the probl em, and if you could refer to our previous briefs from Provi ncial Cou ncil, you will note that we alw ays referred to the concept of deferred commu nity as be ing the pol icy for our cou ncil. MR. PAWLEY: Relati ng back to Mr. Me rcier's statement, however, when tax situation would be corrected, you would prefer to see family assets immedi ately vested as they are in the present. leg isla tion. MRS.

GOODWIN: I have concerns about the means in which you can leg isla te and enforce instant sharing, because in order to make it apply, i you have a spouse who's not willing to comply , you're going to hav to take it through the normal legal processes, and I think that this wou ld certainl y pla ce a marriage in jeopardy. But I do sug gest that any legis lati on, whether it be taxation, and I can relate to the Suc cess ion and Gift Du ty Acts themselves, they dis crimina te against the possibili ties of instant sharing, if a cou ple so desi re.

So there should always be the encou ragement by any legi slation that within marriage we encour age and app rove of the con cept of instant sharing if that is so desired. MR. PAWLEY: Mrs. Goodwin, I was rather interested in your remark that dur ing the election campaign, the Provi ncial Counci l of Women had received an impression from the Cons ervative Party - that this leg islation would be permi tted to continue through. I wonder if you would expand as to why - you had felt, as an organization, assu red by the Cons ervative Party? MRS.

GOODWIN: Wel l, you know, with all due respect to the party in qu estion, out of curio sity for our own members - maybe cu riosity isn't qui te the right word to use - we felt that it was important that our members, because we are a non-partisan organization, should be famili ar with the positions of the three parties. So on contacting the Li beral, ND P and the Conser vative Party headquarters for their party policy concern ing matters of concern to women, I did address the different parties and of cou rse they all had pol icy.

However, when I contacted the Con servative headquarters, they did not have a pol icy and so therefore I had to work through my own member who in turn went directly to the premier - then the candidate - Mr . Sterl ing Lyon, and then he passed the information on to me that the legis lation would not be held back. MR. PAWLEY: Who was your member? MRS. GOODWIN: Oh, do I real ly have to tell you? - because he has really been wonderful to me and I hate to bring him into this? MR. PAWLEY: Ok ay. Did your organization or members of your organization participate in the demonstr ation No vember ... ? MRS.

GOODWIN: Yes, we certainly di dand notices went to all of our members. Our organization - has never participated to my knowledge in a demonstration, and believe me we were certainly behind the intent of it. MR. PAWLEY: You have seen references in, I belie ve it was the Winnip eg Free Press . MRS. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. PAWLEY: .. . that group s were being prompted by the NDP and Mr. Lyon saying that the demonstrators were ND Pers or fronts of the NDP. Is your organization conn ected in a partisan way to any party? MRS. GOODWIN: No, not at all. We're not at al l.

I would suggest that it was possibly a little bit of sensational ism. I don't know who is at fault there but certainl y it was incorrect. MR. PAWLEY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Corrin. MR. CORRIN: Mrs. Goodwi n, in mak ing reference to your sugge stions as to how we might circumvent the difficultie s that have been dis cussed relative to The Inc ome Tax Act, you suggested one method that your personal income tax adviser put forward.

I was wonderi ng - this is something that occu rred to me whil e you were talking - in view of the fact thatThe Marital Property Act is to be proclaim ed or was to be -w ell, it is still to be proclaim ed effective January . 1st, 19 78 - in view of the fact that the effective determi nin g date for the 1978 tax year will be about March 31, 1979, I bel ieve that's the deadline date for filing of returns, I'm wondering if some ofyour fearscould be appeased on the basis that there is that grace period? 56

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 mrs. GOODWIN: I' m not going to confess to being too kno wle dg8able about having gone into that area, but my concern is that there should be no conniving or different kinds of angle s that we pl ay in order to get tax advantage jus t because we want to either share or don' t want to share. El imi nate that kind of nonsen se; it should n't exist. lt is legisla ting a type of corru ption. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Me rcier. MR. MERCIER: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mrs. Go odwi n, I would just lik e to come back to some of the point s that you raised.

The Council of Women is, as you said, a non -partisan organ ization. Has it ever in the past advised its members to take a stance for or against different pol itical parties dep ending up on the pol icy issues that they adopted? MRS. GOODWIN: No, we never do. However, we do lay the issues before our members. Wat we try to do is take the impor tant issues that we have time for, go into them in reasonable depth, give a broad objective approach, report on this and al lo w our members to partici pate in formu lating what the polic y in fact will be. We do this throu gh representatives; they are cal le d Federates.

MR. AXWORTHY: If I recall correctly, in the committee hearings last spri ng, the Provincia l Council of Women though did endor se very su bstantially the leg isla tion that was being proposed, did submit recomme ndations on it and was in favour of the leg isl ation. Is that a correct . . . ? MRS. GOODWIN: Absol utely. We felt that there were areas where it did n't go far eno ugh. And that's deal ing with the payment of maintenance orders, the establi shment of some form of collection agency, and the opti ng-out provisions have not gone far eno ugh. We feel that both spouses should have independent legal advice.

Most lawyers would agree with this, that when a couple goes to a lawyer for advice, in most ins tances you go to the hus band's lawyer and it is just log ical that that lawyer is going to advise his cl ients in favour of the male spouse. MR.

AXWORTHY: I presume then, that if you had determi ned dur ing the last election campaign that one of the pol itical parties or two or three of them were in fact against the leg islation or had intentions to withdraw it or to change it that you would have so advised you r members that in fact one of the parties was goin g to take a step that would be contrary to the interests of the Provincial Council of Women. Is that correct? MRS. GOODWIN: We advised our members that none of the parties were going to repeal the leg isla tion. MR.

AXWORTHY: So you did advise your member ship that all the parties were in favour of the leg isla tion based upon statements that were issued by party headquar ters or by the leaders of their respective parties? MRS. GOODWIN: es, we did. MR. AXWORTHY: Wha t spe cifically did Mr. Lyon tel l you that he and the Conservatives intended to do? MRS. GOODWIN: As I say, I didn 't speak directly with Mr .

Lyon. lt was through my own member that the message was passed on. lt dealt with: that if the Conser vatives were elected, the famil y la w legislation would stand and would not be held up in its imple mentation; that the government would mo nitor the succ ess of the leg islati on, after which amendments would be made where necessary; and that the legis lation wou ld not be null ified; and that both of these gentlemen would advise against the repeal of the bill. MR.

AXWORTHY: So that based upon that very clear set of instructions, the Provi ncial Council of Women advised their members that we would not be contemp lati ng Bill 5 as we are now. Is that correct? MRS. GOODWIN: May I jus t clarify some thing; it was a verbal over- the-phone conversation and after this controversy arose over the direction of the legi slat ion, I con tacted my member and wrote this letter setting out what I had un derstood our conver sation to have meant. He in turn contacted me and made it clear that he was spe aking to me as my member and was rela ying the information to me. MR.

AXWORTHY: Is that member presently a member of the cabi net that decided on this bill? 57

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 mrs. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. AXWORTHY: So he is a member of the cabinet that did decide on this bill. Jus t one final que stion then - and it may be jus t a ju dgment cal l -could I take it that the Council of Women would feel somewhat that what they were told was really lab ouring un der false pretenses because they were really not being told exactly the way things were in the electi on campaign? MRS. GOODWIN: Did we feel misled, do you mean? MR. AXWORTHY: Do you feel misled now? MRS. GOODWIN: Mi sled? I think we feel somewhat deceived. MR.

AXWORTHY: That's good enough, that's good enough. Thank you, Mrs. Goodwin. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Enns. M ENNS: Mrs. Go odwin, on that last point raised by the Honour able Member for Fort Rouge, in the sense that perhaps the greatest critic ism - and perhaps with some ju stification - that has been levelled against the admi nis tration for not clearly spelling out precisely our position on the bill, how can you be so sur e that you have been deceived or misled? MRS. GOODWIN: Right. Mr. En ns, I think our problem, certainly my own personal problem, is one of trying to determine the good faith of the government.

I don' t know exactly where you stand. I know that if - and I refer to the profession of lawyers who are und ertaking this review, with all due respect to that group - if they are deal ing, and I wish we kne ww hetherthey were deali ng, with dotting the i's and crossing the t's, I would rest at night. Because I can't think of any group of people who are less capable of telling soci ety what kinds of laws they should live by than a group that are not outside in society deal ing with the injustice that people have had to liv e with. MR. ENNS: Mrs.

Go odwin, ju st one further qu estion, and that is the point that honour able members were attempting to make ju st a few moments ago. l think the record speaks for itself in the conduct of the members of the present government, incl udin g your members, where constant reservations were being expressed and indeed expressed in terms of actual voti ng, not necess arily all but certainlyin the large majori ty. lt certainly wasn't a fact that was kept from the electorate dur ing the election campaign that we were not happy with the present bill as it stood with its i's dotted and t's crossed.

I would ask you to reconsider the answer that you gave to the Honour able Member for Fort Rouge about the matter of deception that you sugg ested has been perpetuated on the Counci l of Women by the present admin istration. MRS. GOODWIN: The comment of decep tion, I think, I hope I sug gested that that was my own personal comme nt. I' m going to ask you to clarify exactly what you'd wanted me to say, I lost my train of thought. MR. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, the difference is this.

Having some backg round and experience as a member of the opposition I fully appreciate that it is the opposition that is particul arly adept at making people say what they want them to say. I didn't want you to say anything Mrs. Goodwi n. I'm simply asking you to explain what you did say. MRS. GOODWIN: Well that's pol itics. You're play ing games with us, sir. MR. ENNS: No I'm play ing games with him, certainly not with you. l' mpla ying games with the Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. GOODWIN: Ok ay, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, order. Mr . Jen ki ns. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, I have jus t one or two qu estions to Mrs. Goodwin. I ju st want it for clarification because it came on the point that you mentioned briefly, that you felt that the optional opting-out that we have now, both going to one lawyer. MRS. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. JENKINS: We'd left that kind of fuzzy in my estimation, that is one weakness, I think, that we have in the bill. Do you feel that we should have, as we origi nally tried in committee, to have it tha1 each person go to a lawyer of their own choice and we should spell it out in legislation? 58

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 mrs. GOODWIN: Wel l absolutely and I kno w that there are arguments that this is in fact putting busi ness in the hands of la wyers but lawyers have protected the rights of men for ages and I am sugges ting to you that if Legal Aid is going to be inu ndated by cl ients it's because women cannot afford the right of legal cou nsel and therefore the opti ng-out provision creates a discrepancy that is going to work to the disadvantage and injustice to the women. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mrs. Good win, and ju st one more que stion and a very brief one.

You stated that you belie ve that the law should be enacted and I can say that I agree with you. Do you feel that other than the qu estion of the income tax, which is changeable, all man-made laws are changeable even the Inc ome Tax Act as much as some people seem to think it's not, that the best way to find out how this legisla tion is going to work is to actually see it in practice and see that it will operate ' or won't oper ate. MRS. GOODWIN: Absolutely.

I' m sugge sting to you that the reasons given for the delay are excuses - they are not reasons - that in fact this legisla tion can proceed with very li ttle difficulty. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mrs. Go odwin. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more qu estions? Mr . Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: I ju st wond ered if Mrs. Go odwin would be prepared to table with the commit tee a copy of the letter ?

If she would lik e to remove the name of the member or have it blo cked out, they'd certainly concede to that, but I think it woul d be use ful to have that letter as part of the record of this comm ittee, if that would be agreeable. · MRS. GOODWIN: I would certainly give you a copy on the under standing that the name be bl ocked out. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think we can accept documents that aren't sig ned. MRS. GOODWIN: Oh, well ... A MEMBER: it's all or nothing. MRS.

GOODWIN: This is the way you pla y pol itics, I realize, but I'm afraid that women certainl y lik e to honour their, sort of stand to their certain pr inci ple s and I'm sug gesting that I don't want to impli cate my member. A MEMBER: it's onl y the press that can do that, safeguard their sour ce of information. MRS. GOODWIN: I would certainly let you see it. MR. AXWORTHY: Fin e, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more qu estions? Thank yo u, Mrs. Goodwi n. MRS. GOODWIN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Janet Paxton ... oh I'm sorry, Mr. Cherniack. We have a moti on, pardon me.

I don' t have . . . have you got a copy of the . . . MR. CHERNIACK: No, Mr . Chairman , I think that it's a simple one and that is that we requ est that the commit tee consis ting of Mrs. Bowman, Messrs. Ho uston and And erson, be asked by the committee to come before us at the earl iest oppor tun ity, tommorrow or Mo nday. May I sugge st that there is a need, I belie ve, to alla y the exp ressed fears we have alr eady heard today in relation to the func tion of this group.

I think it woul d be helpful for this commit tee to know the progress which has been made to attempt to ascertain the extent to which it would be possible to make changes now rather than wait fo r an extensive period of time.

I say that on the basis thatthis comm ittee has had the task for some weeks I belie ve if not months, a month or so, and that therefore itwou1d be worthwhile for the commit tee to know the extent to which they've proceeded and the progress they've made and therefore I make that proposal so that we would have the oppor tunity of a direct account of what is transpiring and what progress they've made. MR. CHAIRMAN: Members of the committee you' ve heard the resolution. Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but reflect back to the hearings in December and January 59

_Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 when we were fortunate as committee members to have the attend ance of Mr. Muldoon and Mrs. Bowman and I recall that we spent, I think, the better part of a day with them and comm ittee members had an oppor tunity to question both Mrs. Bowman and Mr . Muldoon. I think then we were better equipp ed to proceed with consideration of legis la tion . Look ing at the member ship of this committee there are very few members on this committee that were present during the earl ier hearings of the le gisla tive committee dealing with family la w. So that I think that Mr .

Chern iack's suggestion would be very useful to all members and as Mr. Cherniack ind icated , much of the concern relates to the composition of the committee, just what that committee is actual ly doing and what it's done to this present point in time. I think it would be very very useful insofar as dealing with concern that not only the opposition has but obviously so many other groups have that we would have the advantage of spe nding some time with the members of the Review Board and in obtaining from them an interim report. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier . MR. MER Cl ER: Mr.

Chairman, I suggest to you, Sir, and the members of the committee that there is quite a difference between the procedur es that the Member for Sel kir k outli ned and the position we're in now. If Mr. Muldoon and Mrs. Bowman, at that time, were members of the Law Reform Commission who had submitted their report and certainly I see nothing wrong, in fact everything worthwhile with the committee meet ing with members of the commission who had completed a report.

In this particular situation we have three counsel retained by the Attorney-General's Department and I might point out again that that was a recomme ndation of the department origi nally that outside counsel be retained rather than to use in-house staff to review the legal implica tions of the le gisla tion. And we have these counsel retained by the department. The time for filing submissions by the pu blic was extended to December 16, which is a week from today.

They will not be in any pos ition to even make an interim report un til after that time has passed because I'm sure, Sir , that members of the committee want the pu blic to have a ful l opp ortunity to make whatever further subm issions they have.

In the ligh t of the comments that have gone on in the House and in the comments that I have made in introdu cing the bill and closing debate on second reading, I fu lly expect that their report will be completed sometime in mid-"JanuaYy to the end of January and in view of the role that these people are pla ying as legal advisers, not as peo ple lik e the Law Reform Commission in formula ting polic y to recommend to the government, I, Sir , would have to be opposed to the motion by the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Chern iack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I never did understand the purpose of these public advertisements inviting pu blic submissions and now I'm begi nning to under stand something that not only surprises me but shocks me because I gather now from Mr. Mer cier that this group is expected to formulate pol icy -( Int erjection)- wel l I wrote down the words, "formula ting pol icy to present to the governmen t." MR. MERCIER: Their role is not to, not to, sir, formulate the pol icy. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh, so I misunder stood Mr . Me rcier. MR. MERCIER: That's happened before ... MR.

CHERNIACK: I un derstand him to say that they wi ll be -(I nterjection)- All right. So now we find that the counsel which has been hired by the Attorney-General's Department will now sit and receive briefs from the public which doesn't mean brie fs on leg islative draftsmanship but rather .. . oh, it may, Mr . Sp ivak says that maybe it will . I thought that these la wyers are trained family lawyers who are competent and are hired to be able to do the drafting job based on their extensive experience.

No w I gather that not only will they be receiving briefs on le gislative impr ovements from other la wyers but they'll be receiv ing briefs from the pu blic which makes it appear as if we're entering into an entirely new phase of hearings, and I belie ve the sub missions aren't even hearings, I'm under the impr ess ion they are written submissions, and that until that happens the committee has not started the work which was assigned to them. Now if I am wrong in my assumption that they have not started the work then I would lik e to be corrected.

If, on the other hand, they have indeed started then wouldn't it be hel pful to us to know the kind of direction in which they're heading to reassure us that they are not going to be formul ating polic y but that indeed all they will be doing is dealing with draftsmanship. That would be hel pful before I now know whether I want to vote for or against my own mo tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: The changes which take pla ce in this leg islation eventually will be decided by thE government not by any legal counsel retained by the government. 60

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MR. CHERNIACK: Decid ed by the leg islature. MR. MERCIER: The le gis la ture. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Enns. MR. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, whether or not who advises the government on possible changes in the bill or .what the bil l will or will not include, what form or shape the bill Will be presented to this comm1ttee and to the Chamber for eventual passing is a matter not of concern of this committee and 1 sugge st the motion is out of order and this enti re discus sion is out of order. The bill before us is simply one of hold ing back for the moment action on the bill.

We're not dis cussin g the body of the bill. MR. CHERNIACK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if 1 may. POINT OF ORDER MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order M r. Chern iack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, this committee is being asked to deal with legisla tion before it which repeals a law and brings in a new law.

That therefore means that we have a right to discuss the law that is bei ng brought in by this simp ly-worded bill and to reveal its inadequacy and the fact that, wbat was it called ... a hog,s banquet, is what is being brought in, and since along with it is an assurance by the government that there are three trained technic al exper ts preparing the next go around - which accordin g to the act may never be, but may be - that it Would be most germane for consideration by this committee and especially the array of all the Co nservatives in this room, none of whom where members of the committees that have dealt with this in the past, to have some idea of what is the prospect that we are lett ing ou rselves into by cancellin g a legis lation and bri ngin g back some old law.

Seem to me it's very much in order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Spiv ak. MR. SPIVAK: I jus t want to make one comment. At the la st sess ion when the commit tee was deal ing with the Act, the government retained a lawyer through the Attorney-Gener al 's office, I bel ieve, to examine the legal implications in terms of inc ome tax implic ations, tax impl ications. Hi s retention was while the committee was sitting and in turn , Mr. Chairman, his retention I bel ieve was on Ju ne 10 -w e voted this on June 17. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I doub t very much whether the then government, who are now in opposition would have even toler ated a committee even reque sting that the lawyer who had been retained by the Attorney. -Gen eral's office come forward to give a prel iminary report to the committee of what his findin gs were. No w it's true that -( In terjection)- he appeared on Ju ne 2, he was retained on June 10, we voted on June 17 and he filed his report on Ju ne 24. Mr .

Chairman, my point being that he was retained by the then government through the Attorney-General's office and I am specu lating but I' m qui te sure that the then government wou Id not have allo wed the committee to have broug ht him forward for interview by that commi ttee on what his findings had been at that point having been retained as legal counsel. Mr. Chairman, all I'm trying to say is that in a feW -months the positions have changed a bit and I think there really is a past precedent to the way in Which the committee has operated.

Lawyers are retained at different times, legal cou nsels are retained to deal with particular Acts and I think that the recogn ition here has certainly been a public decl aration that they've been retained, certainly everyone knows that they've been retained and when their findings have been brought forward to the government and the government proposes changes as a result of their findin gs and the peru sal by the government there will be an ample oppor tunity for the committee to deal with the items at that time. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the precedent that I referred to is very real.

I do not think that the government thought there was any obliga tion on their part to bring forward any information to the committee, in fact I' m not even sur e that they even informed the commi ttee that it took pla ce. Certainly they didn 't inform the committee that there was li kely to be a report very early on issues that, in fact, had been raised by the very person who appeared before the commit tee and had been raised by members of the commi ttee throug hout the whole hearings of the committee prior to the appearance of the indi vidual and even after.

And so, I think there is amp le precedent-for a rejection of this proposal and an acceptance that the government's declared in tention is known and they will follow through with their intention. The present bill will suspend the Marital Property Act and by next session we will be dealing with it in an amended form. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns . MR .. ENNS: Wel l, pardon me, Mr. Chai rman, I don't choose to qu arrel with the point of order raised by the Honour able Member for St. St. Joh n, but simply to point out to him that I accept the direction 61

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 that the Attorney-G eneral has given to the committee, that when the amendments that the new admin istration feels are in pla ce to pla ce before this committee and indeed before the Ho use, that will be done. That is not the issue before us at this particular time. I can appreciate you raising whatever poi nts of order you wis h but we are not prepared and we are not sitting here as a committee to deal with the body of the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Chairman , I've lis tened with interest to what Mr . Spiv ak had said. Mr.

Sherman acknowledged in the final day of the discussion in the Ho use in June that there had been the fulle st and the most open invo lvement of all members in the committee and I can recall, Mr. Chairman , though Mr. Sp ivak may not have been present, that any lawyers, any assistance requ ested was made availa ble to that committee. I recall that Mr . Dale Gib son sat in through all the proceed ings. Mr . Carr sat through the proceed ings at the end and assisted the committee full y and openly in arriving at the final leg isla tion. And let me say to Mr.

Sp ivak, if it had been asked, because we had some earlier discussion in conne ction with tax implic ations if it had been asked I would have seen no reason why we woul d not have invit ed Mr. Goodw in to present at that time any tax implic ations. His report fol lo wed on June 24. I don't think we had any idea as a government ju st when we would receive the reports but certainl y there would have been an openne ss. In fact, Mr .

Chairman, I would suggest that even now that in view of the contin ued references that are being made to tax implic ations that maybe this government should call forth the lawyer that was hired to deal with tax questions in order to advise the committee further beyond the members of the review board since this seems to be a problem that has been repeatedly referred to. The precedent is there. There was a full and open involvement of all advisers and assistants in the past and I don't see why there should not be the availabilit y of the members of this review board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Parasiuk. MR.

PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Lakeside said that we are looking at a very simple Act. We aren't. We are being forced to accept two very old outmoded laws which are poorly drafted, difficult to work with and inequ itable. And the time li mit for those laws right now if this Bill 5 is passed is forever despite statements statements to the contrary.

That's what the statutes will say and therefore I think it is ver y important for this committee, in revie wing this legi slati on, to know exactly what we are getting into when we are accepti ng the two old la ws with respect to maintenance and with respect to any type of marital property. I think it's important that we get the best type of advice poss ibl e.

And we have, in fact, been fortunate to receive very good briefs at this particular sess ion and most of them are comm enting that we have a law right now, or two laws on the books which are in fact operable, which are equ itable and which they are will ing to li ve with despite some possible technic al difficu lties in one area. And in the one area that was poi nted out, a suggested modification was put forward which probabty would be sufficient if, in fact, the government had an open mind on this whole issue.

I' m wondering whether in fact the government would be prepared to consider the amendments suggested by the last person putting forward a brief, if in fact they're as open minde d on this whole issue of family la w as they indic ated. Now with respect to whether in fact we should bring in the three people on the review team, the Member for River Heights gave us a whole set of general statements regarding precedents but he gave us no specific precedents. And the interesting thing is that would he have thought it proper tc ask for the lawyer to have been brought in on June 17, had he thought of it at that time?

Now he did n'l think of it, but had he known, Mr. Chairman , because I wasn't a member of the government at thal time and I wasn't a member of the leg isla ture, ali i know is that I'm a member of the committee rig hi now. -( Int erjection)- I am a member of the committee right now, I kno w that three people have been retained and I think it's a very normal thing to ask that they be brou ght forward. We've had al these people come for free. They've come because they are concerned . The other three are gettin� paid and I think they should be brought forward.

And it certainly is within precedent to have therr brought forward. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawl ey. MR. PAWLEY: I would lik e to move an amendment to Mr . Chern iack's motion that Mr . Goodwir also be asked to appear before the committee to provide ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der. If we're going to have motions I wish the members would give me som1 gu idance and put them in writing. it's very difficult for me. I have one paraphrased from Mr Chern iack; the Cl erk has paraphrased that and if you'd be kind enough to put some of your thought on ... MR. CHERNIACK: On a matter of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't mind including Mr.

Pawle y' sugges tion. All you have to do is add the name of Goodwin to the other three and I don't object totha 62

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MR. SPik; Mr. Chair man, I ju st want to poi nt out that the exam ple that I was trying to cite was the comm ittee heari ngs on last occasion on which the gorn ment did not tell any one, as far as 1 know, that he had been reta in ed. -(I nterjec tion)- Wel l it's not a qu est ion of whether we asked. Now isn't that ridi _culous. The whole issue at that time was a vari ety of di fferent matters that were brought up, one of which was tax. Mr . Go odwin appeared here as a witne ss.

Having appared here as a witn ess and maki�g �is presentati�n he was then re tai ne d by the go vernment while we were sitti ng. - (l nteqec t1m) very sensible, we were not told that he was reta in ed and the whole qu est ion of ... MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Chairman, on a point of order. Mr . Goodw in, I think the honour able mxber is re fer ring to Mr . Carr that ... MR. SPIVAK: Mr . Go odwin appeared her e on June 2 and he was re tai ne d on Jk e 10a nd we were not told that he had been re tained.

He was re tained to exam ine tax matters. lt's all been well to specu late onhhi s; ther e's noth ing wrong with that but I simply sugge st, Mr . Chair man, I th ink there is a que stion of proprie ty, I said that before and I think the commit tee should have been told that, they were not. Bu t I also th ink, Mr . Chair man, that the then government would never allowed Mr . Good win to have come forward, having been re tained, tovive us the benefit of whatever he had found at that time when they were tr ying to put thr ough the bill at that stage. A MEMBER: Then let him come forward now then. MR. CHAIRMAN Mr .

Je nkin s. MR. JENKINS: Mr . Chairman, spe aking to the motion that's before the comm ittee, I belie ve that the gentlemen should come before this comm ittee, the gentle man and the lady that are on this review commit tee because it's never been stated qu ite clearly ... MR. CHAIRn; Or der, one moment. Are we now speak ing on your amend ment, Mr. Pawley's amendment or ... MR. CHERNIACK: lt 's been inclu ded. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt 's in one moti on. MR. JENKINS: I'm so rry, then it will be the thr ee gentlemen and one lady. MR. CQIRMAN: Or der please. Mr . Jenki ns. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

I'd better start all over ag ain. We have never had a clear explanation of what the terms of refere nce of this comm ittee are. We have had, from the Attorney General and the government, the propos ition that these people are to review the leg isla tion. Now we hear that there are written subm issions to be made to this comm ittee. Now this really puts me in a very funny pos ition because I don't rea lly know what the position of this com mit tee is.

Is it to review the legisla tion that we are now repe aling or doing away with or is it to hear new rep resentat ions , written submissions and make its amendm ents to the law based on those su bmissions sub mitted to the hearings? Ju st what are the terms of reference of this comm ittee? I don't think that the Attorney Ge neral has been ry ex plicit on that point.

I mean if th ese pe ople are jus t bei ng reta in ed for the pu rpose of exam in in g the law as it is now to find out what flaws there are in it and make rec omme n dations to the government which in tur n will bring them back to the leg isla ture, then what is the pur pose of having hearings? Are you going to have hej in gs and then make new rec omme nda tions for changes to the law basefon those rec ommen dations?

I th ink we should have that somewherso rmther alon g the lin e and I think that the public out there have a right to know also and ther efore I th ink these gentlemen should come before this comm itte. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Chernia ck. MR. CYRNIACK: I'm willin g to defer to Mr . Mercier if he wants to respond to Mr . Je nkin s. MR. MECIER: Let me make a couple of comments.

One I th ink that should be made with respect to he word "deceived'. that was used and th is subject matter brings it up because when that ;onversation alleged ly occu rred no member ru nnin g for the Cons ervative Party in the election at that ime was aware of the tax imp lications and aware of the report that had been made to the provincial Jovernment so that I would assume that any comments that had been made by any member would 1ave been made in ignor ance of that report. Sir , the function of the couns el, our legal advisor, is to rev iew the legisla tion.

If anyone feels that hey want to make com ments on that leg is lation then we're in viting them to make those comment s. 63

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 Sur ely that is better than not in viting them to make any comm ents. lt at le ast gi ves them the opportun ity to partici pate. They are advisers who have not reacyd any position at all. The tim e for subm issions again has not yet arrived, will not arrive until December 16 .

To logically extend this argu ment would be to sugge st if they did come, if the member s of the opposition did not get any answers that they thought were satisfactory to them then they sugge st that another fou r people who may have advised the government at some particular point intime , that they be in vited. And if they di dn't get any sati sfactory answers from them then they'd in vite another four. Sir , I sugg est we have to make this de cision.

The government has made its decision to in troduce this bill on our own and it was after that that these people were appoi nted to review the legisla tion and I think it's impr oper at this point in time espec ially to have them before the commit tee. They're simpl y not in a position to offer any advise to the commit tee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Chernia ck. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chair man, Mr . Mercier referred to the charge of deception in saying that the memb er who made the comm itment or the sta tement was not aware of the problem of tax impl ications. If that is ... pardon? MR.

MERCIER: I'm suggesting that that may be the case. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh, if that is correct and Mr . Me rc ier doesn't know that, obviously now he's not the member referred to. If he thinks it cou ld be the qu estion of ignor ance of tax implic at ions may I sugge st to him that we can very qui ckly wrap this up by tak ing Mr s. Go odwin's suggestion and deferring the sharing of vest in g of assets equally un til such leg islation is passed .

I think it was an excel lent suggestion and although I would perso nally deplore it because I think that the princi ple is so im portant, if that will sett le the matter we can't ... I hear d Mr . Wils on make a comment about lawyers at $10 0 a hour and I th ink we can save a awful lot of money right off the bat by agreeing today to make the change sugge sted by Mr s. Good win.

I belie ve she gets good legal advice on tax matters, and that will then settle the qu es tio n and gi ve in tegrity and honour to whoever it was that made the state ment that these are not acts that would be passed by a Co nser vative gov ernment. I am proposing that , and belie ve me I'm proposing it seriously on the basis that that is the real objec tion. Havin g said that, Mr . Chair man, then I want to poi nt out to Mr. Sp ivak who was not a member of the previous comm ittees, and un fortunately I don't see anybody of the Conser vative Party here who was. So I have to re mi nd you of what ... oh, Mr .

Br own was and I hope he'll speak up and conf ir m what I'm about to say. Bu t I will qu ote Mr . Sher man as saying that, " these cmm ittee mee tings have been a tremendous parl imen tary experience for him wher e people gathered together studying a problem o1 gr eat concern in an atmosphere of an atte mpt to work together to acc omplish some thing for the good without partisan ship." I bel ie ve he said it, I belie ve that was the case and I bel ieve that Mr.

Sp ivak should know that the government was be ndin g over backwards not out of a sense of fairness but ou1 of a sense of desire to acc ompl ish some th ing to bring in all the expertise it could get. And when Mr . Carr came here and said, "I can help you ," we imm edia tely said pl ease come. And when Mr . Goodw ir came to the commit tee and said, "I have cert ain problems of a tax natur e," I think it's to the credit tc the then attorney-general that he imm edia tely hir ed him, not immedia tely but subs equently hir ed Mr Goodwin to do a job.

And to sugge st for a moment that the govern ment then would not have beer ready to open up all the books and all the advice and every th ing in order to have the commit teE acc ompl ish a better bill, is spe aking of ignor ance of what went on and the atmosphere, or is a methoc to try and separate the people who had good faith in their efforts. So he now talks about a pr ecedent You realize, Mr . Chair man, the precedent to him is the non-action of not having been asked tc produce Mr .

Goo dwi n and ther efore not having produced him . -(I nterject ion)- Well he may no have known but to call that a precedent, to me, is so absurd that I wonder that he con tinue s tc mai nt ain it. MR. SPIVAK: On a point of order. I never sugge sted that it was a precedent. I said ther e an precedent s where other attorneys or lawyers have been in fact hir ed and as far as I know thi: com mit tee or a law amendme nts comm ittee has never req ue sted their appearance. I th ink there an other examples. I did not suggest that th is is a precedent. I ju st simply make the poi nt, Mr.

Chair man that no matter how the honour able memb ers may protest, it is my opinion that if they wen government and they were on this side they would cert ainly not appr ove the motion that Mr Chern iack has produced and I would have sug gested that if Mr . Goodwin's appointment had beer known to the com mi ttee and we had sugg ested at that time that he appear, they would not hav' allo wed him to appear. MR. CHERNIACK: You see, Mr . Chair man, how Mr . Sp ivak ope rates, that he sets up a bunc h c possibili ties and dr aws his conclusions and calls it a set of precedents.

So I th ink that my statemer that was absurd, stands. I want to challenge Mr . Me rc ier to accept Mr s. Go odwin's advice on the ta implic ations. lt would be a retreat on the part of the former government ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, order ple ase, order, sir . We're stra ying away far from the question that i 64

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 before us. Comm ittee mem bers, li sten. The reso lu tion that's on my desk here : That the Stan din g Comm ittee on Law Amendm ents requests that Mr . Go odwin and the Review Comm ittee consis ting of Mr s. Bowm an' Me ssrs. And erson and Hous ton be asked to come before the Law Amend ments Comm ittee at the earlie st pos sible date. That's the motion that's before them. -(I nterje ction)- No, I sti ll have Mr . Pawley, Mr . Jenkins and Mr . Co rrin on my, lis t. MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Chai rman, I will deal very briefly with this because I do think some response is req ui red to Mr . Sp ivak's suggestions that we would not have made Mr . Go odwin available if asked. I re call that Mr . Carr had appear ed and had been somewhat critical of the leg islation that we had presented to the comm ittee. MR. CHAI We are straying from the motion. PAN: lease stay with in the confines of the motion before us. MR. PAWLEY: Well, Mr . Chair man, I wish you had poi nted that out to Mr . Spiv ak, because I'm de aling with the comments of Mr. Spi vak for your in formati on. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well, I apolog ize that I've let the deba te get a lit tle wide-r ang ing, but I wou ld li ke to confine it back to the reso lu tion that's before the commit tee if at all pos sib le. MR. PAWLEY: Well, it's too bad it strayed then earl ier. Mr . Chair man, the attendance of Mr . Good man at this poi nt, I think , wou ld be very usefu l. A suggestion has been made, which I feel is a worthy sugge st ion, as to how the tax imp lica tion problem can be resolved. I see no reason why the government would not be agreeable to cal li ng Mr .

Go odw in to the comm ittee to ascertain whether or not it is feasi ble. If it is feasi ble , and if that is the major reason for deferri ng or suspe nding the leg is lation and that problem is reso lved, then Mr . Chairman, I think that a gr eat achie vement could be acc ompl ished. So let's deal with the tax impl ica tions head on and see if we have a real problem or whether we have only an im agi nar y problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Jenkin s. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr . Chair man.

In getting my reply from the Honour able Attorney General I'm more confus ed than ever now, Sir , because now I am giv en to under st and - and I wish he wou ld cla rify this - that he has set up a com mit tee to review the le gi s lation that we are repe aling, to make certa in rec om mend at ions. He has in vited memb ers of the public to make written sub missions to this com mi ttee. Now what is the pu rpose of the public making representa ti ons to ac omm ittee who is revie wing le gisla tion unle ss they know what the terms of reference of that commit tee are?

And I don't th ink that the Atto rne y-G eneral has been fr ank enough with the commit tee and with the publ ic. I mean sur ely we ca n.e li cit some in formation out of the Attorney-G eneral. I mean he's set ting up a com mit tee ost ensiblY to review the legisla tion, to impr ove it, to polish it and re fine it. Now, in the meant ime, he's asking for representat ions from the publ ic. On what? That's what I want to know. How does the public kno w what the commit tee is going to rec omm end to the government? And the government's in tentions have not been cle ar in that matter whatsoever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr .

Cor rin. MR. CORRIN: Mr . Chairman, I know that I'm spe aking without the benefit of hindsig ht. There are nany people here who have partici pated in these proceed ings for some time, as a matter of fact, >ame I would su ppose, at this point, th ink perhaps too long. However, I th ink that some people are �xhib iting li ttle fores ight. They're not putting their mi nds to the problem that is before us this wen ing. I don't want to ass ume that the problem is simple, or that it is not comple x, but it seems to me that 111 hat we mu st ess entially deal with is the qu estion of function.

We've been told that a review :ommit tee has been appoi nted by the Department of the Attorn ey-G eneral. Actual ly I'm not sure Jsing the word "appoi ntment" is perhaps in cor rect - retai ned by the Department of the Attorney- 3e neral , I think those were the words used by my hon our able friend, the Attorney-G eneral - ·eta in ed. And, Mr . Chairman, that con no tes to me a very di fferent rela tionship. The so li c itor- cl ient ·ela tionsh ip, you kno w, is very di fferent from that of a commit tee of lawyers - people who just 1appen to be lawyers - who have been appo in ted to do a review.

Now one conno tes objective esear ch. One con no tes a gr oup tr ying to at tain an objective overview of a particula r pro blem, a very hor ny problem, one that cert ainly pre ci pit ated a good deal of deb ate in this Ho use and all through his province for that matter. Now, on the other hand, I hear - and perhaps the Honour able Attorn ey-G eneral can co rrect me - but it seems to me that he is suggesting that he has re tained pr ivate legal counsel. You know, the 1eople in debate have dr awn an analogy to Mr . Goodwi n's re te ntion. There is no analogy. Mr . Pawley 1as ind ic ated that he reta in ed Mr .

Goo dwin thr ou gh the auspices of the department. He was retained .s a sol icitor, he wasn't retained to do a review. And ther efore there was a privi lege. The rela tionship 1etween Mr . Go odwin and the go ve rnm ent was very, very di fferent. And the re's a privi lege 65

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 cir cu mscri bing that rela tions hip - the most venerable privilege kno wn perhaps, exce pting the parli amen tary privile ge, but the most venerable profess ional privi lege to my knowledge.

Now, it seems ludicr ous to me, as a new memb er of this comm ittee, fir st of all, that I'm not allo wed to see - if this is a review commit tee, based on an objective premise, why can't I, as a new member hearing all these reserva tions, pe ople have been com ing before us, making representa tions in the media about the possible bias of one of the memb ers - there's no use pus syfoot ing around ther e's a good deal of ta lk and spe cu lation about the bias - eviden ced apparently in remarks on the record of this comm ittee , of one of the mem bers. Now, it seems to me that it's lud icr ous.

I can make written submis sions to Mr . Ho uston and the other memb ers of the com mit tee, but I can't go before them and express my reservat ions. Now I, as a member of the legisla ture and a mem ber of th is commit tee, wou ld mu ch prefer being gi ven the oppor tun ity to assess for myself, to determ ine for myself whether or not Mr. Ho uston evinces a bi as in this regard. I think th at's my entitlement as a representative of some 16 000 Man itobans.

Now, his feelings in this matt er - if he's been reta in ed as a priv ate counsel ! want to �ay this - and if my honour able friend, the Attorney- � eneral is willing to �onc e<:Je that he has been reta ine d as a priv ate counsel to your department, S1r , then I say that h1s feelings become ir relevant. Hi s feelin gs in thi s matter are ir relevant because he is your counsel. Bu t if he has been retai ned to do an objective review of this matter, then that is all that is relevant, and I call upon you to bring him, summ on him here before this comm ittee, if not this ev ening, tomo rrow.

And let's det er min e this matter once and for all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, this com mit tee is to hear wit nesses on thi s bill, and I dare say with legal cou ns el sit ting around this table that we' ll never solve this problem, the debate will go on forever, and the comm ittee is called to hear witne sses. We've been li st ening to this debate now for almost 45 mi n utes, and I don't th ink we're being fair to the peo ple that come here to make pr esentat ions. Are you ready for me to put the qu estion? QUE STION put A COUN TED VOTE was taken , the re sult being as foll ows: Yeas 10; Nays 13 . MOTION lost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Ja net Pax ton. Or der please. JANET PAXTON: Good evening, gentlemen. I see many of your old famili ar faces here from last year and a lot of new faces. So here we go ag ain. This is my presenta tion. I am a member of the Pr ovincial Council of Women, also the Women Status of Comm ittee at the He alth Scie nces Centre and the Action Coal ition on Family Law, but I'm not represent ing any of those parties tonight . I'm spea king only as an indi vidual. This is my subm ission I've prepared.

"Cast your bread upon the waters and it shall re tur n to you after many days." That is a well-known saying which is most appr opria te for the turn of events ta king place righ t now. l sugg est that there are many implic at ions why this state ment should be seriously consi dered . Every thing that is happening at the moment will be recorded in Man itoba's history books 100 years to 1, 000 years from now, and ind eed perhaps in all the history books of Nor th America. I bel ie ve it was to be a mor e momentous happening than gr anting the women the right to vote - these new laws.

Men at that time also were comple tely di sconcer ted and in a flu rry at the aspect of women jus t sta ndin g up and ask ing, not ju st stan din g up and asking, but dema nding that they be gi ven this pr ecious right. No doubt many of the comments which were made at that time are now being made in 19 77. The wor ding may be a little mor e modern, but the react ions are the same where men gather to di scuss im portant matters of the day.

For instance, they say, "Look at the uns eemly man ner in which these female creatures are behaving," or "This is but a smal l gr oup of agg ressive women behaving in a way whic h does not reflect the majori ty of our women who are very contented to let the men make all the decisions for the famil y," or "Good grie f, if we allo w these women to vote there will be utter chaos. Gr anted they are del igh tf ul creatures, absolutely charm ing - we could n't get along without them. But allow them to vote?

They should be at home busy having babie s," or "These are meddle some problems and women are not capable of hand lin g decisions. Leave it all to us." That sounds very amusing now, but ju st as this was the case when women dared to ask for the righ t to vote it is the exact case now. This flu rry of activity on the part of the government to whisk these laws away, right out from under our very noses, shall no doub t sound even mor e amusing in the history books of our gr eat gr andch il dr en, because, gentlemen, eq ual ity in marriage will not be den ied any lon ger.

The move is on, and be it Man itoba, Br itish Colum bia, Al ber ta who bring in these overdue laws fi rst, ther e is no doubt they shal l be brough t in. lt wou ld have been ni ce to have Manit oba famous ins tead of in famous. We almost set a moment in history in societal changes. lt is now clai med that these laws are un workable, yet those who appear to be very wel l qu al ified in the law said there are merel'l tech ni calitie s which could be easily corr ected by a few amendm ents.

They cou ld easily have been effected now, prior to imple mentation of the Marital Pr oper ty Act, partic u larly before Ja n uary 1978. 1 join with many others in ur ging that you do not tamper with the new fam ily laws. In somuch as by your ini tial choic e of lawyers you have emp loyed to rewrite this precious law, ne 111 66

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 le gisla tion, you have also ind ic ated the true in tent of haVing these laws rewritten. For those who can obtain a Ha nsard of Ju ne 4th, Saturda y 10:0 0 a. m. ses sion, it shal l become abu ndantly clear - and these can be obt ai ned from the Qu een's Pri nter beh ind the Bay for a very smal l fee - l' m wondering if the gentlemen who cho se this lawyer had read them at all. You will see that throughout the presenta tion that lawyer's main concern seemed to be ret ainin g the wealthy busi nessmen of the province, and not the 50-50 principle of the bill.

In his own words, on page 466, he said, "Do you gentlemen really think, are you so naive as to belie ve that men in that position are going to suffer this bill? They won't. The y'll go. They'll leave. They will leave the pro vi nce." I don't know why he ould have thought that. The women of the province never left for centuries. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the old bill or are you spe aking to this new bill? MS. PAXTON: I am speaking to the bills at that time that were being presented. l'm speak in g to the fact ... MR. CMAIRMAN: We're de aling with Bill 5 tonight. MS.

PAXTON: I know you're at Bill 5, and that's what I'm worried about. The women of Man itoba have not left the pro vi nce for centuries when they did not receive 50 percent. I don't know why the lawyer though t the men should. Now, I mu st be very naive, I had wonder ed why that lawyer seemed so sure all the busine ssmen di sl iked their wives so much they would leave the province rather than share on a 50-50 basis with them. Now I'm not a lawyer, I've had comments made to me - I un derstand it's not exactly correct - that there were tax shelters by putting certain properties in the wife's name.

Whe ther that's true or not, I don' t know. The lawyers here could te ll me. But I've also been told that by having a busine ss under the wife's name they cou ld protect the mselv es from seizure if they decl ared bankrup tcy. One -half the assets now will be thei rs, and they will be feasi ble. Are the new laws to be denie d so the rich can become richer ? I do not bel ieve that women should have to suffer archaic and prehistoric marriage laws because of a very small percentage of Man itoba's el ite.

They will st ill have enough to live on whil e the masses whom these laws will affect can suffer inor dina te hardship on marriage breakdown. lt can happen; it has happened and it is happening now. Last week I met a woman who said she is su ppor ting her four chil dr en on her own with a ful l-time job as well as wor kin g at Salisbur y's on Saturday and Sun day. Her hus band has told her he will pound her to death with his hammer if she tries to get money from him. He beat her last spring when she asked for money. She does not try to get ju stice as she is liter all y afraid of him.

She is also aware how ine ffectual the laws are for women of this province as they have been els ewhere also. Yet you say our laws mu st now be withd rawn so that they can be made perfect. The governments of the past have been author s of the worst im perfect ions poss ible in the law, and now you are concerned. One th ing more about that lawyer I was refe rring to.

He was a brill iant man, gr anted, but he seemed to have a problem of pos sibly being perc eptual ly handic apped in that he said, "The ladies can have all the jus tice, all the eq uity they want un der the law as it presently stands." I wonder what he thought everybody was doing here. Of course, he only came on about the last day or so of the heari ngs, and ther efore may have mi ssed the reaso ns why. I know for a fact how this man cou ld very cleverly twist the truth, because he qu oted me as saying that I was a perfect exam ple of somebody who'd come here to tel l you the laws were gr eat.

And any of you who were her e last year may realize that was not the case. -(I nterjec tion)- That's right. And ther efore I'm very fright ened of what this man can do with the laws. He is very cl ever. -(Inter jection)- Yes.

As I said at previous hearings, I was shocked at that time to learn that 75 percent of all mai ntenance payments were clai med as the stat istic as being unenf orced and uncol le cted across Ranada. lt became apparent to me that I had been most fortunate in that my ex-spouse had always contr ib uted towards the suppor t of our th ree childr en, and that it had been only thank s to his in tegrity, and not the law, that thi s had happened. As I told the MLAs at that time, the government will put a man in jail if he steals a $20 item in a store. They will send a polic eman to their door for an unp aid parking fine.

Bu t it assumes the role of a help less popcorn ven dor when women and childr en are sitting in the worst possible state of deprivation because of no-mai ntenance payments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, order please. Wou ld you take a look at the bill ? The bill that we're deal ing with is

an Act to suspend the Family Mai ntenance Act .. MS. PAXTON: Yes, and we do not want it suspended. MR. CHAIRMAN: ... and to defer the coming int o force of the Ma rital Proper ty Act, and to amend certain other Acts and make provi sions as req ui red, as a consequence ther eof. That's what we're deal ing with . MS. PAXTON: With all due respect, Sir , that's exactly what I'm tr ying to point out. We do not want them suspended . 67

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but may I ask you to try and relate your remarks to the contents of the legi slation. MS. PAXTON: I am rela ting it. That's exactly what this is about. Ok ay. ML As, including those from your own party, have also exp ressed their concern for th is aspect, and I hope, in fact I'm sure that this matter will be looked into. However, if you do not carry through the principl es of the 50-50 sharing we will be right back to $50 a month court award for maintenance payments which the ju dges now feel is sufficient for a woman with a year old baby.

The court records mu st be full ofthese cases. The ju dges know the men will probably not pay a cent if they put it too high, so they compr omis e. An ne Boss of Mo unt Carmel Clinic spelle d it out to the M LA's about the battered wives who keep returning for treatment. They know they do not have the financial means or job skill to su pport their childr en on their own, so they go back to get beaten up again. Everyone has heard of the men who sometimes treat their girlfriends better than their wives. it is a jok e unle ss one happens to be the wife.

They look the other way and pretend they do not know because they have seen their neighbour s, friends, and relatives who try to break away from the situation are losers. They see that the cou rts give them a pittance to li ve on, while the husbands have the major part of earnings to themsel ves. So they sta� because they know the childr en will suffer, or maybe they love their hus bands so wel l8the y are going to wait unti l it blo ws over. Then there are the men who lik e to li ve in the cocktail bars and the wiv es and chil dren compensa te for it by scrimping.

Yet, only last week, I heard one of your M LA's tell me and another lady who's here that these laws will give a woman the whip. He said, "The broad will ju s1 get her hooks into the man." That MLA shall be namele ss. He shall be nameless, as it appeared hE qu ickly realized it was not a fitting remark and appe ared sorry he had made it. He even hel ped me or with my coat. However, the remark still stands to his detriment. Perhaps he will want to erase i· comple tely by defending the principle of 50-50 eq ual ity for women.

I do not approve of the fact that a team of hired lawyers are, at this moment, rewriting laws behinc clo sed doors, based on written briefs. These laws were created in the open with the media present For those who do not agree with the principle of 50-50 sharing, let them come forward and say so ir publ ic, so their spouses will be forewarned. That way everyone can be assu red that the laws createc at the request oft he public to the M LA's, who are the el ected representatives of the public, will give w the la ws we want.

We do not want hired lawyers to make these decisions, or to rewrite them in an) way, shape, or form. I have nothing personally to gain by these laws. They will not affect my own situation in the le ast However, I have three childr en, and I expect that all three of them should li ve in future years un der thE Marital Property Act. I feel comfortable about it. My son has ju st started a busi ness which looks a1 though it may be success ful.

I think it is right and good that he should share 50-50 all assets whict arise from that busin ess with his young wife, not because she went out to work, but because she i: staying home and creating a pl easant home atmosphere for him and looking after his child. I have 1 daughter whom I would lik e always to be able to be in dependent and hold her head up, should she bf unfortunate enough to someday be married to a man who is selfish or abusi ve, and she is trying t< raise two or three childr en whil e he holds the pur se strings.

And I have a 13 year old so n. l hope thesf laws will be in effect long enough before he marries so it will not be a total shock to him to be asked t< share on a 50-50 basis with his wife. Now I imagin e you mu st all feel the same about your own famili es. I ask you to consider carefully gentle men. You buy insur ance policie s for those you love, but what better insur ance pol icy could yot leave for your daughters and your granddaug hters than the new Marital Property Act? lt will b1 around to protect them in future years when you perhaps are no lo nger here.

That is why I said, "Cas your bread upon the waters" - the laws you pass today will be the laws your own offspring will li v1 under in the future No one can accu rately predict how marriages will turn out these days. If that is no a sobering thought, then ju st consider perhaps that one pla ce a woman is not un der anyone's contrc is in a voting booth.

Though you say the laws are imp erfect, perhaps Hebr ews 7: 19 of t he Bibl e give the answer - and strangely enou gh, it was whil e I was typing a subm ission on this very subje ct tha my eyes fell on it - "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." An1 that's it, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms . Paxton. Que stions of the witne ss. I thank you for you presentation. Mr. Wil son. MR. WILSON: Yes. I don't want to use a sort of McCarthyism aspect, but I did write down a nu mbe of comments you made, Mrs.

Paxton, and I cou ld n't help but fearing that you wanted us to com forward if we didn't bel ieve in the 50-50 sharing. ! think both the Attorney-General and a numb er of u have ind icated that the women of this provinc e will be extremely happy with the legislation after th next sess ion, based on the very comment that the laws you pass today are going to have a profoun effect on the future.

I certainly could n't agree with you more on the aspect of equal sharing, but m comment to you is, "Wher e have you got the indication or the suspicion due to you r remarks that th rich will become richer, and some of these comm ents that are sort of ... " MS. PAXTON: Because I'm hearing too many comments in the newspaper and quo tes fror gentlemen in your party that at first - the comments have changed as time goes by, you see- 1 rea 68

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 the newspaper and what is said one week is changed a li ttle bit the following week - and the comment has been changed. There was the qu estion, they bel ieve in sharing of family assets, but when you come to com mercial assets, you get all kin ds of wibb le-w obbling on that one, and I bel ieve that the ju stice for the rich woman should be the jus tice for the poor woman. The rich woman has paid her price too.

And I don' t bel ieve there should be any qu estion about whether it's commercial assets, 50-50, famil y assets, 50-50. 1 bel ieve every thing acquir ed within a marriage should be shared 50-50 all the way, whether it's commer cial, famil y, personal, whatever. I' ve heard too many comments that give me reason to bel ieve that these laws will be found workable when in no way, shape, or form will a woman be able to get 50 percent of her husband's busi ness on marriage breakdown. That's when they will be found workable, 1 bel ieve. MR.

WILSON: So you have been infl uenced by the med ia, rather than the comments of the Attorney-G eneral and others, such as myself. MS. PAXTON: I have talked to some of the M LA's. I' ve been influenc ed by the things that they have said. I' ve tal ked to lawyers who've been sitting up in the gal lery. I' ve been influe nced by comments they've said. And clearly there is a lot of trepi dation about the com mercial assets. I mean, they're �oing to let us have half the chesterfield, half the fridge, and so on, but don't you dare think about touching half that busine ss. And I predict that's what will happen. MR.

WILSON: Wha t other things, Mrs. Paxton, can you crystal-b all migh t happen? MS. PAXTON: Ok ay, now I was one, I think you gentlemen will remember last year, who said - the IVOmen were wondering whose side I was on there - I said there should be jud icial discretion for the tery extraordinary cases where it would be totally unju st. Now I was one that did say that. I can see �lthough to tell the truth, I' ve been thinkin g about it - when would it be totall y unj ust, and I really :an't think of an instance if you're going to apply this.

Because ifthe man is a dru nk ard, then that's an ll ness and the 50-50 should still apply. If the woman's been the wage-earner, then she's going to have :o share with him, because if we want this to apply, we've got to make it effective. lt can't be always ust for the woman8 in other words, I'm saying. Bu t I am worried. No w they're coming along - 1 heard lll r. Sherman the other night - and I have great admi ration for your Mr . Sherman, by the way. I wrote 1im a letter last Ju ne and told him that he was one of the M LA's who was held in very high esteem, as 111ell as of course, people lik e Mr. Pawley, Mr .

Axworthy, Mr . Cherniack - the other night at the �ous e, or the other afternoon, he said they're thin king about fau lt now. He doesn't bel ieve there >houl d be fault in maintenance where there are childr en . Now what is the difference? If a woman was >eing immor al, or im moral conduct, whether she had childr en or whether she did n't, what has this JOt to do then with ju stice? If we're going to be ju st, we're jus t all the way. The fact that she has :hildr en should not excuse her from immor al ity if it does not excuse the other woman from m morality.

There's all kin ds of things - all the princip les I hear. Wha t I'm afraid of if there's enough udicial dis cretion, and there's somebody here - I belie ve it was Mrs. Goodwin pointed out vhoever's got the mo ney to hire the sharp lawyer is the one who's goin g to win the case, -nd a good awyer can make a saint sound lik e they're wal kin g on eggshells. So if you have the woman who's still tt home now - although it's written into the law 50-50 sharing - you didn 't grant the women half the �ay cheque, so she's still at his beck and call until the day she goes for a separation. VIR.

WILSON: I wanted to ask you though - you've hit upon a po int - you say, "The laws you pass oday should be good laws," and on the other hand you say that those who can hire the sharp lawyers re the ones that are going to come out ahead. VIS. PAXTON: If you al low judi cial discretion, I meant. III R.

WILSON: Wha t I'm suggesting is that if you have a good law, then the la wyers won't - in other rords, sort of as you poi nted out, particular peo ple and problems between two la wyers are lik e sort of fish between two cats, and what I'm saying is that we shou ld try to pass good laws so that the �wyers don' t feed upon the very probl ems of society, and I'm agreeing with you there. Bu t it seems to 1e what you're saying is that money seems to, und er the cu rrent legislation that the former overnment was putting through, that the lawyers would have a bonanza. Why would n't you want a ood taw? illS.

PAXTON: Wha t I'm trying to say is, if you get too mu ch judicial discretion in there, you've got othing different from what you've got right now. If you have fault in there, you've got nothing ifferent from what you 've got right now. I said for the very extraordinary cases. So what I'm afraid of ow, as I said in my letter to you , is that with Mr. Ho uston writing these laws, 99.995 percent of them •ill be consider ed extraordinary.

He felt that the wife oft he rich man shoul dn't get 50 percent lik e the 'ife of the lo wer income man should, because she had gone to the hairdresser, she had gone to the �Ion, and the middle income or low income wife had had to do a lot more housework, and therefore 1e deserved 50 percent, but not the rich wife. Now that proves to me he didn 't un derstand at all the rincipl es these laws were based on. Otherwise, we would have asked for 1 percent for one coat of 69

Law Amendments Friday, December 9, 1977 wax on the kitchen floor, 2 percent for two coats - we're not janitors. We're not asking for 50-50 on the basis of our houseke eping skil ls . MR. WILSON: Mr . Ho uston said all this? MS. PAXTON: Yes he did. I could write a book about what he said. Because I read it very thoroughly MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, order. MS. PAXTON: And I wrote him a letter to tell him . MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, ple ase. Order. May I remin d you again, we're deal ing with this leg islation, not Mr . Hous ton. We are dealing with this bill ... MS. PAXTON: Wel l, Mr. Hous ton's rewriting it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: ... whether it should be suspended or whether it should n't be suspended. MS. PAXTON: lt should not be suspended. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's rel ate our answers into the que stions. MS. PAXTON: Okay. Now I say," So what ifthere are a few technic al ities. Aren't all la ws? They have to be tried in cour t before you're positive that you've got problems." Do you kno w the problems? Mr . Mer cier, apparently, has lis ted the problems, and I' ve been to ld by other la wyers that amendm ents cou ld correct those problems and those laws cou ld be put in Janua ry 1s t, 19 78. If people want them in, that is.

If peo ple want them in, they can go in. To me, it's a it's a big snowstorm dust storm, and my own personal feel ings are that this big hold-up with the la ws is so that there' ll be loopholes within the loopho les, and the general public, who has no und erstanding of the law - I could read them - I would n't kn ow from a hole in the ground that they have watered down the pr inciple s - but I have ne doub t from the choice of your lawyer that that was the intention.

And My rna Bowman is a brill ianl woman, but she's one woman against two men who are against it, and, again, we want these laws tc stop this balance of power always in favour of the males. We want eq ual ity. So you've got two mer and one woman. You'r e ju st perpetrating it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Paxton. Any more questions? Thank you for your presentation MS. PAXTON: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Sharon Granove. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chairman, I'm wondering if on that happy note, whether you shouldn' notice the time being after 10 :00 p.m. MR. JORGENSON: Comm ittee rise. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise, and the comm ittee will meet tomo rrow morning at 10 :00 a.rr 70

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-la3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf la3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f4881a0ac95c3f19ba75dab9526e134184e512d4

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