House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask, first of all, if you could canvass the House to seek leave to call Bill 35 for second reading?
SECOND READINGS
Bill 35--The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to proceed with second reading of Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave? [agreed]
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, la Loi sur l'élection des autorités locales et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking all members of the House for their courtesy in allowing the second reading of this bill. I know they all recognize the importance of dealing with this legislation prior to our adjourning the session at the end of this month.
I am pleased to introduce The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act for consideration by all members of the House.
As all members of the Legislature are aware, these amendments arise out of circumstances identified during the recent provincial election campaign and previously. Our government has taken measures to provide enhanced security to individuals in abusive relationships, in strained marriages and in other circumstances. These have included tougher policies on domestic violence and stalking.
During the recent provincial election campaign, concerned individuals pointed out that the time-honoured process of conducting enumeration and making public complete voters' lists as part of our open democratic process put some individual Manitobans at risk. Specifically, individuals who have restraining orders or have fled abusive relationships or who had been stalked were potentially identified through the public posting of these lists.
The purpose of this bill is to protect people who are seeking increased personal security and wish not to have their name included on a voters' list. The bill accomplishes this objective with respect to provincial and local government elections in Manitoba.
The requirement in The Elections Act and The Local Authorities Elections Act to post voters' lists outside polling places is now removed. Instead of posting lists, The Elections Act will now allow the returning officer of rural electoral divisions to place the lists in the local municipal or other public office. Returning officers in all constituencies will have available for public inspections copies of the voters' lists.
The bill will also permit a voter in both a provincial and a local election to ask to have his or her name and/or address omitted or obscured from a voters' list in order to protect the person's personal security. This provision is modelled on a section in a recent British Columbia bill that has not yet become law. The obscured or omitted information will not be publicly available, nor will it be available to candidates or political parties. The returning officer will have the obligation of ensuring that the individual is entitled to vote and thereby participate in the democratic process.
Election officials will be obliged under both acts to advertise or take other steps to inform the public about the new security protection.
Each act is also being amended to prohibit the use of voters' lists except for political or election purposes, this provision being modelled on a recent amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
The amendments put forward in this bill will enhance personal security while ensuring public scrutiny of amended voters' lists. Candidates or their official agents will continue to receive copies of the amended voters' lists for election purposes. Copies of voters' lists will no longer be distributed as freely as once was the case.
Unfortunately, this is now necessary in order to accomplish the important objective of providing enhanced public security for persons at risk. Not proceeding with this bill would diminish the effectiveness of other measures that have been taken to enhance personal security in Manitoba.
Passage of this bill prior to June 30 will allow it to be effective for the local government elections to be held in Manitoba in October of 1995.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I was hoping to be able to just add comment, because we do believe that the bill, it will be beneficial to see it pass second reading today. If I can have leave to speak to the bill.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to make comment on this bill? We have just agreed to stand it in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). [agreed]
Mr. Lamoureux: I do appreciate the Premier's Office, through the government House leader, notifying our caucus that, in fact, this bill was going to be coming before us. We do see the need to pass this bill before the end of June, as the Premier has indicated, in order to protect those individuals who have required restraining orders for good reason.
Madam Speaker, I recall the issue actually coming up in the most recent provincial election. I think that there are a lot of valid arguments to be made for amending The Elections Act to allow for individuals with restraining orders to be erased off of the voters' list that is made available to the public.
So with those very few words, we are quite prepared to see it pass into committee in hopes that it would pass today.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).
* (1430)
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could now please call Bill 25 for second reading, as well as Bills 3 and 7 for Report Stage.
Bill 25--The Real Property Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 25, The Real Property Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present for second reading The Real Property Amendment Act (2). While some of these amendments cover the correction of typographical errors or introduce changes in the wording for improved consistency and administrative efficiency, others address more technical aspects of the act.
The proposed amendments will clarify the fact that the Land Titles office is not responsible for checking or verifying the standard charged mortgage terms, number and name in mortgages presented for registration. These proposals will also reflect more accurately current land title practice on the publication of notices in the newspaper. The proposed amendments to The Real Property Act before this House will remove the requirement for utilities to file survey plans in all cases where registering easement agreements. Under these new proposals survey plans will be filed only in those situations deemed necessary by the district registrar.
This amendment will provide improved protection for the public by facilitating registration of utility easement agreements which disclose the location of utility installations such as telephone, power or gas lines which are often underground. The implementation of these amendments to The Real Property Act do not represent any additional cost to government and will reduce costs associated with utility easements.
For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to submit this bill for second reading in the Manitoba Legislature. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 3--The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos),
THAT Bill 3 be amended and the proposed subsection 56(4) as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill,
(a) at the end of clause (a) by adding "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master;" and
(b) in clause (b) by striking out "taking into consideration any concern expressed by the person, may" and substituting "where the person entitled to payment objects in writing to the order made under clause (2)(e) within 28 days after the day the order was made, shall."
Motion presented.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, in light of the rules of this House, we are of course limited in the amendments that we can propose to a bill before this Chamber, limited to proposing amendments that deal specifically with the clauses in the bill. Of course, one of the main problems that we have been arguing about this bill is that it is so limited in scope. Indeed, I think the best argument about the limitation of the scope of this bill was made by the minister in committee when in amendment after amendment after amendment proposed by us, she said this was beyond the scope of the bill. Indeed, the scope is so narrow that it is, as I have argued on second reading, an affront to our women and children in this province.
This amendment to subsection 56(4) of The Family Maintenance Act as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill restores the right of a person entitled to maintenance to have the matter heard by a judge or master where the deputy registrar has made an order based on a payment plan proposed by the person in default. To restore this right, two amendments to subsection 56(4) are proposed.
The amendment to clause (a) of subsection 56(4) is to add: "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master" at the end of the clause, so that the designated officer has the duty to advise the person entitled to maintenance of the appeal right.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that this also provides a substantive right.
To ensure the substantive right, the second amendment to subsection 56(4) is to clause (b): "to provide that where the person entitled to the payment objects in writing within 28 days of the order being made, the designated officer shall issue a summons within 28 days of the order for the person in default to appear before a judge or master."
Madam Speaker, in the committee, we heard presentation after presentation from people, particularly custodial parents, women in particular, complaining and grieving the removal of the right of appeal from custodial parents in this bill. For example, one custodial parent Rosella Dyck stated: with what little rights the payee has, rights are being taken away.
We had the custodial parents coalition say that the provision will render the recipient powerless. The decision to appeal is left, they said, entirely to the discretion of the designated officer, while at the same time arrears orders made by the deputy registrar are no longer considered to be interim but permanent orders, they argue. They also stated that in effect this order is then a variation procedure but does not allow the input of the payee or her council, as would be the case in a regular variation procedure.
Another presenter before the committee, Louise Dyck, said that this represents a stripping away of the rights of the custodial parent to in fact succeed in getting support payments due.
I know what the minister's arguments have been. She said that this amendment was put in in order to protect the payee, to protect the payee from pressures or intimidation from the defaulting spouse. I ask then, Madam Speaker, why the government is not then removing appeal rights wherever they exist, where there is a debt owing to, for example, a vulnerable party. I suggest that this is not protecting a vulnerable person but in fact just intensifying the vulnerability. It is making the vulnerable party more vulnerable, especially to the courts and to the maintenance enforcement regime, to the designated officer.
It is making that individual more vulnerable by removing her role. If the concern truly is intimidation why then does the government even leave a role for the payee here? The government still maintains the role of the payee's views. In other words, the designated officer may listen to the payee's views, the custodial parent's views. That defeats the minister's argument.
Custodial parents, Madam Speaker, have already shown and proven their urge to have action and have the arrears collected. They have overcome the many difficulties that follow on separation and divorce. First of all, they have secured an order. Second of all, they have had it filed in the Maintenance office. Third, they have had to endure what we have heard is the inaction, the red tape, of the Maintenance office.
By the time the custodial parent gets to this stage of the proceeding, Madam Speaker, I think that the urge, the self-sufficiency of the custodial parent in terms of being able to withstand any pressure at that point has been shown that it can be withstood if we pay any heed at all to the minister's argument.
* (1440)
But I do not know what evidence the minister has of intimidation of custodial parents in similar circumstances. No one at the committee, none of the custodial parents, none of the organizations on their behalf spoke of such a concern. In fact, to the contrary, at the committee, the presenters said that we must maintain this right of appeal. We are the ones being most affected. We are the ones with something at stake. We are the ones with the insights. We are the ones with the needs. We are the ones who have the children with the needs. Do not shut us out. Do not tell us what is good for us. We must have a role.
So what this section in the bill does, Madam Speaker, is it disempowers the most affected party, and it is not, as the minister argues, comparable to a criminal matter where the prosecution of a case is handled by the Crown, because there the prosecution is handled by the Crown as the agent for the people, as the agent for the state, and it is not to enforce a debt owing to a particular person or persons. So it is not a comparable situation.
It is wrong, Madam Speaker, for this bill to say that a custodial parent must rely on a bureaucrat, a civil servant, to appreciate the effects of a repayment order. There must be a check on the desires, the conclusions of a designated officer, especially given what we know are the concerns and the problems of maintenance enforcement and the demands on designated officers in this province.
It is too much to ask, Madam Speaker, that designated officers be put in the position of being the sole discretionary authority, deciding whether to appeal when a payment is to be made and how a payment is to be made. Those matters are way too important for custodial parents to give to the discretionary authority of a designated officer, and even more important, Madam Speaker, there is an inherent right in custodial parents to have a say with this important decision.
So we ask that members of this House reject the patronizing and paternalistic position of this government on this section of the bill and ask that the House support the Report Stage amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly speak against that amendment, and believe that it is borne of a misunderstanding by the member on the other side which he has continued to foster, though he has had an explanation several times.
First of all, let me say to the member and to the members of this House that this bill is a very large-in-scope bill, and it is the toughest piece of legislation in the area of maintenance enforcement that is available across this country. It is very wide in scope, Madam Speaker, because it deals with enforcement measures that include increased jail terms, that include increased fines and, in fact, deal with a large number of enforcement measures. In addition, it deals with the attachment of resources never previously available.
One of the difficulties that has always been evident in the payment of maintenance enforcement is that people have, it appears, made an attempt to hide their assets and to say that there were not any resources available.
What this bill does is it makes available resources that were never previously there before. It allows the attachment of joint assets, and it also--
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the minister is speaking on the merits of the bill. The debate before the House now is on the amendment at report stage, which is very specific in dealing with the right of appeal from a designated officer or a decision of the deputy registrar as to the repayment schedule.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, if you would direct the minister to deal with that matter.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, indeed, does have a point of order.
The debate at this point should be on the amendment proposed by the honourable member for St. Johns to the proposed bill. The honourable minister will have an opportunity to debate the principles on third reading of the bill and to stress the merits of the bill at that time.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, my response was just to the comments of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that the bill was narrow in scope. I felt that he needed some correction and perhaps some enlightenment about the purpose of the bill.
However, let me speak directly to the amendment, because I believe that the member has in fact been misunderstood. This is why we cannot support the amendments put forward by the other side.
Individuals are not required to register with the Maintenance Enforcement Program. In fact, if they wish to conduct their enforcement matter totally on their own that is certainly available to them, in which case they would have complete control over how certain measures would be taken between the parties. However, where individuals do choose to enroll in the Maintenance Enforcement Program they then say that the maintenance enforcement officer will have conduct of their particular case or file. Many people choose to do this because they are in fact intimidated by the payer.
The payer may choose the person at a vulnerable time or in vulnerable moments of their life and exercise pressure on that person to cause that person to make decisions about repayment or payment of arrears which is not in the best interests of the payee, but the payee is vulnerable, Madam Speaker. What this does is, it puts, as in all other cases, the carriage or conduct of the enforcement file into the hands of the maintenance enforcement officer, and the maintenance enforcement officer becomes the third party so it is not a pressure exerted on the payee. Where that pressure is exerted the best interests of the payment still falls to the maintenance enforcement officer, so it is a useless pressure on the payee.
This amendment, Madam Speaker, that the other side of the House has put forward is one which increases the vulnerability of women, which increases the vulnerability of the payee and subjects them to possible pressures of the payer, which we believe is not in their best interests.
The bill, as it stands, and the reasons that we reject this amendment are, first of all, the bill as we have presented it with this provision make it consistent with other enforcement provisions of the act. It prevents the recipient from being subjected to pressure by the payer to change enforcement actions of key importance in relationships where violence or power imbalances are at issue. That is why we do not support the amendment put forward by the NDP critic, because it changes that power balance.
The government is responsible for enforcing support orders registered with the program, and it is important that they have the power to do that. It also must be remembered that the program officers have knowledge of current levels of support and default payments, as well as, financial circumstances of the payer that are relevant to what is an appropriate payment amount. The program officers and their legal counsel are also able to assess the likelihood of a markedly different repayment order being pronounced by a judge or a master.
The member opposite would have you believe that the views of the payee are simply not taken into account, that the views of the recipient are simply shut out. In fact, that is quite wrong. If he reads on in the bill he will see that the bill ensures the views of the recipients are taken into account but the final decision to appeal, like all other enforcement decisions, is made by the program.
It also must be remembered that when a deputy registrar's repayment order is reviewed by a judge or a master, the program has conduct of that action. It is the program that makes the submission as to the appropriate repayment amounts to the court at that time, not the payee. So the bill, had it not been as it stands now and as things are at the moment without this bill, it is still the maintenance enforcement officer who actually takes the case forward before the judge or the master. It is not, even now, the recipient or the payee.
* (1450)
So I believe the member has put some confusion into the mix. I would like to make sure that it is clarified for the people of Manitoba, particularly for the women of Manitoba, that amendments such as this put forward by the other side of the House, by the NDP, are ones which we believe will increase the vulnerability of an individual payee or recipient. This government cannot support that. This government will not support placing women in a position of vulnerability, perhaps violence and increased jeopardy, Madam Speaker.
So I end by saying with the bill as it stands, it is the strongest in Canada, and we would not in any way want to weaken the position by accepting the amendment of the member opposite.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On behalf of the Liberal members of the Manitoba Legislature, I would like to give support to this amendment. At the committee hearings on this bill, we heard from many presenters, and one of the reasons to have those committee hearings is to hear from the public.
Many of the people who appeared at the committee had concerns about the elimination of their right to appeal. So if we are going to bother to have committee hearings to hear from the public, then we should be taking some direction from them, and I believe this amendment speaks to a direction that the public has requested in regard to this matter.
The view put forward that the people have the right not to go into the Maintenance Enforcement Program if they want to retain the right to appeal is a weak argument, I feel. An analogy would be to say to an adult child, if you want my support and you want to live under my roof, then you have to throw out your self-esteem, your principles as an individual. If you want my help, you must ask when you can go to the fridge. You must ask when you can go out.
No, I do not think that is a reasonable answer to the concerns about this, that people do have the right to opt out of the Maintenance Enforcement Program.
The argument about vulnerability, I guess every person who goes to the police with a report of domestic violence, or any type of report, it could be argued that you know we have to protect them from exercising the due process. I do not think women should need to fear using the due process of law that has been afforded by legislatures and governments, that they should fear anything from it, so we, the Liberal caucus of members of the Manitoba Legislature, support this amendment. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Mackintosh: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
* (1520)
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The motion before the House, moved by the honourable member for St. Johns,
THAT Bill 3 be amended in the proposed subsection 56(4), as set out in subsection 7(2) of the Bill,
(a) at the end of clause (a) by adding--[interjection] Dispense.
THAT Bill 3 be amended in the proposed subsection 56(4), as set out in subsection 7(2) of the Bill,
(a) at the end of clause (a) by adding "and of that person's right to have the matter heard by a judge or master"; and
(b) in clause (b) by striking out "taking into consideration any concern expressed by the person, may" and substituting "where the person entitled to payment objects in writing to the order made under clause (2)(e) within 28 days after the day the order was made, shall".
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers.
Nays
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 24, Nays 28.
Madam Speaker: The amendment is accordingly defeated.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act; Loi sur l'exécution des ordonnances alimentaires--modification de diverses lois, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* (1530)
Bill 7--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move that Bill No. 7 be amended by striking out subsection 8(2) and substituting the following:
8(2) Subsection 100(3) is amended by striking out "in an election until he or she files an audited statement" and substituting "until after the next election described in section 89 (election of council)".
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer: I will be very short in my remarks in the sense that the amendment that is brought forth is a grammatical error that was put into the original bill that was passed in committee last week. This is a correction of a grammatical error.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Reimer: I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could canvass the House to see if there is leave to call Bill 35 again for second reading.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to recall Bill 35, previously agreed to standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS
Bill 35--The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I think this bill indicates that sometimes, perhaps rarely, if enough pressure is put on this government, indeed, sometimes something can get done, and that something can get done for the women in particular in this province, particularly the vulnerable women, the women who are hiding from people who are abusers and who are stalkers, and for the vulnerable seniors in this province.
It is unfortunate it is with this delay that we have to deal with this bill, because we have just come through an election where I suspect that almost every member in this House heard complaints, particularly from women and from seniors, about the voters' list and how its conspicuous posting is putting at risk the safety of those individuals.
This is not just a privacy issue, Madam Speaker. This is an issue of safety. When we look at the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer going back to June of 1992, and when we look at the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer which again in the strongest words on March of '94 urges--in fact, the wording was, strongly urge this government to change the law regarding the posting of the voters' list and the access to the voters' list.
We have to ask, where was this government? Where have they been? Where have they been since June of 1992, at least?
I want to refer to the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer respecting the general election for September of 1990, where he warns: The Elections Act does not restrict the purposes for which a voters' list may be used. He said: The act permits anyone to inspect or copy the voters' list in the returning office during an election. Post-election, the act provides for public inspection of the list. These provisions are in need of review in light of privacy concerns.
The Chief Electoral Officer said and warned: There have been routine requests from salespeople, direct mail firms and bill collectors to copy the voters' list for business purposes.
I myself was contacted by an agency just two weeks ago asking for a copy of the list for St. Johns. The purpose of the request was not for electoral purposes, but was to raise money and to use the list, a list created solely for the purpose of enabling people, to vote for soliciting individuals--a purpose that is wrong.
The Chief Electoral Officer went on in his 1990 report by warning that in 1986, 1988 and 1990 many returning officers also received privacy-related complaints concerning posting of the voters' list. Following the 1988 general election, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women wrote to Elections Manitoba to raise concerns about the posting of voters' lists in public places. As a result of such concerns, some qualified voters have refused to be enumerated. Concerns have also been raised regarding the public posting of voters' lists for voters who are residents of mental hospitals or institutions for mental retardates.
I want to then cite the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer that was received by the Speaker's office in March 1994 and which was tabled in this House. It says there: A number of complaints were again received from voters regarding the posting of the voters' lists. The majority of these complaints came from individuals living alone. Complaints of this sort have been brought to our attention in every general election and by-election since 1986. The seriousness and urgency that voters' list not be publicly posted on street corners has grown steadily over the years as the fear of personal safety has increased. I strongly urge that Section 36(2) of the act be changed so as to delete the public posting of the voters' list outside polling places and other conspicuous places.
Madam Speaker, finally, and that is the word that is associated always with this government, we have a provision before this House that deals with this. As a result of pressures, not only, I think, from the Chief Electoral Officer, but from individuals and from concerns raised on this side, both during the campaign and during Oral Questions in the last few weeks, this government has now done what was the right thing to do a long time ago and has brought in this legislation.
Madam Speaker, we support this legislation. In looking at it, it does contain not only the removal of the requirement to post the voters' list in a conspicuous place or on the street corners of Manitoba, but also does what I think the government said it was not going to do in Question Period just a couple of weeks ago, that is, restrict the use of voters' lists after the election.
It was our argument that it is not enough simply to say, do not post voters' lists up on the street corners before an election. You also have to control those voters' lists after the election, and it is often a person who is hiding from an assaulter, from a stalker, who will get sworn in on election day so that her name is not on the street corner. But then the day after the election, her name appears on the voters' list and is given out to whomever may obtain access to that list. So we support the legislation, Madam Speaker. We will support it on second reading and look forward to its early enactment, and, of course, it is critical that this legislation be given Royal Assent before the municipal elections unfold. We understand from information received on this side that the construction, if you will, of the voters' list for the municipal campaign, at least in the City of Winnipeg, is now ongoing or is about to begin.
So it is important that this legislation receive the support of all members of this House as soon as possible. Having said that, we think it is important for the public to have notice that this legislation is before the Assembly and going before a standing committee of the House, It is important that this House do everything it can to ensure that the public enjoy that privilege of attending before the standing committee to express any concerns that it may have. So with that concern about due notice being provided to Manitobans, we look forward to the passage of this legislation on second reading in principle and that it go to the standing committee perhaps as early as tomorrow or the next day but so long as it is given that the public of Manitoba has notice that this bill is being considered. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I, too, want to put some remarks on the record because I believe this is an important amendment, and I, too, received complaints during the election campaign. In fact, my guess would be that probably almost all of us here received complaints during the election campaign. [interjection] Well, it was certainly a big concern in the city of Winnipeg. Perhaps people in rural Manitoba do not share that concern.
* (1540)
I personally took some of those calls in my constituency office or in my campaign headquarters, I should say, and the voters in Burrows constituency who phoned fall into a number of categories. I think, as a previous speaker mentioned, there are individuals who feel vulnerable because of their particular situation respecting former partners, but the individuals who phoned me were seniors, people who were single, people living alone, and they feel vulnerable as well.
In our neighbourhood, the reason is their fear of crime, a well-justified fear, and they did not want people who might be contemplating breaking and entering into homes to find out that they were living alone, and I think that was a very valid concern on their part. And so when they phoned, they expressed surprise that these lists were still publicly posted, and I pointed out that it was allowed under The Elections Act and that the Chief Electoral Officer, on two previous occasions, in his reports to the government had recommended that this be changed and that there be an end to the public posting and that other arrangements be made.
So we are glad to see that the government is doing this, but as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out, they have been very tardy in doing this. They could have followed up after the 1993 report. They could have followed up after the 1990 report, and they had many sessions. I believe we had six sessions of the Thirty-fifth Legislature in which they could have passed this amendment.
We also know that people not only phoned people running in the election campaign, like myself, but they phoned radio shows. In fact, I encouraged them to phone the Chief Electoral Officer and put in a complaint. So I hope that part of the reason that the government is acting is that they heard recently, since April 25, from the Chief Electoral Officer that his office received many complaints as well.
Since the election, I too received a solicitation from a hospital in Winnipeg. I will not name the hospital to spare them embarrassment, probably the same institution that phoned the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and asked for the voters' list for the Burrows constituency. I declined, and instead I suggested that they phone the Chief Electoral Officer. I hope they did that so that he became aware that people were using the voters' lists for the purposes of fundraising in order to compile a data base to use for mailings for fundraising.
Now, I am just guessing, but knowing the nature of the institution that was phoning, I think that is probably a very good guess that it was for mailings or fundraising. I think that was inappropriate, is inappropriate, and I am pleased to see that this amendment takes care of that concern. So we, in this caucus, are supporting this amendment. We plan to send it to committee on Thursday night so that they can hear the concerns of the public. We will be supporting it, but, once again, we are very critical of this government for taking so long to do what should have been done many sessions ago.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I also want to rise to support the bill, but put a few comments on the record with respect to some issues that I encountered, concerns that I encountered with respect to the posting publicly of the voters' list.
I would like to start off by saying that I would hate to think, Madam Speaker, that there was one person in Manitoba, even one person, who did not vote because they did not want to have their name on the voters' list so it could be made public.
I think that could happen because I think that there are a lot of people who do not understand the procedure and they think that if you are not on the list, then you cannot vote. I think that with this new provision, there will be a need for a greater explanation of the provisions for people to maintain their confidentiality and still be able to vote. I am sure there are a number of people who did not use their right to vote because they did not understand that they could still vote if their name was not on a list and they did not want their name to be on a public list.
I want to talk about a woman in my constituency, whom I have worked with repeatedly over the last couple of years, who is, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has made reference to, one of the women who has been pursued by a previous partner. I was really pleased that she voted on election day, but she only did that because I went to the door and I got her and put her in my car. I had to give her a ride with her two kids and her neighbour's child. She was one of the women that we are talking about who would not have voted and did not have transportation and would have really been concerned about having her name posted publicly.
I also want to talk about some of the, quote, phone scams that are going on. Just recently in Transcona we had a pay-by-phone system where a phone company would solicit using a voice-programmed computer to contact homes. This program was misprogrammed and was phoning people from one o'clock in the morning to 7:30 in the morning on a Saturday. I had phone calls to the constituency office complaining about this, and I would hate to think that kind of error could be supported and encouraged by using the voters' list for the province of Manitoba. This is one of the many phone scams or problems that could occur.
Other situations that we know occur are people intent on breaking into the homes of people who live alone or are otherwise vulnerable who can simply find that information out by looking at the voters' list and then contact those people by the phone and pretend that they know them by using their names. That is something that we know has happened with elderly people in the province, and again we would not want to see that occur from people getting the name and particulars about that household from the voters' list which is publicly posted.
I meant to make reference when I was talking about this woman in Radisson that she was in the process of moving. I think that we have to realize that there are citizens in our community who move very frequently, and I think that the issues such as this that are being looked at by Elections Manitoba have to be taken seriously when we want to ensure that all Manitobans are eligible to vote even if they do not have a home address, that we have to ensure that we have provisions for all citizens to be given the right to vote. This was not as much a problem in the recent provincial election, but I know it was a very large problem in the federal election.
I think that there are also other issues related to this that need to be looked at by Elections Manitoba, and I would bet that there are recommendations dealing with that in these reports that this government has been tardy in implementing. This government, as we have heard, has had this recommendation to no longer allow voters' lists to be publicly posted, recommendations since '86 and in reports since the early '90s.
I just want to conclude by saying that we are pleased that the government has taken this step to protect vulnerable citizens and to protect the privacy. We hope that they will go one step further and ensure that voters' lists are not misused after elections as well as when the lists are posted during elections.
With that I will conclude my comments and hope that people will have an opportunity to be aware that they have the chance to make public presentations on this issue. Unfortunately, with the way that the government has handled the legislation, that is not likely since it is going to have to be rushed to committee over the next two days. I find that regrettable in the way that they deal with legislation coming before the House, but I also want to commend Elections Manitoba for their work in ensuring that this government is reminded again of this issue.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please canvass the House to see if there would be leave to allow for the third readings of both Bills 3 and 7, and, if there is such leave, I would ask you to please call those bills for third reading.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to proceed to third reading of Bills 3 and 7? [agreed]
* (1550)
THIRD READINGS
Bill 3--The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, by leave, seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 3, The Maintenance Enforcement (Various Acts Amendment) Act; Loi sur l'exécution des ordonnances alimentaires - modification de diverses lois, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, it is with regret, Madam Speaker, that we are put in a position of having to support legislation that is so half-hearted, particularly following the presentations to the standing committee the other night and the work that this side has done and indeed the Liberal members in this House have done to raise awareness of the shortcomings and in fact the travesty of justice that is taking place within maintenance enforcement in Manitoba. We note, when the minister moved second reading of this bill, she said, and I quote: with these amendments we are strengthening the Maintenance Enforcement Program and creating the most effective deterrents for those seeking to evade its reach.
Then she went on to say, and I quote: We are doing everything possible to force individuals for defaulting on maintenance and support payments to live up to their obligations.
I ask how the minister can possibly say that, put it on the record, when she comes in with a bill which is such a pitiful half-hearted effort, there is no way in this bill the most effective deterrents. We, in presentation after presentation to the committee, told this minister what indeed could be the most effective deterrents. The minister said no, after no, after no.
We had presentation after presentation that talked about the need for interest payments being applied to arrears. The organization Réseau, the Coalition of Custodial Parents, we had a local lawyer who apparently acts for both custodial and noncustodial parents who said that indeed interest was a main issue. We had a very insightful presentation by a single mom by the name of Rhonda McCorriston who said: My bills were stacking up at 24 percent and 18 percent interest, he was paying 25 bucks a month with no interest; this does not seem fair.
We had another single mom by the name of Louise Dyck, who said to the committee: Interest should be automatically assessed for all monies in arrears. The government will not accept that I cannot pay my income tax or my property tax because my support payments have not been made. I get charged a penalty in interest, so should the payer.
The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law said: We feel strongly that interest should also be charged on arrears. What incentive is there for the payer's spouse to pay his maintenance regularly while interest accumulates on every other debt but this one? At the same time the former spouse, entitled to receive maintenance payments for herself or for her children, needs this money to live and must pay interest on outstanding taxes, on credit card balances, on loans and on lines of credit while waiting for the maintenance payment to which she is entitled. It is profoundly unfair that interest is not accumulated on all support arrears, and we strongly urge the government to remedy the situation.
I think the presentation by the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law speaks to the argument put forward by this minister in responding to the demand that interest be allowed. She said, well, what is the use of pursuing interest when the payer is in arrears on the payments itself? Well, as the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law says, interest provides an incentive, it is proactive, it will help prevent arrears. The minister fails to acknowledge that. When one has a series of debts, it is nature, it is common sense that you look to see which debts I can afford to put off. The debts that one can afford to put off will be those that have either no interest or low interest, Madam Speaker.
When will this minister understand that interest will make a difference, interest will prioritize the debts owing to children in Manitoba?
I fail to understand why, when every other civil debt for the payment of money in Manitoba attracts interest, a civil debt owing, of all people, to our women and children goes without interest. What a profound statement from this minister. What a sad commentary on the lack of respect for our women and children and the priority that must be given to maintenance payments.
On the issue of arrears, again we heard presentation after presentation say that these arrears should not be written off. It was said, and we know that the larger the arrears, the more likely they are to be written off. Réseau strongly urged that arrears not be allowed to be written off. We had one woman, Ms. Bonnefoy, who told that $4,000 of arrears was written off and she was not even told about it. People like Louise Dyck, the Coalition of Custodial Parents, Rosella Dyck, pleading with the minister to stop this erasure of arrears.
We need to make sure that the collection of this debt be given the first priority. As the Coalition of Custodial Parents argued, there is no more important a debt owing than that from parents to their children, but it is a priority that this government has not been respecting.
Madam Speaker, we wonder, we have asked the government, why is it that taxes, payment of wages, workers compensation premiums all come before the debts owing to our children? It does not make sense. If indeed women and children and their needs are the first priority in this province, this government had an obligation to ensure that priority.
We know that, from the presentations and from the casework that each member has in this Chamber, for by far too many people priority is not given to the children of a marriage after separation or divorce. I suggest that this government, by its half-hearted bill, and by the rejection of needed improvements that have been suggested and drafted for it, gives moral support to and acknowledges that lack of priority that those noncustodial parents give to the children. I suggest that this government is complicitous in this betrayal of our children.
* (1600)
It is interesting, Madam Speaker, in addition to the particular changes sought to the legislation, presentation after presentation spoke of how this government was failing the women and children in this province. It is interesting that we have people like Marilyn McGonigal who said, I hear from so many clients that they are not getting any satisfaction from the Maintenance office; from Sue Spiece who said, the Maintenance office has done nothing; from Ms. Cornell, who talked about why there was a snitch line regarding welfare, but of course nothing for maintenance. Because indeed if he does not pay, we all pay. We also heard from Ms. Cornell that when arrears are signed over to social allowances, files are closed. Her file was closed.
It was critical for this government and this minister in particular to hear the circumstances that these single parents are living in.
I want to quote from Ms. Judy Cornell who said, quote, I worry about my children's emotional well-being and future education. I cannot afford swimming lessons, hockey, gifts for birthday parties, field trip costs and student fees. There is not enough money to buy fire or life insurance or car insurance. I am in need of major car repairs on a 1982 car which has a cracked windshield, unsafe tires, holes in the muffler, and I have not taken the car for a tune-up for three years. I do not have money to repair my appliances, vacuum cleaner, dryer, washing machine, et cetera. There is not enough money to own a pet or even the daily newspaper.
Rhonda McCorriston said, we have not had one holiday to anywhere. What does this mean? It means that the chance to see other people and other places, to grow and learn about the world around us is not there. She said, and I think this is particularly instructive for the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), can we blame youth gangs on child poverty? Yes, we can, she said. Single parents work part time in evening jobs. This is when kids are wandering the streets. Children do not have people at home to listen to them. They go to friends, gangs and groups that will make them feel like they belong--car theft and break-and-enters. You are saying, oh, come now, but you have never, ever had anything, you saw your parent working very hard and getting nowhere.
You knew that jobs were few and there was just no money. If you thought the chances of you ever owning a new-smelling, nice shiny car were nonexistent and you knew that you could experience that just for one moment, one minute in heaven, that was your one chance, you would grab it too. The system is unfair. I know that, you know that and our youth know that. We can say it is the best we have. We can say it is not that bad but the kids know better, kids that watch single parents trying to make ends meet, kids who go to visit the other parent and see stepbrothers and sisters with shiny new bikes, taking trips, CD players and walkmans. Noncustodial parents laugh at custodial parents. It is okay to beat the custodial parent. It is not okay to beat the kids. We need enforcement which sees this issue as being a societal issue.
She concludes: Custodial parents should not have to fight individually, single-handedly against child poverty. At the risk of offending anyone she said, looking at the members, at the committee: is that not your job?
Madam Speaker, as I said in committee in response to presentation, I was raised in a single-parent household. I know first-hand of the demands, the pressures, the loneliness, the pain but sometimes great joy of being a single parent. On top of all those demands and the stresses and the loneliness, it must be so discouraging when one has an ex-partner who, although not present in the house, is perpetuating an abuse, the most sinister of abuses, and that is financial abuse through the nonpayment of spousal payments and child payments.
My father died when I was two years old. While I thought that was the worst that could happen, I know now that there is something worse. That is where the spouse continues to live and continues to abuse. What is even intensifying that situation is when the Maintenance office then comes into play and the custodial parent says, I need help, I need the enforcement, someone to help me with these maintenance payments, and goes there thinking that the office, because it was designed for that purpose, will help enforce the order, the payments--comes up against the wall, the wall that we heard presentation after presentation about, where the Maintenance Enforcement office is not there.
As Sue Spiece says, the Maintenance office has done nothing. As Ms. McGonigal said, they are not getting any satisfaction from the Maintenance office. As I know first-hand in phone call after phone call, visit after visit, the Maintenance office is falling flat on its face despite the good will of people working there. That office neither has the resources nor the enforcement tools and legislation to do the job. This government is going to ensure that continues. With half-hearted efforts in the bill it is saying to the women and children of this province, you must continue to suffer that sinister abuse; you must continue to face the wall, the inaction, the red tape of the Maintenance Enforcement office.
When you have a government that purports to have a zero tolerance policy on violence against women, you have to ask, how could they dare continue to say that when they are perpetuating the status quo. The government, by this bill, is continuing to ensure the oppression of those custodial parents, the women and children. It is continuing to ensure that this will remain the land of poverty and will continue to ensure that the have-nots in this province will grow and grow and grow in number.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see this bill pass. At committee we asked the minister to put on the record a commitment to proclaiming the sections of the bill within weeks. We are here talking about this bill today because there is urgency in getting these, albeit, limited provisions into force. So I again ask the minister to put on the record on third reading exactly when this bill will be proclaimed in full. Indeed I want to know from the minister, has she already provided instructions to the various government departments to put in place any forms or regulatory provisions that may be required under the act? Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, Bill 3, and indicate our support of the bill.
This in fact has been an issue for a number of years. It is somewhat sad to see, to a certain extent, that it took seven years for this particular administration to address this very important issue. It seems from the view of many that are out there that the primary motivating factor for introducing this legislation or bringing forward the suggestion of introduction of legislation of this nature was prior to the provincial election which was announced just a few months back.
* (1610)
Having said that I do not necessarily want to impute too many motives of the government but rather to acknowledge that this is legislation that many people have been waiting for.
As the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has pointed out, there are many other aspects to this legislation that could have been added to it. I note the member for St. Johns during committee stage did in fact bring forward a number of amendments and then attempted again to bring forward an amendment for the report stage. We believe, in most part, that these have been very positive amendments, and that is why earlier today we supported what the member for St. Johns was attempting to do.
Whether it is the Coalition of Custodial Parents or the many different individuals that appeared before the committee, I think each and every one were quite successful in articulating a very strong message. I do believe that all members of this Chamber acknowledge the importance of that message.
During the campaign we talked about child poverty and the importance of the province in addressing the whole issue of child poverty. Madam Speaker, the correlation between child poverty and maintenance enforcement is very strong. That is one of the reasons why so many of us, in particular, individuals, friends and former colleagues of mine, have felt so strongly on this issue is because we recognize the importance in terms of getting the financial resources to the children. Even though a vast majority of the custodial parents are, in fact, women, the first priority has to be the children. We have seen some of the hardships that have been experienced as a direct result of government's failure to be able to give the resources that are necessary, take the actions that are again necessary in order to alleviate the problem with respect to maintenance enforcement.
You know it was interesting when the member for St. Johns made reference to the Maintenance office and so many believe that it has done nothing. It is not necessarily a reflection on the civil servants that work within the enforcement office or the Maintenance office. I feel fairly comfortable that they are doing whatever they can, given the restrictions that they have, to be able to get monies owed to the people that need it.
There are very strong limitations, a good number of limitations. Some of it would be legislative. Other aspects would be financial resources in terms of staffing and so forth. These are the types of issues that are not going to die after this particular bill passes today. There are many other issues facing maintenance enforcement, in particular The Maintenance Enforcement Act. We hope and trust that the minister responsible, who says now today we have the strongest maintenance enforcement--after this receives Royal Assent--across Canada, is not prepared to sit back, because that is in fact what the government did for the first six years of being in office. Yes, this, many would say, is a starting point, but it is not good if this government decides that it does not have to do anything for the next three and a half years leading up to another election when they once again might choose to talk about family maintenance.
I know in discussions that I have had previously with, in particular, Ms. McCormick regarding family maintenance, I can recall her talking about the whole question of arrears and how a judge can virtually wipe out a portion of those arrears. I know what limited research facilities we have within our current caucus and the discussions that they have had, along with my colleague from The Maples, with some of the individuals that have made representation or presentations at the committee. There were a number of other concerns that were brought forward.
One of those concerns was dealt with in terms of the amendment that was being proposed. Again, there is a lot of validity to it, and at times government sets its agenda and says, this is what it is that we are prepared to pass. Maybe that does not necessarily approach things in a open-minded fashion. I have seen that.
I recall the drinking and driving legislation and the then-minister, Attorney General brought in this legislation and was not prepared to accept amendments. There were a great number of amendments that were brought forward, only for us to see them being denied but then the government incorporating them in future legislative changes. We would, of course, applaud the future changes--or those changes that the minister did bring in eventually. There are some amendments--and I believe that the current minister recognizes different areas of this legislation that could again be further enhanced.
To that end, I would conclude my remarks by strongly encouraging the Minister of Justice to not leaving The Maintenance Enforcement Act as it is after this amendment has been passed but to see it once again before the Chamber sometime, in the not too distant future. One could ultimately argue, it would be nice to see it in the next session, Madam Speaker, where the minister will take the time to reflect over the public hearings, because I like to believe that the public hearings can have a very positive influence on legislation, and also to take into consideration representation and presentations that would be given to her and reflect on the current legislation, the amendments that we are passing, in hopes that the minister will see fit to bring in some of the amendments that have been possibly proposed in committee stage earlier but, quite possibly, maybe not given notice to the minister, or addressing some of the concerns that were specifically addressed and legitimately so, such as the right of appeal being taken away type thing if they want to go through the Maintenance Enforcement Program.
I do believe that there is a lot more to be done, and we hope that this government will not wait another six years before it starts acting on it.
With those few words we are prepared to see it pass.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I just would like to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) by Rosella Dyck in May of this year. Ms. Dyck has been very active in the various groups that have been appealing to the minister to make major changes to the maintenance enforcement legislation. She also made a very good presentation at the public hearings. It will be a very brief letter.
Dear Mrs. Vodrey: Thirty-seven million dollars promised by Mr. Filmon to save the Jets, a private business venture that has become unprofitable mainly because its players are paid more money in one year than most Winnipeggers see in a lifetime, an additional $57 million promised by other levels of government--no need to tighten their belts, no wage rollbacks. Twenty-five percent of Manitoba children, more than 70,000, living in poverty; 62 percent of these children live in lone-parent homes; $27 million owing to Manitoba children in unpaid court-ordered child support. It is quite obvious that the government can come up with money when it wants to. I challenge all levels of government to give to the poor children of Manitoba an amount equal to the amount they have promised to the Jets. The first $27 million should be sent to those children who are owed child support. The rest should be used to ensure that all poor children in Manitoba have sufficient nutritious food and the basic necessities of life.
Imagine the long-term consequences of children being adequately provided for, how cost-effective this would be in the long run, and they do not even expect the government to build them a big new expensive playhouse. The arena will not be accessible to children who cannot afford the price of a ticket. For many Manitobans it is difficult enough to find sufficient money for food. A trip to the arena is merely a dream. The reality is hunger pains day after day, year after year. Where are our real priorities? Sincerely, Rosella Dyck.
* (1620)
Madam Speaker, I think that sums up quite nicely the issues facing the province of Manitoba and the government of Manitoba in dealing with maintenance enforcement issues. I thank the House for allowing me the time to read that letter into the record.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, leave to address this matter.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice have leave to speak to the third reading? [agreed]
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak at third reading to Bill 3, the maintenance enforcement bill. It is a real pleasure because it is this government which is breaking new ground. It is this government which is bringing forward the strongest legislation across this country to deal with maintenance enforcement.
Let me start by reminding members of this House that this bill was borne of consultation. This bill was developed based on a consultation process which took place with people from all across Manitoba.
This bill does several things. First of all, it brings forward the toughest enforcement measures, the toughest combination of enforcement measures available across this country, enforcement measures such as the removal or revocation of a drivers' licence, increased jail terms, increased fines to a thousand dollars, report to the credit bureau.
That is very significant, Madam Speaker, because in the past we have been able to try and deal with those people and enforce their maintenance payments where they are employed by someone and we had the ability to garnish wages. However, we have always had difficulty with those people who are self-employed. We have not had a way to provide the incentive, the motivation or the consequence to those individuals who are self-employed. The measures which are put forward in this bill, reporting to the credit bureau, the revocation of a drivers' licence, those are very meaningful. It does not matter where you work. It does not matter if you work for someone else. It does not matter if you are self-employed. It means that there is a consequence that we believe will be meaningful very specifically to that defaulting payer.
Madam Speaker, in addition to the toughest combination of enforcement measures, we also have brought forward the greatest availability of resources. In the past, one of the difficulties has been that there have not been resources available for the Maintenance Enforcement Program to reach in and secure them on behalf of the recipient and the payee. In this case, what this bill does is it allows us now to look at joint assets as a resource now that we can look at to see that money flows into the hands of women and children. We can now look at seizing pension benefit credits, never available before. This is a bold move by this government to make sure that there are resources available for the payment of maintenance enforcement rightfully to the recipient.
Madam Speaker, I can say that these incentives are the strongest incentives available, I believe, within the civil law. It is one area where there is a debt owing on the civil side that you could just go to jail if you do not pay. That is a consequence that we believe is a very serious one.
The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) brought forward amendments at the time of the committee hearing. Though there was lots of opportunity from the time the bill was tabled till the time of the committee hearing, he did not bother to do that. Those amendments were brought forward on the night of the committee hearings. What the effect of those amendments would be is to have us delay the bill, because the amendments were significant. The amendments were such that if you made them, there would be an effect, not only on other parts of the bill but also on other legislation.
Madam Speaker, it seems to us that the other side of the House was more than happy to continue delaying the passage of this bill, but it was our promise that we would pass this legislation, that we would bring forward the strongest legislation and see that it was passed to get money into the hands of women and children in this province.
We took very seriously--and I commented individually to all presenters, except one whose case was before the court. I made that clear, that I could not respond to any recommendations brought forward by that speaker. However, to all others, I responded. I made it clear that the bill, as it stands, is the strongest bill, and we are not ruling out, in the future, the opportunity to add and even strengthen the bill further. That was a commitment I made that evening and I have also made in this House.
I also made the commitment that we would continue to work co-operatively with other provinces across Canada, the provinces and the territories, because as members speak about outstanding payments to women and children, they know very well that some of those payers do not live in the province of Manitoba. The measures available in other provinces are not as strong and not as significant as the ones here in Manitoba. In fact, the enforcement actions may not be as strong.
This issue has been raised at the ministers of Justice conference and at the ministers responsible for the Status of Women. There was an agreement to look at the barriers across this country and to try and break them down so that we have a more reciprocal opportunity to enforce maintenance orders, so that when a payer does not live in Manitoba, we will be able to locate that payer and see that that payer pays.
We also have asked the federal government to assist, because one of the other problems, when there is a debt outstanding, is you have to know where the payer lives, you have to know where the payer works. If for some reason we do not know that, we need access to data banks, particularly federal data banks, which would be the most helpful, that will help us locate that payer and bring that money back into the hands of women and children. We look for the support of the other side in our approaches to the federal government to make sure that they will look at possible amendments and action so we can get that money into the hands of women and children.
Madam Speaker, there has been some comment about the Maintenance office. I feel that it is very important to speak about the very hard-working individuals who work there and their successes. The success of the Maintenance Enforcement office: collection is in the range of 74 percent. If you live in Manitoba, every effort will be made to have you pay.
I would just like to take a moment to speak about the very dismal record when the NDP was in power, because I can tell you, in 1987, the amount of money collected was $16 million. The amount of money collected now in 1994 is $33.2 million, an almost 80 percent increase since this government has been in power. So let not anyone suggest that the Maintenance Enforcement office is not doing its work. Let them not suggest that the Maintenance Enforcement office is not effective, because the figures speak for themselves, an almost 80 percent increase in the amount collected. The files have increased, but they have increased only about 35 percent. The staff increase--the members have spoken about a lack of staff. The staff has increased, since the NDP was in government, by 50 percent. This government has increased staff, has increased the collection from the dismal record of the party opposite when they were in government.
Madam Speaker, what this bill does is it brings forward now an additional strong measure to make sure that money flows into the hands of women and children. In addition, we have tried to assist in terms of the client service by increasing resources, by putting in place an automated voice system which will allow any recipient to phone up 24 hours a day, seven days a week and find out the status of their account. No longer do they have to try and phone within government working hours and wait on the phone until they reach a maintenance enforcement officer, who then would simply provide information and not be working on the enforcement files. Now, what this government has done is put in place an automated voice response system so that individuals can phone and check the status of their file, and maintenance enforcement officers can actually work on maintenance enforcement.
* (1630)
We have also enhanced the computer system so that the ability to retrieve material is much enhanced from where it was previously, particularly when the other side was in government. We have also found that some people have said, well, you know, we would pay, but it is hard for us to get downtown. We have now put in place that you can use a debit card system so that payments can be made from places other than just walking into the Maintenance Enforcement office, and that money can flow now into the hands of women and children.
This government has made improvements on the administrative side, on the staffing side, and, in addition, we have brought forward the strongest legislation across this country.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to the support of the other side, and I am very pleased to have brought forward this legislation on behalf of our government.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 7--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, by leave, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 7, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, before I move the motion for Supply I would like to announce that the Committee of Law Amendments will sit on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. to consider such bills as will be sent to it by this House, I believe Bill 35 being one of those bills.
Madam Speaker, I would now move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Labour; the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Department of Housing; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for Aboriginal Justice Initiatives and Decentralization.
* (1640)