ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bills 31, 30, 49, 66 and 67 in that order, please.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 31--The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 31, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la diversification de l'industrie du bétail et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin who has five minutes remaining.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today and finish off my comments on a bill which I think is essentially wrong and should be reconsidered by this provincial government. Yesterday, I outlined a lot of different reasons why, and just before private members' hour yesterday I was indicating to the House that I was willing to make a prediction. I had made the comment that my grandchildren down the line can look back in the words in Hansard at some point and say that at least somebody in this House had the foresight and the courage to predict that if we continue down the road we are with the way we treat Manitoba's resources as the private playthings of this government, if we go down the road of elk ranching, eventually only two results will happen: No. 1, we will make the animal extinct; or, No. 2, we will domesticate the animal.

I challenge anybody in this House, anybody at all, to think of any animal at all that man has taken and attached a dollar figure to, that has not eventually become domesticated or extinct. There are a lot of examples out there, obvious ones such as the buffalo where we are now going into game ranching trying to bring back in numbers. This is something that I believe this government has to consider. I do not think this government wants to be known as the government who 60, 70, 100 years down the road is then fingered as the government that spelled the domestication or the extinction of a proud, free, wild animal. I think that is something this government has to take very seriously.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, a couple of points that I made that I want to make sure that I reiterate today deal with two of the main reasons why we should be opposing this legislation. The one reason was poaching and my contention, along with the contention of many others in this area who know about elk ranching and the domestication of animals, many people who believe that the amount of poaching will in fact increase as we legalize what is today an illegal act in the selling of elk antlers and other parts of this animal. That is again something that this government seems to be glossing over which is something that I think it should start to take more seriously.

There are cases which have been relayed to me of poaching in other jurisdictions. Again, other jurisdictions have had all kinds of problems implementing their enforcement of the poaching of elk in jurisdictions where the elk are now being ranched. There is no 100 percent guarantee today or after the bill passes that we are ever going to catch every single poacher, but the experience in other jurisdictions has taught us--at least some of us have learned--that the problems with poaching will in fact increase. That is something this government has to consider before we move on any further in this whole elk ranching concept.

* (1500)

Madam Speaker, the last few minutes of my remarks, I want to draw attention again of all honourable members to the grave prospect of introducing yet more diseases to our animal herd here in Manitoba by allowing elk to be brought in from jurisdictions where the disease has already been detected. I also want to strongly reiterate the statement that I made yesterday that there is no 100 percent proof test that tells us when these animals are crossing our border. There is no 100 percent way of knowing whether or not we are bringing in such diseases as mad cow disease, such diseases as tuberculosis, such diseases as brucellosis, diseases as blue tongue, the diseases already that have been recorded in other jurisdictions that we know about that this government is now on the verge of introducing in our province.

It may be that these diseases are here already. We do not know because the tests that we use on some of those diseases such as the elk version of mad cow disease can only be detected through an autopsy.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to also put a few comments on the record with respect to this bill. I have to say that when we looked at this bill and gave it very serious consideration, we were concerned with the intent of the bill and the consequences of the bill.

I want to look back a little bit at the history of how this whole idea of elk ranching was proposed in Manitoba; in fact, it was proposed under the NDP. In 1986, a decision was made by cabinet that commercial elk ranching would not be allowed in this province. When we look back during that debate, there were many members of the Conservative caucus at that time who spoke out strongly against elk ranching. There were many heated debates, and some of those strongest debates took place in my constituency in the Swan River area where people were very opposed to the idea of elk ranching, and they were concerned for very good reasons.

Some of those reasons, I look back at a document that was presented in '86, and their recommendations were from the people of the area--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the House if the honourable member for Swan River has leave to speak to the motion because it was standing in her name initially and leave was denied.

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: Yes, on the advice of the honourable member for Swan River to be precise.

Does the honourable member for Swan River have leave to speak to the bill?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe, if I may just clarify, that the member is continuing her speech she had before.

Madam Speaker: No, it was standing with five minutes remaining in the honourable member for Dauphin's (Mr. Struthers) name, and he completed his five minutes remaining. I asked the question at the very beginning if there was leave to have the bill stand in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and I was directed by that side of the House, no, leave was denied. So, procedurally, the honourable member for Swan River now to speak to the bill needs leave. All I am asking is, is there leave of the House to have her speak to the bill?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just to clarify so we understand what is happening, from my perspective here and your comment, I would understand that after the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), who had the floor, who completed his remarks, that other members then have the opportunity to address the bill and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is doing so, and we would be--

Madam Speaker: The bill was standing initially in the honourable member for Swan River's name and the leave to remain standing was denied. That is the issue at stake.

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Ms. Wowchuk: I appreciate that. It was my error then because I assumed that, when it was standing in the member for Dauphin's (Mr. Struthers) name, I would be able to speak after him.

Madam Speaker, when we look back at the history of this, we see that there was a lot of concern. This government told us before they proceeded with elk ranching that they would seek public input, there would be an opportunity for public hearings, and in fact that did not happen. There were no public hearings. The government decided to proceed with their position to proceed with elk ranching. But I also want to say that the government did not fulfill their responsibilities when they took over as government, because a decision was made in 1986 that there would be no elk ranching but, in fact, under this government's administration, additional licences have been issued for people to hold elk in captivity, and the number of elk in Manitoba has increased.

One of the concerns at the time, why the NDP government decided not to proceed with elk ranching, was that there were strong and sincere arguments presented and there were great fears about increased poaching and loss of wildlife, the gene pool and of the wildlife characteristics.

The government has not proved that these concerns will be addressed with this legislation. The government in the last eight years has not proceeded to end, to carry out the responsibility of eliminating all of those elk that were in captivity that were supposed to be disposed of.

Madam Speaker, when the original attempt to elk ranch was put forward the people put forward many concerns. The people said, if the government elects to approve the elk ranching, the following points must be considered. One was the possibility of eradication of wild herds. What conditions will be placed on owners of escaped elk if trapped elk should happen to break out of fences? They also recommended that The Wildlife Act should be opened up to permit all elk to fall under the municipal husbandry act.

A recommendation that was made was, if there is going to be elk ranching, the total mountain, and they are referring to the Duck Mountain, should have been fenced with a 10-foot fence to prevent interbreeding between wild elk and domestic elk. They also recommended that 100-percent depredation be paid to farmers. Those are things that the government has not addressed.

The question was, will the government approve the shooting of elk by damaged landowners or landowners wanting to protect their children? When all these points are considered, it will cost government more to proceed than stop.

Madam Speaker, these are recommendations that are put forward by people that the government members will know very well: Ken Fulford from Swan River; George Bullock from Swan River; Al Campbell, people who were very adamantly opposed to elk ranching and for some very good reasons, but the government, rather than listening to what the people have to say, has proceeded and now has brought forward a piece of legislation that will result in elk being held in captivity without many of the issues that have been raised before being addressed.

Madam Speaker, at that time there was put in place an Elk Management Board, and that Elk Management Board has made recommendations to government. They have said to increase the amount of hunting in the area. They have suggested to the government to set up new herds and move some of the problem elk. They have asked the government to set up some feeding programs. They have, to the credit of the government, set up some feeding programs, but they have not listened to the recommendations of their own Elk Management Board that said do not start elk ranching. There is a great risk here of disease, of increased poaching, and many other problems, but the government decided to proceed.

* (1510)

The reason they decided to proceed, Madam Speaker, is because there is a huge problem with elk depredation. Again that problem came to a head in the Swan River area last year when the number of elk was so high that farmers were losing their hay supplies and their crops. There were options for the government to address this and bring forward a compensation package, a wildlife compensation package, which recommends 100 percent compensation, but the government chose not to take that route.

So it is strange that a government that was so opposed to elk ranching at one time, and members who opposed it in 1986-87 should now change their mind, and rather than listening to the board that was put in place to make recommendations of how to deal with the problems should now just proceed and bring in legislation without public hearings. I remember inviting the minister to come up to the Swan River area and have a good discussion on whether or not to proceed with this. But this government has a majority. They have decided that they will proceed with this. I am afraid that they have not looked at the full consequences of what they are bringing forward here, and what the implications will be on Manitobans and our natural species.

Madam Speaker, it does not make sense that we have to domesticate every animal that there is. There are animals that we should enjoy for the sheer pleasure of having animals. The member across the way talks about other animals. Certainly, we have domesticated other animals.

When we look at this legislation, there are so many weaknesses in this legislation. There are so many questions that are unanswered as to whether disease will spread, as to whether this is economically viable that at this time this is not the time to proceed with this legislation. This is not the time. Madam Speaker, the government sees this as an opportunity to make money. They are going to take wild animals and sell them and, I believe, exploit a resource, a very beautiful animal that we have. I think that they are wrong. I want to say that there are things within the legislation that are weak as well.

This legislation is to deal with elk ranching. When we look at the definitions, the definitions tell us that game production animals will be defined in regulation. Why, if a government is only going to have a few species taken from the wild, if it is only elk that they are talking about, why will they not define in the act which animals it is that they are proposing to capture and sell? Unfortunately, the way the act is written, there is no guarantee whatsoever that species like the European red deer could not be defined as a game production animal. In the case of the European red deer, this would be an ecological disaster. This species easily crosses with natural elk, thereby completely confounding the genetics. Where both species were introduced in New Zealand, the wild animals are now neither red deer nor elk. They have crossbred, and these are the risks that we face, Madam Speaker.

There is a risk that with no restriction of what animal can be--or the ability of the minister to decide which animals will be domesticated, no clear guidelines, that we will not see some species like the red deer brought in, that we stand the risk of putting our wild herds at risk and contaminating the genetic pool that we have. We have some of the best elk here in Manitoba. People across the world want our elk, but we have to ensure that we protect that species for our people to enjoy and that the genetic pool be protected here in Manitoba. The minister has a lot of discretionary power, and that causes us concern.

Under Section 9(1), it appears that this is an attempt to restrict imports from the United States and other countries. However, it is again left wide open by indicating that this may be modified by regulation. Again, it can be modified by regulation, so there is not going to be any restriction about animals brought in from the other country. Further there is absolutely nothing stopping movement of elk or another species from the United States or New Zealand or wherever, through another province and then into Manitoba. There should be absolutely no movement of species native to Manitoba into this province. We have a good species, a very important quality species here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. We should not risk the chance of degrading our genetic pool here. Further, this only opens the door for inevitable imports of disease and parasites. There is absolutely no reason to allow importation of animals into Manitoba.

So, Madam Speaker, there is a risk, and in this act the way things are covered off there is no protection to ensure that our species, our gene pool here will be protected. Although the government would have us believe that there is protection from importation of other species, that is not the case, and there are loopholes in this legislation that will allow that to happen.

We are also told that there is going to be a registration and identification system, and we know that if we look at the record of the department there has been a very poor job of keeping track of game animals here in the province. Madam Speaker, again we cannot risk that. Looking at some records that we have seen over what has been happening over the last six or seven years, there has been a tremendous amount of movement of elk in this province at a time when there is no legislation and a time when we are not supposed to be having elk held in captivity or other animals.

We also have a concern that this legislation will allow for the sale of animal parts, parts of carcass, including velvet, and we want the government to spell out clearer what it is they are proposing. We want to know, are they talking just about velvet, or are they talking about other things? Milk from these wild animals, gall bile from bears, semen from elk, is this what this minister is proposing, because, again, Madam Speaker, that is not spelled out clearly in the legislation?

We are concerned, as the people were in 1986. They were concerned about increased poaching. That has not been addressed. We feel that there is the opportunity for a black market and sale of other animal parts and the destruction of wild animals. As I say, we have had discussion on this, and at this time, when we look at this bill, this is not something that we can support.

Certainly, one of the issues that was raised was that aboriginal people are interested in elk ranching, and that is a very controversial issue in the aboriginal community. My colleague, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), raised a very important point yesterday when he said, just be careful on this one. They tell us aboriginal people will benefit, but you do not always believe what government says. He raised the issue of Louisiana-Pacific, where aboriginal people were promised jobs and opportunities for economic development, and, as it so happens, very few aboriginal people at the present time have jobs. So I can understand why the aboriginal people are doubtful right now.

Yes, there are some bands that are lobbying. There are bands that are lobbying, and one of them is the Pine Creek Band, very close to my constituency, but my understanding is that they have not worked out an agreement. So my colleague from The Pas, words ring through with this one as well. Although the Pine Creek Band is interested, I understand, in being part of the capture, they have no written guarantees, and they have not any assurances that they are going to be part of this.

By the same token, there are bands, such as the Indian Birch River Band and Shoal River Band, who have said they are very much interested in establishing wild herds in their area that they can manage. They do not want to domesticate these herds; they want to manage the herds. But we have a similar situation in The Pas, where there is a moose management agreement where they are not domesticated. These people want to manage their herds for their own use; they would be hunted. They do not want to put these animals into captivity.

* (1520)

Now there is a difference here. There is a clear difference what these people have said they want to do and what this government is proposing to do. This government is proposing to exploit the elk in this province and sell them for profit, the people who have said they would like to see herds established.

In fact, there was a plan that this government had worked out to establish an elk herd in the Cranberry-Portage area. I understand that the fences were up to get these herds established in the area and then let them go. The government backed down on that agreement.

The member asks, why was the licence given to John Eisner? There is no doubt about it. If you were listening, in my early comments, I said the NDP started the experiment and recognized--and they listened to the people. At that time, the NDP listened to the people. They listened to the people. They were going to expand it, and you, my dear friend, opposed it. The member opposed it. At that time he opposed it. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and he is supporting it. Is that not interesting? You can tell very clearly that government members are not all in sync on this bill because they themselves admit that they are not all happy with this.

In listening to the people of Swan River, and I can tell you I have listened to many of them, the people of Swan River have said that this is not a good move. What the government should be doing is addressing the problems that the people of the valley and in other areas have raised. There are serious problems with the number of elk, but in southern Manitoba, where there is a large deer population, the government there issues two permits per person. They allow it there, but for the people of Swan River, when there is double, more elk, they put the elk on a draw system. Why? Because they purposely wanted to raise the number of elk so that then they could say, we have so many elk, now we have to start elk ranching. That was the purpose of this.

They will not accept the solution that has been put forward by their own board, the Elk Management Board, and that recommendation was to increase the number of licences, to increase the compensation--[interjection] The minister now says he does not approve of shooting animals. He does not, but they will increase the number of licences for deer. Now for deer you can--[interjection]

It is okay to shoot the deer in southern Manitoba where they are causing problems for southern farmers, but it is not okay to control the number of elk in the Swan River Valley where they are causing problems. The government has turned a blind eye on the people of the valley.

Madam Speaker, there are other problems. I guess I am very concerned with the starting of elk ranching. Is this going to mean that we are going to now have trophy hunting on these elk ranches? There are many problems that this government has not addressed. They have moved the captured elk into an area where we know that there is a disease in the soil that could affect the species.

An Honourable Member: What is the name of the disease?

Ms. Wowchuk: In fact, the member wants to know the name of the disease. My understanding is the name of the disease is brain worm. If the member--

An Honourable Member: I have never heard of that.

Ms. Wowchuk: If the member for Emerson says he has not heard of it, I would encourage him to educate himself, because if this legislation is going to go forward and we are going to see elk ranching in all parts of the province, there is a serious risk. This government should consider seriously where these ranches are going to be established. They should also consider an exclusion zone to a minimum of--this government should consider an exclusion zone around the mountains to ensure that elk ranches are not established in areas where there is a risk of interbreeding between--

Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might call the member for Pembina to order. He seems to have a lot to say on this bill and since none of their members have been speaking on this bill--[interjection] I am sorry, it is the member for Emerson. Would you advise him that he will also have the opportunity to speak on this bill and put all his comments--because he seems to be so well informed on the subject.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that all honourable members give the honourable member for Swan River the common courtesy of allowing her to put her remarks on the record whether they agree or disagree, because every individual member has that same right to put his or her comments on the record.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, again I want to emphasize that we do not believe game farming production farms should occur in the southeast part. First of all, we do not agree that there should be game farming. I want to set the record straight on that. But, since this government is pursuing this idea--I do hope that they will reconsider their decision to pursue this legislation--if they are going to have it, they must consider where they are establishing game farms. Game production farms should not occur in the southeast part of Manitoba due to the potential to move localized species of parasites into other areas of the province.

For example, 60 percent of the white-tailed deer in the southeast carry brain worm, a parasite which does not affect white-tailed deer but can kill elk, moose and caribou. Importantly, elk sometimes do not exhibit the pathological characteristics of an infection of this parasite. Unrestricted transfer of members of the deer family is almost certain to lead to transfer of the parasite to areas where it does not presently occur in the wild population. Among other impacts, this could ultimately lead to infection of woodland caribou in other areas of the province, Madam Speaker. So there is a serious concern. If the government is going to proceed with this, they must consider these risks that they are putting on our wild animals in this province. These are the things; not everything can be based on economics.

The government also has to consider that it has not resolved the issue of the outstanding elk that were supposed to be disposed of. I want to ask them, how are they going to deal with those people who have elk, in comparison to those who are now going to have to buy them? There is a real issue here. We have asked this before. The government has not answered it. The government has not told us either how they are going to distribute the permits. Who is going to get the elk? Is it going to be their friends that get the elk? Is it going to be people that have more money? Is it going to be done on a draw, and only certain names are going to go into a hat? How is the government going to do these things?

Madam Speaker, the government has brought forward legislation. They have not listened to the public. They promised us that they would hold public hearings. Instead, they are pushing forward with something that is not in the best interest of Manitobans.

I have to say that back in 1986 there was also a large concern by cattle producers. Cattle producers were concerned about disease being spread. The beef industry at the time was concerned about the impact of elk meat on the market. I do not see that as the big concern, but I do share their concern about the possibility of disease being spread and that there is not the ability for the government to do the testing. There is also a concern about compensation. When there is a diseased herd, what price is government going to pay to put down herds that are diseased? So there are many issues.

* (1530)

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that in all of this we have to look at how this impacts on aboriginal rights. Is there any infringement on those people's right to hunt? Is there going to be any impact of this legislation on aboriginal self-government and all other issues and regulations? All of these things have not been addressed. I would urge the government to recognize that they have made a mistake here. They have moved forward. Last year they began capturing elk at the strong opposition of the people of Manitoba. The government should consider very carefully what happened in the Swan River Valley because there were serious risks there, and we are very lucky that someone was not seriously hurt. There was a fire in one of the entrapments, and that should send a clear message to the government that the public was not in support of what they were doing.

So I urge the government to take a cooling-off period. It is not necessary to pass this legislation in this session. Put it back, go to the public, get more information, research the things that have been brought forward, look at the risk of disease that we are facing of contaminating our wild herds by moving animals from one part of the province to another and look at what the implications are going to be rather than just think, oh, we are going to sell these elk and make lots of money and not worry about the other things. Look at all of this, put this legislation on the back burner and consult with Manitobans, because, Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation that they are bringing forward, that is going to have a negative impact, so I urge the government not to proceed with it at this time, rather listen to Manitobans.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, I am certainly going to take up the challenge from the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and put my comments on record as she has suggested I might do, I was--

An Honourable Member: I will not interfere with that.

Mr. Penner: She is telling me that she will not interfere or intervene, and I appreciate that very much. I would think that some of the things that she has put on record will be of interest to her constituents in her own riding and the area.

I was also interested in the comments put on record by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) in recognizing that, when the honourable member for Swan River indicated that we should consult with Manitobans on this issue prior to the implementation of this initiative is of interest to me because, if she recalls, or if she would dare to recall, that in 1988, when their government was defeated and we took office, their government was into an experiment using enclosures to confine elk. For what reason? To try and find out, No. 1, whether the general public would be up in arms if they did it--

Point of Order

Ms. Wowchuk: On a point of order, I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you would allow me to correct the member? He has said that when they took office, the NDP was in the process of phasing out. In fact, it was in--

An Honourable Member: I did not say “phasing out.” I said “phasing in.”

Ms. Wowchuk: Phasing in. In 1986, the NDP cabinet concluded that there was not evidence to offset concerns that were raised, and they ended elk ranching in 1986.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Penner: Madam Speaker, I am interested in what the honourable member for Swan River has just put on record. It is interesting to note that the NDP, in fact, did not end elk ranching or keeping elk in enclosures, because they did a deal with one named John Eisner who today still is allowed to, under our government, keep elk in enclosures and has, since 1986, I believe, had elk in fences.

I suggest to the honourable member that she should very closely review with her friends in her caucus the reasons, No. 1, why they first of all even considered keeping elk in enclosures behind fences--[interjection] Domesticate them? I would suspect that from 1986 to 1996 is about 10 years. If those animals would have wanted to become domesticated, in 10 years time they might in fact have become domesticated. So therefore I make the case to her that we do in fact today have domesticated elk in Manitoba and have had since 1986. It was the NDP that initiated the project that demonstrated you could in fact house elk, keep them on farms, raise them as domesticated animals, yet I make the argument, Madam Speaker, that these animals still today are not domestic. Go try and catch some of them or go try and befriend some of them in those pastures as I have done.

Now the disease aspect. I would like to continue the discussion on domestication of animals, or a bit beyond this, because I think we can make the case that if we go far enough back in history, virtually every animal that is raised on the farm today at some point in its history would have been wild, including the cows and the horses and the sheep and the chickens, and maybe even we as a human species might have been considered somewhat at odds with nature from time to time, maybe even been considered somewhat wild, and maybe some of us are even a bit wild today. But I would suggest to you that the honourable member in that same period of time that they allowed for the domestication of elk under their jurisdiction in fact allowed the importation of wild animals and birds from other nations such as wild boar, such as emus, such as ostriches which are today raised on farms in Manitoba. Yet the elk, the honourable elk which has been an animal which is at home in Manitoba, I think always has been probably since the good Lord created it, is not domesticated, is still in a wild state, yet all the other animals that have become domesticated are accepted now as the norm by the opposition members.

Now should we then do as Saskatchewan--where, by the way, the NDP government governs today--should we then, as Saskatchewan has, enter into an industry that is contributing today, I understand, some $70 million to $100 million annually to the farm community in Saskatchewan? The NDP, who are governing, have allowed not only the establishment of the elk ranching industry in Saskatchewan but have in fact encouraged expansion of it. Farmers in Manitoba have in fact bought elk from their cousins in Saskatchewan, from their NDP cousins in Saskatchewan, and imported them into Manitoba and are currently farming those elk in Manitoba. Was it legal? Well, maybe. The interesting thing is, though, that Saskatchewan is expanding their industry very dramatically. Same government, same mentality? [interjection] Yes, I think so, although they would now like to hide behind somebody else's issue. Alberta, same thing. Have they, have Saskatchewan in fact had over the last 10 years a huge disease problem in their elk? I think not. Have the farmers done very well with it? Yes, I think so.

Now, should we allow that same industry to be established in Manitoba? Why not? Just because the honourable members for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) have a philosophical view as to what constitutes a domestic animal or a wild animal? Just because you put an animal behind a fence or in a barn constitutes it as dangerous, nondangerous, domesticated, nondomesticated? Does it? I do not know. I am not as bright as they are.

* (1540)

However, let me say this to you, that in regards to some of the questions raised by the honourable member for Swan River in her concerns in regard to the time taken and the consultation, we have taken now eight years. We have taken eight years, as a matter of fact 10 years, since the NDP first initiated elk ranching in this province.

We will give them full credit for that; since they first initiated, we have constantly discussed. I, in my tenure as minister, and I said at the time, and she is absolutely correct, that I would not initiate elk ranching at that time. I said this on Peter Warren. The reason I said this was that I was not satisfied that we had adequate consultations or discussions or debate in our House, with our people, on our farms and with those that would like to see the animals remain as a wild species forever and a day.

I for one am convinced that the wild elk out there will remain a wild elk as, in some areas, sheep remain wild sheep. In some areas of the world cows remain wild cows. No difference. However, I am convinced that we did take adequate time, and we consulted adequately with the general population in Manitoba about the issue of in fact raising elk and other species behind or in enclosures and farming them. Even as late as last winter, we held 26 meetings across this province to discuss with the general farm public during the course of the task force on value-added, and at each one of them we had a major presentation on elk ranching and elk farming. [interjection] Oh, yes, we did. [interjection] Even at Swan River.

And I say to you, Madam Speaker, that even--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Penner: --and she told me that she--

Madam Speaker: I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Emerson.

Mr. Penner: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

But we put before the people of Manitoba during those task force hearings the issue of elk ranching, and I say to you, Madam Speaker, that we had without fail support from every part of Manitoba on the initiative of elk ranching in this province. As a matter of fact, they encouraged us to proceed quickly, and we said we would take our time to ensure that proper regulations were drafted to ensure that we in fact could deal with disease and that we would ensure that we had a healthy elk population in this province, we would ensure that we would not allow the importation of diseased animals, that we would do on-farm testing on an annual basis, that we would do on-farm inspections on an annual basis and even more often, if necessary.

The fears that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is trying to instill in this House are simply nonvalid at this time. Therefore, I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), in his search for new initiatives to give the farm population in this province a better chance to diversify and add value to their operations, is doing the right thing.

I would say that the consequences that we are going to see of this is the emergence very quickly of an industry that will add hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy of this province, and not by the sale of wild species to farmers but by breeding herds on farms that will be expanded and, therefore, exported to other jurisdictions--[interjection] Such products as velvet, yes, or the horns that drop off annually on these elk. Not as a cow--a cow retains its horns, but elks drop their horns annually. They will be exported and other parts such as semen, yes, why not? We do it in pigs. We do it in cows. We do it in horses. We do it in everything else. So we should eliminate elk from this process? I think not.

There is an absolute economic value-added opportunity here that will truly help agriculture diversify its economic base. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I say that the NDP are living not only 10 years in the past but they are living so far in the past that they have a difficulty to see over the hill and watch the sun rise and see a new horizon, and they should take a new approach.

After the era of the Crow benefit--that is gone--the socialistic approaches to agriculture are history in this country. All the support mechanisms that we have seen traditionally that were of a socialistic nature have disappeared over the last few years.

So, therefore, I say to the honourable members opposite: Accept the new Canada, accept the new Manitoba, accept a new direction and accept personal initiative to better themselves both on farms, off farms, and allow new initiatives of the economic scale that we need in this province to diversify our economy and drive ahead.

I congratulate the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) for taking the initiative, having the will and the desire to see the expansion of our agricultural industry in this province, and I commend the minister for taking on and bringing this bill forward at this time.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, after hearing all this debate for the last couple of hours previously and today in regard to this bill here, we have heard for and against and so forth. I know this bill is intended to allow Manitobans to game farm and ranch native wildlife species such as the--[interjection] I guess that is why they are in St. Boniface lately, the NDP, looking for elk ranching. I know they are wasting their time, and I think they found that out for themselves.

The act will also allow the sale of game meat through licensed sources to bring more value-added processing industry to Manitoba. The minister in his opening speech last May or July or whatever it was, June 4, indicated that seven other provinces had elk ranching, and I think if it is to help Manitoba, this bill should be brought forward and voted on, if it is going to help the economy of Manitoba, and we should not be left out if already seven provinces have it. But I think there are concerns on some of the issues. We have the letter for example from the Manitoba Wildlife Federation that was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and all members of the Legislature. My concern there, has the Minister of Agriculture responded to all these concerns or has he addressed all these concerns that they have indicated in this issue?

* (1550)

In listening to the member for Emerson--indicated that they had 26, to be exact, meetings in the last years to listen to Manitobans, but I know I have spoken to several cattle producers. Some are against, some are for it. I think we should all hear Manitobans whether it is feasible or what are their concerns and communicate to the government their concerns. I think when it goes to committee they should be advised, and if they want to make presentations, bring forward and request amendments to satisfy the Manitobans who have concerns with this bill.

This act is needed very, very badly because it has been going on for 10 years. Let us address it now before it is too late. Currently producers can raise fallow deer, wild boar, ostrich and emu in Manitoba without a licence. In the last few years this type of nontraditional agriculture has been on the rise, driven partially by the low grain prices and the farmers' need to find out marketable products. This type of industry however is still in the early stages. Some say it is already dead--I do not believe it--and few people actually make money of the meat but rather from convincing other farmers that it can make money by selling the meat and then sell them breeding stock. Unfortunately a great many of these ventures are failures. How many emu steaks have you had this year? The animals are expensive to keep, often end up at the auction, kept in very poor condition.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

With this act, no game animal will be allowed to be brought into Manitoba without a certificate of health. This may prevent some producers from bringing in animals that are not suited to our climate or our palate. The sale of elk for meat purposes is also another matter. No doubt animal-rights activists will deplore the game-farming of elk, but we have listened to them, let us listen to them and let us look at the act, what it does for Manitobans, and let us communicate with them and let them know to come forward and bring their concerns and express what they want with this bill. But let us do it properly once and for all, and let us bring it to committee.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to put a few comments on the record with respect to this legislation. As my honourable friend from St. Boniface indicated, it is time that this legislation was brought into place because since 1986 the production of elk has been experimented with. A fair amount of information has been accumulated, and it was not without a great deal of thought and research into this that the Manitoba government decided to go with this type of a legislative act.

I often think that when I look at this act and I look at what the provincial government is attempting to do in other areas in terms of regulations and how many regulations we have thrown out, this act is to the contrary very highly regulated and for good reason. The reasons are such that we have a responsibility to not only promote the agricultural diversification in this province, of which elk farming or elk ranching is a part of that opportunity, but we also have a responsibility to maintain that the wildlife species remains. That is the purpose of this highly regulated act.

Just to clarify some of the areas under this act, we have to remember that the game production animals must originate from approved sources in Manitoba or in Canada. They will not come in from the United States. All animals will be registered and identified. Standards will be established for health and genetic requirements, and there will be tremendous--[interjection] DNA tested. There will be record keeping, and reports will be an important component of game farming. This criteria will safeguard and protect the native species.

The slaughter of these animals can only occur from licensed plants, and carcasses that are for sale as meat have to be identified. In fact, the entire animal has to be tracked right through the entire system, so that that animal could be identified at any place along the system so that it can be traced back to where it came from. So there is that kind of a protection in this system. Should anything happen, that animal can be traced back to a source. That is very important, and this is being carefully planned for in this legislation.

The harvesting and the processing of the antlers in the velvet stage would be allowed. There was a lot of foofaraw from the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) saying that--in terms of the pain and the way it is going to be done to the animal. The removal of the velvet antlers has to be done under the supervision of a veterinarian. Therefore, it will be done with the application of an anesthetic, so the pain is not there. We have to remember that my honourable friend from Emerson indicated that in the process of elk, throughout their life, these antlers do drop off normally and it is not without some bleeding and some pain at that time as well, but at the same time, it is a natural process that takes place with the elk.

Another important thing underneath this act is the fact that there will be inspectors appointed to enforce the act, so all the criteria of the act, the intent of the act is carried out by all those producers that are involved in the act. All farms are going to be subject to an inspection prior to them being issued a licence for elk farming. They are going to have to follow criteria established by regulation under the act as to how they can establish their farm, and then after that, they will be inspected on an annual basis. So there is always continual updating in terms of adherence to the act.

* (1600)

Failure to conform to the standards of the act or contravention of the act: Producers could lose their licence; there could be fines; they can be imprisoned; or they could lose or forfeit their animals or possessions. Now, if we are talking about the forfeiture of animals, we are talking about a breeding herd that has very expensive animals. So there is a lot to lose if they do not follow the intent of the act.

The other area that my honourable friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) indicated was the fact that there is elk production in seven provinces in Canada right now, and it is just a matter of time that, if we do not get into the regulated production of elk in this province, sooner or later it will come in anyway, and then we will be forced to try to clean it up in an attempt to save the industry and to save the elk in Manitoba. This way we can be proactive and start out by establishing a sound framework upon which elk farming can take place.

One of the important aspects, too, is the fact that since 1986 producers have been able to capture and sell elk. If you look at many of the wildlife magazines that are published and distributed throughout Canada and the North American continent, many of the breeding animals that are listed in those magazines are sourced out of Manitoba. We have probably the highest quality elk in North America right here in Manitoba. If they keep leaving the province, then virtually we will have an elk herd that is far below the standard of the North American herd.

One other area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that when we did do our rural task force this past winter we had 26 meetings, and at almost half of those meetings we had presentations on elk farming to the public that were present at those meetings. At that point in time the public had a chance to say: We do not like this idea of elk farming; we do not like it. But that never came out at those meetings. The questions that arose from the floor were, if I got into the industry, what would I have to do? There was that kind of interest.

There will be those people that do not want to get into the industry, do not want to have anything to do with elk, would like to see it as a wild animal, but there are others who would like to see this as a diversification opportunity because it was pointed out that we are without the Crow subsidy right now. If we are without that subsidy, we are going to have a lot of cheap grain. We are going to have producers taking crop land out of grain production, attempting to have pasture production, and elk are a natural for that type of an environment.

I would also like to point out that throughout this past spring the Department of Agriculture with their staff had a number of farm meetings throughout the province discussing things such as elk ranching, emus, ostriches, et cetera. They had discussions with the general public at that point about elk ranching, but they were very careful to also explain that elk ranching is probably not for everybody that comes along. You have to have a large commitment to the industry. You have to be willing to invest the dollars in the industry, and you have to be willing to follow all the regulations as spelled out under the act.

So, with those few comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to see the opposition support this legislation and carry it through to committee and eventually passing it. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading Bill 31. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed.

Bill 30--The Dairy Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 30 The Dairy Act; Loi sur les produits laitiers, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to put a few words on the record with regard to this bill. It is a bill that we support and one that has to be forward.

When we look at the bill, the main thrust of the bill, as I understand it, is to adapt a Canada-wide system of inspection and subsidization which will conform with the rules of the World Trade Organization which has ruled that, in the past--Canada does not conform with the current practices. The bill will allow western provinces to pool their product, a concept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we support for other products as well. Pooling and sharing of resources, as we have under the Wheat Board, is something that we support, and we support it also for the dairy industry.

So this bill will allow western provinces to pool their product and allow them to move more efficiently interprovincially and internationally, as well. Simply put, the pooling just enables the milk product to be marketed as if the pool producers were one.

The new inspection systems of the bill are important because they will head off any attempt by other countries to claim that Canada's product is not safe or is not up to world standards. This has happened lately, as we know, with raw cheese in Europe and can greatly affect the markets.

Subsidies are in place and will always be inherent in the system in Canada because the system is controlled by the amount of production. These subsidies will remain, but the old levy of special class pooling for products, such as surplus milk powders which was exported to developing countries, has to be replaced under the WTO rules. The new pooling system which is developed through this bill will be considered fair under the WTO. It is our understanding from Manitoba milk producers that this will allow for markets to be maintained or expanded at least until 1999, until the next round of GATT.

So, certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I say, we have had lots of discussion on pooling, and we support the concept of pooling as we have under the Canadian Wheat Board. We support the concept of pooling for producers because producers benefit when they have the opportunity to pool their resources.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say that I do have some concerns with what is happening with the dairy industry in Manitoba. Many creameries have closed down in rural Manitoba. We have very little processing of our product. Most of the cheese and yogurts is produced in Saskatchewan, I believe, and we have very little of that in Manitoba. I think, along with improving the pooling system, the amendments in this act, this government has the responsibility to also look at how we can keep jobs here in Manitoba.

We just had a discussion on elk, and the members talk about diversification. We also have milk producers, and we have people in this province who were producing cream. There was a creamery industry in Manitoba. There was cheese making that has just about disappeared in this province. I would urge the government to recognize that these are important industries, and we should be getting the value-added jobs from these products as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 30. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 49--The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), with 20 minutes remaining, and also standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East? [agreed]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I am pleased to take a few minutes today to discuss portions of this bill that I was unable to get to the other day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill has got mixed reviews so far, and I guess the reason it does is, it provides a framework for action. It provides for decentralization of the health care system, and that, the element of decentralization, is something that we in our party have supported over the years.

So, on the surface of it, it is something that we should not really have a problem with, but the problem here is not necessarily with the framework but the group that is to implement the framework.

When you have a government such as we have right now, a right-wing government whose design is to privatize as much in the way of public service as possible, then this framework can be seen as ideal for allowing them to go about achieving their goals.

It is interesting to see that what they are proposing here corresponds very closely to what is currently in effect in New Zealand, and we can look ahead two or three years to see what the logical extension of this legislation will be. If this legislation is more or less a carbon copy of New Zealand, and this government has sent people to New Zealand to study their system, it is certainly possible that when it is fleshed out, when the health care system is fully fleshed out under this government, what we will see is what is happening in New Zealand right now.

Now, what is happening in New Zealand? At the end of the day what has happened is, the government is guaranteeing core services as defined by the government, and all other services are contracted out to the hospitals, who bid on the services. That is essentially what will happen here under this particular structure that the government is proposing. What we will see, as in New Zealand, we will see a situation, a tendering situation, where hospitals will be bidding against one another for hip replacements and other types of procedures. In fact, there may be sale days on certain procedures, and it will be a deliberate attempt on the part of this government to deinsure services that are currently insured and make the system, essentially turn the system into a private system.

Now, there is a whole bunch or whole series of different elements to this system that will develop over the next couple of years. One of them, and I should deal with that now, is the whole area of deinsuring core services and what that means to the economy as a whole. What it means is the public, when services are de-insured, will have to buy private insurance, and what we see is a huge area here developing for companies like Great-West Life who are great friends of the government opposite. I can see Great-West Life licking their chops on a bill such as this when they see the potential for very, very limited core services to be covered by the public system and a huge area to be developed for insurance by the private sector. That is a huge area that is being developed. Already we have seen the de-insurance of, on the part of this government, the eye examinations for people between the ages of 18 and 65 years old. That has already been done, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we have seen in effect the Pharmacare deductibles, which are now income related, we have seen them raised as high as $2,000 in some cases. So we see a whole area here of deinsured services and deductibles for services which open an area for private insurance, friends of the company, to get their selves involved with.

* (1610)

Another major part of the ideological drive here is to fuel the balanced budget legislation. I mean, we are into this balanced budget legislation, there is no turning back now, and a formula has been set up for the pay-down of the debt. In the short run, the government can, in effect, sell off Crown corporations in order to meet those obligations. So this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government will be selling the Manitoba Telephone System, and that will get them by the first year. The next year the government will be privatizing something else and that will get them by another year, but at some point they will run out of things to sell.

That is where the privatization, if you will, of the health care system comes in. In an effort to make certain that those budgets remain in a balanced and surplus position, millions of dollars will be squeezed out, forced out of the health care system. That is what this government is up to. Using the conventional methods, the government was finding it extremely difficult to obtain savings because of past experiences. For example, in the Pharmacare--or in the home care service back in 1994, the government got a rude awakening in a couple of by-elections that it almost lost. It replaced the Health minister, put a new face on the department and managed to hold itself together until it got to another election.

What it knows is that it is weak in the health care field. They understand that, and all the political advertising that they have done and so on, they know, can only take them so far. So the brain trust over there, if you can call it that, has come up with a system that basically flattens the administration and allows them, through a process which really is tantamount to smoke and mirrors, to put the responsibility for the cuts on these regional-appointed health boards and deflect attention away from the cuts. They know what happened to them the last time. Every time they have gone after health cuts, they have managed to shoot themselves in the foot, and it has been a rather painful experience. So the media people over there have decided, well, we have to go with a different approach, and the most sure-fire approach is to--[interjection] Exactly, go around and check and find out where a model like this has worked.

So they have looked at New Zealand and they said, well, this is the system; we can buy ourselves some time here. We can set up a decentralized system, and then we can pick and choose how we want to bring out the cuts. If things go right, then we will take credit for them; but, if things go bad, we will simply blame the boards. We will hide behind these boards as long as possible. We can regulate the system and adjust it to move it along a little faster, get us by elections, if we have to, by slowing it down a little bit. So on paper it looks like it is an ideal system for a government that is, in some ways, unsure of how to proceed and where to go, but I would say that once the system is in place--by the way, the system will be in place effective March 31 or April 1 next year, so only a few months from now. What we will see when that system kicks in is there will be a constant demand, because of the balanced budget legislation, to develop the fuel, to develop the money to pay down the debt. So there will be extreme pressure on the system to provide those funds, and those funds will be provided through massive cuts to jobs in the system, which once again they will turn around and blame the boards. So it may take some time.

It is difficult for us in this House to be able to explain the issue to the public, because it is not that clear how it will work, you know, in the context of an 83-page bill, particularly when the government is deliberately using the casino strike to divert the public's attention away from the real issues before the House.

I mean, we have major issues here that we are dealing with, the privatization of the telephone system, we have got the health boards, we have a whole number of very serious issues and bills that will fundamentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, change the way this government is operating. There are fundamental changes here, and what they are doing is, because they know that strikes are not popular with the public, they are deliberately--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

An Honourable Member: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am having a terrible time hearing this speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I tend to agree with the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe). I am having a hard time hearing as well. I would ask those members who want to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge. I do not need yelling back and forth across the way. The member for Elmwood has the floor at this time. I would ask us to show a little respect.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I guess the point here is, the government sees an opportunity, it is taking the opportunity by extending the strike, and the public do not like strikes. By extending the strike, I say deliberately, what it is hoping to do is create a diversion and take people's attention away from the major, major bills that are being discussed and being passed in this session of the Legislature.

I mean, we are not only dealing with The Regional Health Authorities Act that we are discussing today. We are dealing with a whole range of issues here, the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System and other very serious legislation that is not going to get the attention that it deserves because it is being crammed together into a very compressed time frame with an overriding issue like a strike that this government is promoting and prolonging by its refusal to appoint a mediator.

Now, my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) has discussed the devastating effect that this bill will have on the rural health system. I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we already have health care cuts or hospital emergency cuts in a number of rural hospitals right now. In fact, in Stonewall, emergency services have been cut back. Emergency services are closed on weekends in Ashern, in Eriksdale and other towns, and I am not sure just when the emergency wards are in the highest use, but it would make sense to me that the highest use for emergency wards should logically be on the weekends. That is when the traffic is on the road and people are more active and I would think there would be more use, in fact, of the emergency wards during the weekend. But this is the type of activity we are seeing now, and this is the type of activity we are seeing before this legislation is even passed. So one only can imagine what will happen after the legislation is passed.

* (1620)

I feel that we are going to have an acceleration that once this legislation is through the government will have carte blanche, will feel obligated no more to be prudent, to be careful, to be consultative, and it will move ahead hiding itself under that veil of the Tory-appointed boards, and it will move along at an accelerating rate. What we are going to see is an attempt to catch up to the New Zealand system. I can tell you that once you pull the supports away, once you start to slide, the ball goes downhill at an increasing rate that once it starts and it spills over into the education system, it spills over into labour.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am being motioned that my time is almost nigh, and I have a motion to present in a very short period of time. There were a whole bunch of issues that I wanted to deal with under this bill, user fees and others, being just among a few of them.

I would like to make a motion, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),

THAT the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “THAT” and the following be substituted:

This bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

Obviously written by a lawyer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and well done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Kildonan, seconded by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),

THAT the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “THAT” and the following be substituted:

This bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

Debatable and in order.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to the question of dealing with this particular issue. You know, it is very cute for the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) to introduce the six-month hoist motion, and the fact, of course, that that six-month hoist motion is in order and part of the rules of this House, very seldom used, in fact, I do not think I have ever seen it used since I have been in the House, but nonetheless, within the rights of the member to introduce that motion for consideration by the members of the House.

The fact of the matter, though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that in introducing a motion such as this, an attempt to frustrate the business of government and the business of health care reform in this province, I do not think goes very far to assisting the people of Manitoba. There is enough uncertainty, enough concern amongst the public as it is, as we go through the process of health care reform, to suggest that now we put a six-month hoist on this particular bill. This bill, of course, is to create regional health authorities throughout the province of Manitoba, and one that I think is of some concern to an awful lot of people.

Many of these health authorities are, in fact, in the process of forming. People are getting together. They are looking at the regional issues in the province of Manitoba, particularly in many of the rural districts, where many of the people either are being appointed or already have been appointed and are beginning to do work in advance of having full authority come from the passage of this bill. So these people are out there in good faith, Mr. Deputy Speaker, trying to deal with very serious, significant issues for the provision of health care, for the construction of facilities, and for dealing with a myriad of issues that face these jurisdictions throughout our province. To suggest for a moment now that this should be put on hold for six months so that it will be dealt with in a subsequent session is not in the best interest of the public at all.

There is enough concern and uncertainty out there. There is enough work for these regional health authorities to do to try and pull together some of the big questions that remain out there. I know that many of my colleagues, and I am sure many members across the way, have, for instance, facilities--hospitals, nursing homes, personal care homes and things of that nature--that are kind of on hold as a result of this until these authorities can come together and sort them out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do that, to adopt a motion such as this, would simply carry the entire issue on for another six to 12 months and would cause further uncertainty and further concern, and delay again the process of looking at those kinds of facilities and rationalizing which belong where, so that we can get on with the job of dealing with them. I do not think that is very fair to the public of Manitoba either. These people have been expecting facilities and new hospitals and things of that nature for several months--in some cases, several years. Now, to suggest for a moment that because the members opposite are unhappy with the question being put to the House, that is, Bill 49--they want to put a six-month hoist on the second reading of this bill.

So this issue needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with now by members of the House. If the members opposite are not in favour, they have every right to stand up and vote against it. They can vote against this particular bill, and I have every confidence they will, given the tone of speeches that have been dealt with over the past number of times. They have had quite a number of speakers dealing with this particular issue, and it is important. It is a very important issue for the people of Manitoba. To suggest for a moment that we should simply delay it for a period of six months creates far too much uncertainty, compounded on top of the uncertainty that already exists and the concerns that already exist with respect to the issue of health care reform.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact that there are hospitals, personal care homes and other facilities throughout Manitoba that are on hold as a result of this initiative coming forward simply delays those issues again. I can tell you that I know a number of my colleagues in our caucus, and as I said earlier, I am sure a number of members opposite, I am sure the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) does not want to see--

* (1630)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the minister will have 24 minutes remaining.

The hour being 4:30, it is now private members' hour.

Before we proceed I wanted to correct an error that I had made when I read the motion. I had introduced it as the member for Kildonan, it was moved by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).