Is there leave to recognize the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) with committee changes prior to recognizing the member? [agreed]
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I move, (seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek), that I would like to rescind the changes of the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Ulilities and Natural Resources. These are the changes that I made yesterday for this morning when the committee did not sit: the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister); the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings).
And, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Wednesday, November 6 at 6:30 p.m. be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Wednesday, November 6, 9 a.m., be rescinded. Agreed? [agreed]
It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Wednesday, November 6, at 6:30 p.m., be amended as follows: the honourable member for Kirkfield Park for the honourable member for Ste. Rose; the honourable member for Lac du Bonnet for the honourable member for Portage la Prairie; and the honourable member for Turtle Mountain for the honourable member for Morris. Agreed? [agreed]
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les associations horticoles), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (1450)
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I want to put some comments on the record with regard to Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act, and specifically talk a little bit about the good work that the horticultural societies have done in the constituency that I represent. Since being elected, I have had the opportunity to co-operate with them on a number of different projects and issues, and I found that the work that they have done has been truly an asset to the community and helpful in a number of different ways.
When I talked with the members of the Transcona Horticultural Society, they explained to me that this bill is following up the government's reduction of funds to the horticultural societies in Manitoba a few years ago, and now the government is following up by actually repealing the act which governs the horticultural societies. I think that it is a sign that this government perhaps does not recognize the good work that these organizations are doing not only in rural Manitoba but in a number of urban areas as well. The horticultural societies are still active, and they have to rely on their membership and fundraising in order to finance the activities that they run, but they are continuing to be very active, even though they do not have the kind of security and commitment from funding from the government that they enjoyed earlier.
Some of the activities that the horticultural societies in the area that I represent have been involved with are working to preserve the tall grass prairie on Bradley Street and Regent, and they were crucial in co-ordinating community sponsorships to have signs erected and to co-ordinate community groups in cleaning up the site and securing the funds to ensure that it was going to be protected. They annually work with businesses in Transcona to plant flowers and other plants in the community which beautify and add to our neighbourhood. They are involved in each year a huge contest where there are hundreds of entries for horticultural exhibits, for vegetables, for flowers, and they display these in the mall. They add again to not only young people but seniors having activities that add to their appreciation and understanding of the environment and agriculture and horticulture.
I want to mention specifically the advantages to having a group like the Horticultural Society active in the community. Even though it is not the purpose that they develop the community and add to community development, this is what happens, and there are a number of seniors that spend time, good quality time, with young people in the community helping them with their gardening and developing their exhibits for the contests and fairs.
I know that there have been members of the Horticultural Society in Transcona that help sponsor a community garden at Bernie Wolfe Community School in the constituency of Radisson, and this has been a tremendous learning experience for a number of students in the area, and again it was a good chance for seniors and others in the community to get involved in the school and help with a project that add to the learning experience of students, where they got first-hand knowledge of how to plant and tend and grow sunflower seeds and flowers and vegetables right on the school grounds.
I know that in my work as an MLA in trying to develop some summer recreation programs for areas in the constituency, the Horticultural Society has also been involved in running similar kinds of projects with youth in the summer, where they will come out and do workshops and again add to the learning and enjoyment of young people in the community. One of the other projects that they have tried out in Transcona is garden tours, where members of the Horticultural Society, walking tours through the neighbourhood and they go and they observe and discuss and learn from the horticultural talents of the different members of the society.
Again, I just want to encourage the government to, as they repeal this act, not ignore all of these very worthwhile endeavours that horticultural societies are contributing throughout the province, and recognize that these small initiatives add to communities where horticultural societies are active. I just want to say that I hope to continue working with the societies in the areas that I represent and would hope the government would recognize the good work that they are doing.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put a few comments on the record that this is a good bill. With this bill, the government makes some substantial changes to the Veterinary Scholarship Fund. Specifically by repealing Section 7, the minister can now increase the amount of money paid to verterinary students who study at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. The previous limit was $3,000. Its intent is to attract more students to the study of veterinary medicine. A $3,000 limit is very low. The only thing we might comment on is that while we are losing doctors in rural Manitoba they need to worry about that as well as veterinarians, but we thoroughly support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading of Bill 6, The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 8, The Chiropodists Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les chiropidistes), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 9, The Public Health Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé publique), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 11, The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pratique relative aux successions devant la Cour du Banc de la Reine), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
* (1500)
Motion presented.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to put some comments on the record with regard to this bill. I want to say that I welcome this bill, I think it is very good and long overdue. We make our living in the farming community, and I know that many members on the opposite side too are involved in farming. We are all probably guilty of getting caught up in the rush of spring seeding or fall harvesting and under the pressures of weather, attempt to move equipment down the roads and in unsafe conditions, and that has resulted in some terrible accidents.
I am sure we can all remember in our constituencies when some of these accidents happened, but the one that sticks out in my mind is the accident of 1994, where three teenagers were driving a truck down the road at night. They struck the header of the combine, and the results were terrible. These young people were killed.
So I think that, although farmers should take the responsibility of ensuring that the equipment that they are moving is done safely, it is time that we bring in legislation that will ensure that this happens. This legislation will require farm equipment haulers to have not only front and rear warning lights but also lights on the rear and left-hand protrusion of the equipment itself. This is one more step that we can take to ensure the safety of people who are travelling on our highways and our country roads.
I want to say that there is with this legislation--as I said, I think that this is good legislation, but I think that farmers and the people in the farming community have to take extra precautions. The name escapes me of a farmer who this year received an award for the steps he had taken to ensure his equipment was safe. He had taken extra precautions to use reflector tape on all equipment and have lights that he had that could be moved onto each piece of equipment. We have slow-moving signs that are used right now, but there has to be much more that is done.
We cannot afford to take risks, and with this legislation farmers will be required to slow down a little bit and take the precautions that are necessary to ensure that the equipment that they are moving down the roads is safe. Hopefully, with this legislation, we will have a safer community. It is not the new equipment that we have to be concerned about because new equipment that is built has standard lighting features on it. It is older equipment that has to be upgraded, and farmers have to take the responsibility to ensure that this happens. We have to ensure that there are front lights on all equipment.
I am sure all of us can remember times when we have gone down a farm road, and we have seen a grain truck or other equipment that is not properly equipped. You just want to shake your head to think that anybody would take a chance on moving that equipment and putting themselves at risk or someone else, or children at risk.
So, Madam Speaker, the farming industry, the agriculture industry, is a very important industry to the economy of this province. It is a growing industry, but we are also dealing with bigger equipment, much bigger equipment, than we saw even five or 10 years ago. As farm operations increase in size, farmers get bigger equipment. Farmers tend to be many times under a lot of pressure because of the weather and the shortness of either the growing season or the harvest season, and mistakes are made because equipment is not properly lit, or the extensions of equipment, which are very wide right now, are not properly equipped.
So I think this is good legislation. We welcome it. I think that it is overdue. It should have happened earlier; now that it is here, we welcome it. And I think we have to look at this legislation and review it; and, if it does not cover all aspects of moving farm equipment, and if there are additional changes that have to be made, we should not hesitate to make them because the most important thing is that, along with making a living in the farming community, we assure that those people who live alongside us, working in the agriculture industry, but also the young people who travel our roads, our seniors who travel and live in the rural community and visitors to the rural area, are not caught in the situation where they would be caught in an accident.
There was a constituent of mine who just this summer was travelling between Dauphin and Roblin at the No. 5 and 10 junction; very fortunately, both people were not very seriously injured. The reason for the accident was that a farmer was turning, but at the back of the equipment there were no turn signals. It was an open highway; the people from Swan River were passing. It was legal for them to pass, but very luckily that the person who was driving was very alert and saw what was happening. There was damage to the car and a little bit of injury, but it could have been fatal.
So those are the kinds of things that we in the farming industry have to be careful of, and I think that this legislation will help all of us to ensure a safer rural Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, just a few comments here to say that we will be supporting this bill. It is long overdue and our rural communities need these safeties to help the farmers. Like the member for Swan River mentioned, the farm equipment, it is not the new equipment but it is the older equipment that needs to be updated so we have safety for our people in rural areas and to help our farmers. I am sure we will not have any problem and they will look to this legislation and abide by it. We look forward to this bill passing and help our farmers and support our rural members and our rural people for their safety. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I did not have a chance to put any remarks on the record earlier when this bill was before the House, and I thank you for the opportunity to do so now.
This bill that is before the House for third reading--and I welcome the support of the opposition and I also welcome the support of the Liberal Party on this legislation. The accident that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was referring to occurred in the Morris area, more particularly near Rosenort. I was the Agriculture representative in Morris at the time and as a result of that tragedy, which really affected that community, we went forward with an attempt at an educational program with farmers and farm families in the Morris area with regard to agricultural equipment lighting. One of the things that came to our attention when we took a look at what the present highway traffic legislation had in it was almost an impossible type of feat for farmers to even get done, because they had to have pilot vehicles front and back as well as lighting on their machines, so it just became a very impossible task for most producers to carry out.
I think with this legislation, it allows producers and farmers to be able to light their equipment adequately. I think that within the area of inventions, there are inventions coming forward that will allow a farmer to use the lighting on various pieces of equipment on the farm so it will be less costly and at the same time very effective. I know that with the equipment getting larger, not only in size but in width and with a lot of the equipment being nongeneric, it means that you can put one brand of header onto another brand of combine. Of course, lighting becomes critical then on this header and especially if it is a 35 or 40 foot header moving down the road at night, it should be well lit.
Although the legislation is not going to prevent this from ever happening again in the future, I think it is a step in the right direction and I think that overall, any of us who are working in the rural areas can do our part in terms of trying to educate the farming population on the merits of having adequate lighting on their equipment.
So with those few remarks, Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed.
* (1510)
Motion agreed to.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, very briefly, under the current act all hazardous waste disposal facilities must undergo public hearings. This is a good law, but it means that even the smallest of autobody shops, for example, which store used oil must be classified as a hazardous waste facility. At an expense of $5,000 a day for public hearings, this could potentially lead to a fairly expensive process.
This act would also allow the Department of Environment to assess the need for a complete assessment for such a low-risk facility. The act also lengthens the limitation period for commencement of prosecution under the act. It was previously six months; the act now makes it one year. This is actually a good thing from our perspective and we might even suggest that it could even be possibly a longer term.
With those very few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see the bill passed.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity on second reading to put the concerns of our caucus on the record. As the members have stated in the original bill, an application for a licence to operate a hazardous waste disposal facility would have to undergo public hearings.
The current bill states that the director shall require the applicant to comply--again, this is the original bill--oh, I am sorry this is the amendment--the director may require the applicant to comply with an environmental assessment and review specified by the director. As the members opposite know, the requirement for public hearings has been dropped, and it has been explained by the member for Inkster. He can argue that, and it is a fair enough argument that $5,000 per day to conduct public hearings to license a garage, for example, that accepts oil from an autobody shop down the road is a high cost. But, as well, do we feel that it is fair for large-scale operations to escape public scrutiny by a public hearing process?
What we offered on this side of the House, what we offered in committee stage on this particular legislation, is what we feel is a compromise position. We brought forward an amendment calling for public hearings on specific criteria rather than on the direction--the discretion of the director. During that time the minister reviewed our amendment and realized that perhaps--excuse me, Madam Speaker--we approached the Leg. Counsel with our suggestions for an amendment and they reported back to us that we were being a little bit too specific in our request, so they were able to draft an amendment for us. I presented it in committee stage on this particular legislation.
The government minister at the time, the Minister of Environment, looked at our amendment, realized that it was a responsible approach to take, a compromise position, took it back and brought it back in a slightly watered down form, but nevertheless we were able to get an amendment to the act, that the director shall consider all relevant factors, including the proximity of a proposed facility to a residential area, the toxicity of the hazardous waste to be disposed of at the facility and the type of facility and the proposed capacity.
So we were pleased that we were able to get that amendment on this particular piece of legislation. We realize again that we feel it is a compromise between absolutely no scrutiny and perhaps too much scrutiny, so we do appreciate the government minister supporting our amendment. We feel that the amendment will make the legislation better, so our caucus does support the legislation as amended. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 19, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act (Loi concernant la taxe sur la production de pétrole et de gaz et modifiant la Loi sur le pétrol et le gaz naturel), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, again, fairly briefly, together with Bill 3, The Surface Rights Amendment Act, this bill is intended to streamline and provide better administration of the oil and gas production tax. The minister claims that the amendments will now make it easier to monitor who owns financial interests in the well for taxation purposes. The bill also provides better records, from what we understand, in terms of keeping as well as provision for confidentiality of information which the minister claims important for the industry, given the importance of taxation and the collection thereof. It is a fairly positive piece of legislation. I do not have any problem with supporting its passage.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading, Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Motion agreed to.
Motion presented.
* (1520)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act is an important act that reflects the farming community. This bill not only terminates GRIP, but it also repeals several programs under crop insurance like the forages establishment program, the tame hay plan, and that is a problem for some producers. Although the tame hay program was not that well participated in, there is another group of farmers that are suffering badly because of native hay losses, and there is no coverage for their program.
There were many recommendations made through a crop insurance review committee that this government chose not to implement that would have been covered under this bill, and one of those areas is the compensation to farmers who have great losses because of wildlife damage. There has been a wildlife compensation committee reviewing the crop insurance program and in my area there are many people, as in the whole Parkland area, who are losing their crops because of big game damage, but this government has refused to address that concern.
The other part of the bill that is a good section of the bill is the section that improves the appeal process and makes it much more user friendly than it was. People were very intimidated coming before the Manitoba Crop Insurance appeal panel when they would be there sitting with all their lawyers and this one person would have to come out and state their case, and it was very intimidating, and this legislation certainly makes it more user friendly.
The part of the bill that I particularly want to speak about is the termination of GRIP and the fact that there are large surpluses left over from GRIP and the concern we have as to what the government is going to do with that money. Several times we have raised this issue with the minister, in fact back in May we raised it, twice in May, May 27 and May 23, and we asked the minister at that time if he would recognize that the farming community has been really hard done by, both by the federal and provincial governments in the cutbacks that they have made to agriculture. We think that the money that is left over from GRIP should flow to research and we have asked that that happen many times. That would mean that there would be some--of the $63 million that is left over, there would be several million dollars, I believe $42 million, $16 million from the provincial government and $26 million from the federal government.
When you look at what we have had reduced from agriculture research here in Manitoba I think it is vital that the provincial government could put their share in and they lobby the federal government to ensure that that money stays in Manitoba for agriculture research. We have had huge losses in this province, and now Saskatchewan is becoming the agriculture research centre of western Canada. We cannot afford to have the lack of research to help our producers in this province. We have a government that talks about diversification, of new crops, the value added, but for those things to happen we also have to have research and support, and it would be extremely important that those monies that are now available be put back into research.
I know, Madam Speaker, that there are a few outstanding issues under GRIP that have to be settled, although there is the Risk Area 12 group of people in the Red River Valley who felt their coverage was inadequate. That is still outstanding in courts and some of the money will have to be set aside for that, although the lentil issue that was the issue where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) changed rules in the middle of the game and changed the coverage of people who were growing lentils and, as a result, they were taken to court. Of course, the government lost and although they have settled with the lentil producers, there is still additional challenge with whether or not the government should be paying these people interest. So, certainly, there is a certain amount of money that has to be set aside for those kind of things.
Overpayment by the producers should go back to the producers and that is some $21 million that I feel it is owing to the producers. The government should make those payments as quickly as they can, but the balance should go to research. I am quite pleased that the Minister of Agriculture is now saying that this should go to research. When we raised those questions with him last May, he did not give such a positive answer, but I am quite surprised that the minister is saying, well, I would like to give it to you but I am not sure what Treasury Board is going to say. When this was the Minister of Natural Resources, we saw all kind of cutbacks in Natural Resources. Now he is the Minister of Agriculture and he is saying, I am not sure whether this is going to stay in agriculture.
This is money that was budgeted for agriculture. This is money that should stay in agriculture and if this government is as sincere as they say they are--and I believe that many of them as rural members recognize the importance of the agriculture industry to this province--they will say and they will be supportive of putting the provincial share of the money which is $16 million. I am hoping that they will lobby the federal government and I am hoping that the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) will join with me in encouraging the M.P., Marlene Cowling, to stand up and ensure that this money that is supposed to be for agriculture really does come back for research, because we certainly have not heard that member speak up for the people of the Parkland area whether it be on transportation or any of the agriculture issues. Certainly on rail line abandonment, we have not seen her be very supportive of our constituency but as she speaks out as someone who is supportive of the agriculture community I think I would be very happy to hear her. [interjection] I have to agree with the member for Roblin-Russell on that one.
We hear her say things that do not carry off to Ottawa and I would like to hear that member from the Liberal government say that she is prepared to talk to Ralph Goodale and ensure that the money that was designated for agriculture will come back to Manitoba, because certainly under the Liberal government we have not had good fortune in the agriculture community. We have seen the Crow benefit disappear. We have seen agriculture research cut down to nothing, and now we have seen the abandonment of rail lines, all of these things, Madam Speaker, which hit very hard on the agriculture community. So we must have a provincial government that is prepared to stand up for the farmers and put their share of the money, that $16 million that is controlled by the provincial government, into research and we have to have a provincial government that is going to lobby the federal government and ensure that money that was allocated for agriculture will come here because it is Manitoba that has been hit hardest by the federal cuts, changes to the Crow, the changes to the transportation system, all of those things have hurt us very badly.
An Honourable Member: None of our Liberal M.P.s will stand up to speak for Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: Now the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) says that Liberal M.P.s have not stood up and spoken for Manitoba, and I have to agree with him. When it comes to the transportation issue and the privatization of rail lines, that is very true. We wrote to Lloyd Axworthy; we contacted Marlene Cowling and other M.P.s; we asked them to come and meet with us--David Anderson, who is the Minister of Transport, we could not get anywhere. They could come to Dauphin for a photo op and talk to students, but they could not talk to the people who were concerned about the abandonment of rail lines.
Madam Speaker, I am talking about the federal government, their lack of commitment to agriculture, but I do believe that the provincial government has a responsibility too, and should be also putting their money where their mouth is and fulfilling their commitment to the words that they say that they want to see diversification and value added in the rural community. To have that happen, we have to have research, and I think it is very important.
The government would show a very good sign. They have not showed a very good sign to rural Manitobans when it comes to talking about Manitoba Telephone or listening on Telephones, even though the majority of Manitobans do not want it privatized. So they have a chance to regain themselves here with the farming community and show them that they really do recognize how important the agriculture industry is.
* (1530)
I look forward to hearing an announcement by this government that their share of the surplus of GRIP, some $16 million, will be designated for agriculture research, and we will see agriculture research programs spread out across the province. You know, Madam Speaker, agriculture is not only an industry of southern Manitoba; it is an industry of central Manitoba; and it is an industry of northern Manitoba. There are many opportunities for growth for the agriculture industry. We cannot just focus our attentions on the southern part of the province and do research on the possibility of doing more irrigation so that McCain's can have more potatoes and those kind of things; we have to look at how people in other areas of the province can also contribute to the food supply of the world. We know in The Pas there is a very good grain belt. It is a small area, but they can grow good crops there. There are opportunities to move farther north with cattle production and even growing some crops.
What the government has to do is show leadership and do the research that we require so that everything does not concentrate on the southern part of the province. It is not fair to take the revenues from the resources from the northern and central part of the province and concentrate it in the south, but give nothing back. It is time for the government to recognize that there is need for research in agriculture, but have that research distributed across the province and give other opportunities. It does not have to be research for big-scale operations; maybe we can be doing research and encouragement of people growing their own food and becoming more self-sustaining.
There is much that the government could do. I encourage them to recognize that, although GRIP is terminated, they do have a responsibility to make a decision on the money that is left over. I encourage the government to do their part, put their money into research, and follow up to the federal government and encourage the federal government also to fulfill their commitment to Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 23, The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to put a few words of disappointment on the record. While generally this bill is good and fixes up a mess that was introduced by the former Minister of Justice back in the early '90s, a mess of a piece of legislation that was set as such by at least two court levels in Manitoba and does go so far as to recognize the principle that if someone is fired because they are summoned for jury duty they should be entitled to some damages, the government did not go further and put that principle wholly into effect. All the government did to this bill was allow damages for wage loss up to $5,000. Now why they would cap it they have not answered, certainly to our satisfaction, I do not think, in any reasonable basis. The courts of Manitoba can certainly give orders in excess of $5,000 and do so on a daily basis.
Not only that, they have failed to recognize that someone can be fired--as has happened, and we know of two cases, in fact one case that led to the amendments--and not lose simply wages but lose benefits, lose seniority. Worse yet, it may be that monetary compensation by way of damages is not enough, that reinstatement is what is needed to put the person back into the position they would have been if not for the wrongdoing by the employer. So we are very disappointed the government would not fully embrace the principle that it seemed to give some attention to in this bill, by allowing the full recovery of damages that can be awarded by the court, not by the person having to go launch a civil suit and endure the weight of such a case and the cost of pursuing such a case but pursued by a Crown attorney, or indeed we had proposed that the option be made available for independent counsel to be retained for the purposes of an action under this section.
I think that the failure of the government to fully embrace this principle of allowing for full damages when one is fired for being summoned for jury duty attests to the inability of this government both to respect employee rights and respect situations that workers can find themselves in in this province and, unfortunately, fully respect the importance of the jury system to our justice system in Manitoba. If the government had fully embraced the importance of both workers and protection of workers, particularly those that are called for jury duty, and the role of juries in our society, I think they would have seen the wisdom of adopting our amendments at committee.
With those words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see third reading of Bill 25.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 25, The Jury Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 27, The Museum of Man and Nature Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Musée de l'Homme et de la Nature et apportant des modifications corrélatives), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, we agree with the two purposes of this bill, first of all to change the name to one that is more politically correct from the Museum of Man and Nature to the Manitoba Museum. We think that is very appropriate.
The second purpose of this bill and the most part of this legislation will make the museum a separate identity from the Museum Foundation. This will address concerns that donors have that the legacy of donations could be used to absorb the operating budget of the museum in this climate of Conservative fiscal cutbacks. So we support this bill and are glad to see it passed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading of Bill 27, The Museum of Man and Nature Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 28, The Winnipeg Stock Exchange Act (Loi sur la Bourse de Winnipeg), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 29, The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Act (Loi sur la Bourse des marchandises de Winnipeg), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 30, The Dairy Act (Loi sur les produits laitiers), be read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, this act is intended to position Manitoba's dairy industry to adopt a harmonized Canada-wide system of dairy product production and inspection standards. Specifically it gives inspectors some real powers to search and find companies who violate these standards. Inspectors also are given more authority to enter and inspect premises in a legal framework for obtaining a search warrant.
This bill also gives the minister legal right to set regulations governing dairy production in Manitoba. With this act in place it is hoped that some interprovincial trade barriers will come down. This will not happen overnight but a national standard is a step in the right direction. This act is supported by the dairy marketing board and the Manitoba dairy producers.
One subject that might come up are the provisions for unpasteurized milk production. In other jurisdictions this has been a big issue. It appears that some people do not like pasteurized milk. Unpasteurized milk is also used in some cheeses. They are supposed to taste better. Since this bill gives the minister the right to set regulations. We might want to ask what provisions, if any, have been made to accommodate the unpasteurized milk lobby. We might also want to ask about the bovine growth hormone.
With these words, I will let the bill pass. Thank you.
* (1540)
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 30, The Dairy Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Before I make my comments on Bill 34, I just want to make a general comment on what we are doing here today, that we as a Legislature will be passing well over 30 bills with unanimous consent. It often appears to the public and to the media that all we do in this House is that we argue back and forth and act like children; those are some of the comments that we hear. I think it is important for us to recognize that on this side of the House, as we are attempting to be--and we are--responsible opposition, when we feel that there is legislation out there that we feel is in the best interests of this province, we do support it.
Madam Speaker, Bill 34 addresses the process of dealing with contaminated sites and the associated cleanup costs as identified in the 1995 State of the Environment Report. There are over 600 contaminated sites. New sites, unfortunately, are being added all the time to that. Contaminated sites could be water, or, in some cases, it could be soil that is contaminated. I know of a situation in my own community in the Rockwood area, the West St. Paul area, a number of years ago where the water aquifer in that area was contaminated by--it was revealed that it was contaminated by Bristol Aerospace. Unfortunately, solvents used in the cleaning of machinery found their way into the water supply of that area. At the time it was noted by the water geologist from the Department of Natural Resources for the Province of Manitoba, and he claimed that this is probably the worst water contamination situation in Manitoba, a contaminated site.
Madam Speaker, the legislation has a number of issues in it or issues related to it. Municipalities, for example, will not be responsible for the remediation of a site that they have acquired through tax sale. Creditors will not be responsible for remediation of a site. The act encourages mediation and negotiation to apportioning cost for cleanup, and it also makes an amendment to The Environment Act which allows the Clean Environment Commission to apportion costs based on the polluter-pay principle.
It also provides and establishes a registry of contaminated sites and notices on land titles and notices to municipalities, and it will note that the Union of Manitoba Municipalities recommended acceptance of this legislation, the same Union of Manitoba Municipalities that last week condemned this government's attempt to sell off our publicly owned telephone system.
There are a few concerns that we have, and I raised those on second reading. They deal with one aspect, and that is that a suspected polluter hires his or her own investigator. We realize that within the act the director can order further investigation if needed, but we have some concerns with that, that a suspected polluter can hire someone to do an investigation into the pollution that that individual or that company may cause.
Another is a certificate of compliance may be issued by the director if a security is left with the director that the remediation will occur. Well, there is a concern that those who have the financial resources will apply for and receive the certificate of compliance when they provide the security but may not remediate that site. There is a concern there.
Another one is, there is a very generous grace period to correct defaulters. Now, when you consider that someone is already in default of the act, they are allowed another 21 days to correct their default. So they are already in violation of the act, but they are given another 21 days, and we feel that is very generous.
Overall, we feel that the super lien that is included in the act, the stronger cost recovery that is included in the act are all good things for Manitobans, and good things for trying to deal with at least 600 or more contaminated sites.
We would also like to urge the government to look into the issue of a superfund, for example, which is a contribution made by chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries. This occurs in the United States, and it is administered by the federal government, provides for a fund that is used to remediate orphan sites, which is, I believe, if there is an orphan site here in the province, the taxpayers have to pay for the remediation of that site.
So, Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I do want to offer our support of the legislation, and we will be voting to make this legislation into law. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is third reading, Bill 34, The Contaminated Sites Remediation and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 37, The Ambulance Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services d'ambulance), be now read a third and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 40, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 42, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les Affaires du Nord), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I just have a few remarks on Bill 42, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act. We, of course, support this bill. We feel that the bill does not, however, empower community councils throughout northern Manitoba to improve in their daily life.
* (1550)
I have had the opportunity of visiting a number of Northern Affairs communities in northern Manitoba over the past several years, and it is always unfortunate to see the site of the conditions of some of the communities that aboriginal people for the most part have to live under and the conditions that they have to live under both in the infrastructure and also with the level of services that they do not have access to that perhaps southern Canadians and southern Manitobans generally take for granted.
For example, in one community that the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and I visited last year in Brochet, we had the opportunity of meeting with both the mayor and council and members of their community. They told us about how hard it was for them, being that they were not Indian people, they were not legally recognized as treaty Status Indians under law and recognized as such by the Indian Affairs department. So they were, I would say, a group of people that are lost between the cracks. They are neither First Nations as recognized by the Government of Canada, and at the location they are located they are neither Metis. So they cannot fully capitalize on the services that are available to Metis people. They are just generally recognized as aboriginal people being located in this very isolated community.
It is very hard for them to access medivac services, for one thing, and this is not only in this community that I am talking about but indeed other communities throughout northern Manitoba. Other communities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Northern Affairs, of course, have told us other problems that they are faced with including the fishermen in Berens River and other communities on the southeast side and the problems that they have had in trying to make a livelihood for their families and to put food on the table for their families and their children and their elders, and they find it extremely hard.
What we understand the act to do is it allows perhaps these communities to incorporate and pursue initiatives that they were unable to pursue before, and naturally we support that. Housing is in extreme shortage for many of these communities, and we have said over and over, not only in First Nations communities but in Northern Affairs communities throughout northern Manitoba, we have people that are sometimes overcrowded to a point where we have 30-40 people living in one dwelling. Of course, this not only creates the potential for health hazards, but it also is a fire hazard, and it is extremely unfortunate that we in a modern-day world find this acceptable. So we are naturally in support of Northern Affairs communities that are pursuing to find initiatives that will improve their lives on a daily basis in these northern communities that I am talking about.
Madam Speaker, the Northern Association of Community Councils under the leadership of Sonny Clyne, who is a constituent of my colleague for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), has done a good job in communicating some of the concerns of the Northern Affairs communities to this government and also to governments before this one over the years. We are optimistic for the community councils that they will find a level of living which is comfortable and compatible with other Canadians and the level of living that other Canadians now enjoy.
So we support this bill; however, we do not see it taking full effect in that it will rectify the problems that are existent in Northern Affairs communities particularly. However, I think in the time to come that whether it be this government or another government that may govern in this province in the years ahead, they will definitely have to take these communities a little more seriously than they have. For the most part their budgets in maintenance, for example, are far less than what they really need, for example, to keep the roadways operational, to make sure that the kids are able to go to school and have safe passageways in the roads that we have in northern Manitoba, which sometimes cannot be considered roads but simply trails. Although we have come a long way with our community activities in bringing the communities to a level where they are comfortable, there is still a lot of work that has to be done, Madam Speaker.
I have always made it a point to be selective in a commentary that I make, and I look forward to working with this government to ensure that this act is enforced and to ensure that the communities that I have been describing here will realize the maximum benefit from this act. I do not believe that the results will be immediate, but certainly I think that the work lies ahead not only for this government, but for other governments to come in the years ahead.
With those few remarks, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude at this point by indicating our support for Bill 42.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, just a few comments to say that we will be supporting this bill here, and we have some concerns with the fact that the minister seems to have too much power but, after listening to the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), who knows his community inside out, and after giving such an eloquent speech in regard to helping out his communities, we have to say that we will support this bill.
Our concern, like I said, is the power that is given to the minister, but on the long term, I think, working in co-operation, like the member has said, we will be prepared to let it pass and support it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 42, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 44, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des modifications corrélatives), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 45, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur), be now read a third time and passed.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour, that Bill 45, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed. Agreed? [interjection] Sorry. Is there leave to have the honourable member for The Maples? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I just want to put a few comments on the record in regard to The Consumer Protection Amendment Act, Bill 45.
This bill is one of the end products of the 1995 agreement on internal trade between Manitoba, the federal government and the other provinces. As part of the agreement, all provinces agreed to harmonize the legislation with regard to direct selling. In doing so, no province would lessen the protection consumers now have. Manitoba is the first province to amend their legislation.
This act gives the consumers the right to cancel a retail sale within one year after entering an agreement that does not meet the standards of this legislation or if the vendor has failed to provide the material service. If a credit agreement was also entered into, then that agreement is also cancelled. This legislation is pro consumer, and we welcome its passage. Thank you.
* (1600)
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 45, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Motion presented.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): In regard to The Securities Amendment Act, a recent decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal has undermined the conventional method of rule making in the realm of securities. The securities commissions throughout the country regulated their jurisdictions through the issuance of policy statements. Policy statements set guidelines for securities regulation. Recently one of these policies was challenged as being ultra vires, the Ontario Securities Commission. A court agreed, stating that the policy statement was invalid because it was more in the fashion of a requirement than a guideline. As a consequence, securities commissions throughout the country have been granted the authority by their respective governments to make regulations as they always have.
Rules made by the Securities Commission can be overturned or amended by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The rules must be published in the Gazette. The rules will be treated in the same manner as a regulation under the provisions in The Evidence Act. Unless we have any particular problem with this bill in which securities have been administered, there is not much to object to in this bill. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill because it merely ensures that the guidelines that the Securities Commission has always made will stand a court challenge. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 46, The Securities Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 51, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment, Public Servants Insurance Amendment and Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de la fonction publique, la Loi sur l'assurance des employés du gouvernement et la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, this bill amends three acts that provide pension, life insurance benefits for civil servants and employees of Crown corporations, boards, agencies, and pension benefits for public school teachers. The four types of changes to these three acts are, No. 1, changes to the pension plans to allow days off without pay, commonly referred to as Filmon Fridays, to qualify as pensionable service. The employee cost of this bill will be paid out of surplus employee contributions in the two funds. Following that, employees will pay their share as part of their regular pension contribution.
The second type of change is necessary to implement changes agreed to with the unions that will allow employees to purchase service in respect of several types of leave. These are maternity and parental leave service, periods of seasonal layoff when employees are converted from year-round to seasonal, and equivalent to full-time service for employees who choose to reduce their hours to less than full time and who are within five years of retirement. In addition, as agreed to within the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, correctional officers will be permitted to retire up to five years earlier than normal. The full cost of this change will be paid for by one percentage point increase in the contributions of correctional officers. The Manitoba Government Employees' Union also agreed to transfer $7.95 million of surplus in the group life insurance fund to the province. The change will allow similar transfers by agreement between other employees and employee groups participating in the plan.
Changes required by Revenue Canada to ensure the pension plans remain registered for income tax purposes are the third type of change. These changes do not significantly affect the benefits payable under the two plans.
The fourth type of change is general amendments needed to take care of some housecleaning matters, but we will be keeping a very close eye on what effect these changes have once it is proclaimed and put into practice. We will give guarded support to this legislation.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 51, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment, Public Servants Insurance Amendment and Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Motion presented.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, just a few remarks on this bill, Bill 52. I want to say a few words about this bill. Of course, we know that this was proclaimed at the federal level by the national government, and I know that congratulations are due to past leadership in the community, including the current-day leadership at the York Factory First Nation, Chief Eric Saunders and the council members, the elders and the community members who ratified this before the other levels of government, of course, proclaimed it under the federal bill and also under the bill that we are currently debating in this House.
A lot of our comments have to be positive about the leadership of this community. I have had the chance of being in York Landing a number of times. In fact, the last time I was at York Landing I was with the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and we took the winter road from Split Lake to York Landing. As members may know, Madam Speaker, the York Factory First Nation came to be when the original settlement located at York Factory at the mouth of Hudson Bay, and the people there were relocated inland to the present location they are in now. There are a lot of stories about that relocation as well, and the people still talk about the happier times that they experienced and where hunting was abundant and also a way of life. The traditional way of life was much easier to access than it is currently in their current-day location where they are now.
We, of course, recognize that the York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement to be a modern-day treaty with the Cree people of the York Landing community. We recognize that agreement as such, and they along with the other four communities, the original five, that were part of this, of course, decided upon a referendum in their own community to proceed and acknowledge and agree with the agreement that was negotiated by Chief Saunders and his council that they feel will be for the good of their community in the years ahead.
* (1610)
I know that they have the young people in mind when they first talked about this issue in their community. They talked about the conditions that they were experiencing, and even though this particular bill will not correct the wrongs that currently exist in the York Landing community, it certainly is a right step in the recognition of First Nations people and their inherent right to the land, first of all. York Factory First Nation with the original other four that were considered the five bands began negotiations shortly after the Northern Flood Agreement was signed in 1977, the Cross Lake, Norway House, Nelson House and Split Lake and, of course, York Factory First Nation were all involved with the five bands since 1977 and finally negotiating this. It is long overdue. Yes, we recognize that, and perhaps we can say other governments in the past were at fault for not implementing it sooner; however, the fact is that we are following the lead of the federal government, we are following the lead and the persistent leadership of York Factory in what they are trying to do and what they feel is right for their people and the generations that lie ahead of them.
So, Madam Speaker, with those few comments I just want to indicate that we will be supporting Bill 52.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 52, The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de Nelson House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, again I rise to speak on Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act. Again we want to congratulate the leadership in that community, both past and present. Of course, Chief Jerry Primrose and members of his council, including Darcy Linklater and many others, David Spence, have been persistent in their efforts to ensure that this agreement became law. Also, they went through a process of ratification in their own community.
Nelson House is not without its problems, of course. Like other communities in northern Manitoba, other First Nations communities, it certainly has experienced a number of problems over the past few years. Nelson House has been a lead player in documenting and illustrating to other Manitobans the poor condition of Highway 391 which goes by their community on to Lynn Lake from Thompson, and they have been very active in bringing to the attention of other Manitobans that we have bad roads in northern communities and in northern Manitoba. Unfortunately, because of the condition of Highway 391, it has taken the lives of way too many people in the last several years, and I know that with the leadership of Chief Primrose and other leaders that will come in the future that they will continue advocating on behalf of the people, not only for the travelling public that use that Highway 391 but, indeed, for other initiatives in their own community.
I mentioned one time in this House that the community was dealing with some of the social problems that they experience in their own community but, also, in northern Manitoba communities generally, and that is the problem of the residential school syndrome, alcoholism, drug abuse, solvent abuse, and they have embarked upon an initiative that should be embraced by all, and that is the solvent abuse treatment program that they have there. It is called the healing centre, which deals with all these elements, with all the social ills that aboriginal people have faced over the years, and they should be commended for their effort in what they are doing.
It was my pleasure last summer at the gathering of the Cree Nation to work with some little children, ages five to 11, who had begun drumming. In fact it is a little girls drumming group, and it is the first time they ever were a part of a pow-wow or celebration at the Cree Nations gathering that was held on the Opaskwayak Cree Nation territory near The Pas last July. It was an honour to hear these little children, ages five to 11, sing the songs of our people, sing the songs of our ancestors to the people that were assembled there but, also, they were recorded, and I know that these recordings are going to live on in the years ahead. I hope that these young people will look back at those tapes and the videos that were taken of them at that pow-wow because that will remind them that aboriginal people have come full circle in reclaiming their identity and also their way of life.
So I want to congratulate again the persistence of Chief Primrose and his council members. I have a number of friends, in fact a number of relatives in the Nelson House community and I commend them for the efforts that they have made over the years and, again, we regard this agreement as a modern-day treaty in addition to Treaty No. 5, of which the Nelson House people are a part, that was signed in 1875 and adhesions made following that.
The Nelson House community, with the York Factory First Nation, is also part of the original five that were affected by the 1977 Northern Flood Agreement and the effect that had on northern communities.
The Northern Flood activities took their toll on aboriginal people because a lot of aboriginal people in the community that I am from originally and also the other four, I am talking about Cross Lake, Norway House, Split Lake, Nelson House and York Factory, who are part of the Nelson River system, were drastically affected because it altered a way of life, their trapping, their fishing, their hunting. That way of life is no longer there and will never come back, unfortunately.
Nevertheless these people and the elders have instructed the young leadership, including the people I mentioned earlier, that with new technology our young people have to embrace those as well as embracing a little bit of our past and embracing some of the future and incorporating those so that we become contributing members of our society.
That is the motto of the leadership of the Nelson House community, and I fully take my hat off to them and offer them congratulations in persevering and being able to weather the many obstacles that lay in their negotiating process with the federal government and with the provincial government, and I want to indicate our party's support for Bill 53. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 60, The Law Society Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du Barreau), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 70, The Animal Care Act (Loi sur le soin des animaux), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (1620)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): The Animal Care Act is certainly one of importance as well, and it was an act that came forward as a result of the controversy that arose with the puppy mill industry and some of the distressing situations that became obvious to the public where people were breeding animals and treating them and housing them in very unsafe conditions and in very inhumane ways. As a result of that, as a result of pressure on the government, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has brought forward The Animal Care Act. I have to say that the part of the act that deals with the puppy mill industry are certainly very good, and the amendments that the minister brought forward changing a few clauses in the act also enhance the act and will result in better treatment of animals and bring in place control, and give the people, the inspectors, the authority to come in and enforce the law when we see that those people who are raising these animals are treating them in an abusive way.
There is also another section of the act that deals with the livestock industry and the farming section of agriculture, and in that section as well, Madam Speaker, there has been a need to upgrade legislation, because when there was inhumane treatment of animals there was not the strength in the act to have people come in and ensure that the animals were properly treated. As I said, the act allows now for people to come in and inspect and ensure that animals are treated fairly, and the amendments that the minister have brought in will, I think, even strengthen the legislation more. As the minister said, this is leading legislation in Canada, and hopefully the other provinces will follow.
Also, the one concern that we have with the bill is that there is no component of education. We have to do much more as a community, and particularly I think about the agricultural side of it, to educate the public on the role that animals play in the farming industry and educate people to realize that when farmers are raising animals, whether it be cows or horses or hogs, that farmers want these animals to be in a healthy condition and treat them in the best possible way, because if they are not healthy animals they are not of much value to the producers. So I think that there is a need for this legislation. It is a step in the right direction, and we have to do much more in education.
The one question I have, there was one section of the legislation that was deleted, and it says that a clause is deleted that a person who is keeping animals, cats or dogs or animals like that, has the right to refuse an inspection. I wonder why the minister has changed that clause. He has indicated that he would provide for us the information as to why this particular amendment is put forward, but I do not think--I have a concern that a person who is housing animals in an unsafe condition can now refuse an inspection. That has not been spelled out for us clearly, but certainly we applaud this move to bring a safer environment for the animals in this province.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I simply want to express my appreciation for the support and constructive advice that I have received from different quarters with respect to this bill, from members opposite and indeed from interested members of the public, particularly those who spoke for and on behalf of The Winnipeg Humane Society.
As I indicated at the committee stage, this is a bill that I see evolving. Amendments will come to it from time to time as we proceed in that educational process that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) spoke of. Once again, I appreciate the general support that this bill has received, and I might say, I say that on behalf of all the animals that this bill is meant to protect.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 70, The Animal Care Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 71, The Manitoba Film and Sound Recording Development Corporation Act (Loi sur la Société manitobaine de développement de l'enregistrement cinématographique et sonore), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 77, The Natural Products Marketing Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la commercialisation des produits naturels), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to put a few comments on the record with regard to this bill, because this is one of the bills where we saw co-operation from all members of the House working on behalf of the farmers, the dairy producers of Manitoba. In fact, our rules say that we cannot bring in legislation after a certain date, and that was earlier on in the year, in June.
The Manitoba Milk Producers realized that they needed an amendment, and the amendment that they needed was to The Natural Products Marketing Act. Dairy producers across Canada have been working over the last several years to organize themselves into pools to share their milk products, and Manitoba is in two pools, one pool with the eastern provinces and another pool that is being negotiated with the western provinces. They came to an agreement, and as a result of this pooling there will be a large amount of money, over $2 million, in the pool that will be coming to Manitoba producers. But when they got to sign the agreement, legal advice was given to them that there had to be an amendment to The Natural Products Marketing Act before they could sign the agreement.
They came to the Legislature and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) with this request, and all parties recognized that this was an important piece of legislation and one that we should work together on to ensure that it was passed, because we do not want to see revenues withheld and held in a pool and not in the hands of Manitoba producers.
Had we not passed this amendment, this pool of money would have had to sit in the pool until the next session, until the next Legislature, where we could pass this piece of legislation. So I am very pleased to have been able to co-operate. We saw co-operation on all sides of the House to ensure that this piece of legislation passed, and we were assured that the pooling concept, a concept that we very much support, was able to proceed and that there would be benefits for Manitobans as they share in the eastern pool, and we look forward to working with other provinces, along with the dairy board, to ensure that the western pool is successful and that there is a benefit to all producers.
The one concern that I do have with the dairy industry, Madam Speaker, is that although we are pooling--we produce a lot of milk--we are losing in the value-added jobs and the processing of these products are going to other provinces. I hope we will see as a result of this legislation work done not because of this legislation but we will see the government working with the industry to ensure that we have value-added jobs in the milk processing industry as well.
I just want to conclude by saying I am very pleased that we were able to co-operate and bring this legislation forward on behalf of the dairy producers of Manitoba.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I too just want to put a few brief comments on the record with respect to Bill 77. In fact, this is one of those bills which gives me reason to believe that government can work in co-operation with both opposition parties and in fact what we have seen was the association, the Manitoba dairy producers I believe is the organization, that one is realizing that the opportunity was there in order to make an amendment that would resolve the problem which the member for Swan River just finished talking about. They had taken fairly immediate action in terms of trying to build a consensus between the government and both opposition parties.
We had indicated to them when I had the opportunity to meet with the group that in principle we would not have too much of a problem supporting what it is they were doing, in fact, just allow me a couple of days to be able to refer to a few people. I did get the opportunity to do that and in essence believe that this is in fact in the best interest of the industry as a whole but would applaud the government for taking the action and the association for trying to build a consensus on something that was unanimously supported from all three political parties inside this Chamber and in fact, it appears, had good, substantial support from within the industry.
With those few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see this bill pass and, once again, just applaud the work of the nonelected officials in seeing a problem and resolving it.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is--is there leave of the House for the Speaker not to see the clock? [agreed]
An Honourable Member: Question.
* (1630)
Madam Speaker: Question? Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 77, The Natural Products Marketing Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is a will of the House to sit a special sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., to consider condolence motions. Leave would also be required to sit the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources scheduled for tomorrow morning at nine o'clock to sit concurrently with the House.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to convene the House at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning to deal with the condolence motions and also sit concurrently in the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources scheduled for 6:30 p.m. tonight is cancelled.
Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources previously scheduled for 6:30 p.m. this evening is cancelled.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Clerk is reminding me that the condolence motion meeting of the House for tomorrow will be from 10 until noon or until such time prior to noon that we would complete our work.
Madam Speaker: The House will sit from 10 a.m. till 12 p.m. to consider condolence motions.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Thursday, November 7, at 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Morris for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 4:30 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.