Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the bills as listed on today's Order Paper in the order they are listed with this exception: Bill 11 should follow Bill 3.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 2, The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House and introduce Bill 2, The Elections Amendment Act. The measures being introduced today update and modernize many of the provisions of the act since the last series of major amendments introduced in the mid-1980s. The efforts to date started with the acceptance in whole or in part of nearly 90 percent of the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his annual reports to the Legislature, including the 1995 annual report.

At this time, I would like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff for the assistance they were able to provide in the development and drafting of the legislation. Even with the recommendations, more policy work and consultations were necessary, and I am informed that the amendments are the product of consultations among all political parties in leading to this series of amendments.

One of the major updates incorporated in this bill is the authorization to develop an automated voters' list. In his report, the Chief Electoral Officer offered a number of options on how to modernize the processes involved in developing the voters' list. As honourable members will be aware, many jurisdictions have moved quickly to adopt the concept of a permanent voters' list. However, having moved in this direction, a number of jurisdictions including Elections Canada are encountering considerable difficulties. With these amendments, Elections Manitoba administratively will be able to put in place the necessary structures to allow for a smooth transition to a permanent voters' list should the province decide at some future time to move in that direction.

Amendments are being introduced which will enhance the personal security provisions which I introduced in 1995 and which were supported by all members of this House. Administrative measures which were employed by Elections Manitoba in order to address this issue have been incorporated into the act. An updating of how advance polls are dealt with is being brought forward in this bill in accordance with Elections Manitoba recommendations. In order to minimize any confusion surrounding the advance polls, the hours will be standardized and will coincide with the posted hours of the returning office. The eligibility to vote at advanced polls will also be broadened to include all voters who expect for any reason to be unable to vote at their normal polling place on election day. With the time changes, it was felt fewer days would be required for the availability of the advanced polls. Updated provisions concerning the revisions of the voters' list will include the production of interim and final lists. This will ensure accuracy of information for the benefit of all Manitobans.

In order to fulfill our legal requirements under the Charter of Rights and based upon successful constitutional challenges, judges will be given the right to vote. Further, the administrative practices concerning inmate voting will now be incorporated into the act.

Responding to concerns of some Manitoba voters and to assure consistency with how ballots are dealt with, amendments are being presented which will allow voters to endorse their declined ballots and permit a separate count of those ballots which have been declined. Provision has also been included in this bill to enhance the recount provisions, including the ability of judges to appoint court officials to assist them in the recount. Given that judges now have the right to vote, measures are included in order to ensure that a judge will not oversee a recount in the riding in which he or she resides. Judges will also be given the power to award costs for vexatious conduct or unfounded allegations or objections. These measures, Madam Speaker, together with the remaining matters in the bill which I have not raised, I would recommend for the consideration of the House.

Madam Speaker, because I regard this as being a nonpartisan matter, I am going to be offering for both Bill 2 and Bill 3 the spreadsheets which give all of the comparative amendments to the bills as they existed and with the changes for easier examination by the members opposite. I have one for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and one for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to be shared amongst their members to be able to allow for the consideration during the break period after the end of this portion of our current session.

* (1500)

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate on the bill now be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Motion presented.

Mr. Filmon: I am pleased to rise again today to introduce Bill 3, The Elections Finances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, for consideration by the House. As I indicated in my earlier remarks on Bill 2, the majority of the amendments proposed in this bill were recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer in his previous annual reports, including the 1995 annual report.

As members review the bill, they will note that one of the first recommendations in the report from the Chief Electoral Officer concerning third-party advertising is not incorporated in these amendments. The reason for this is that during the drafting of the bill, the Supreme Court of Canada brought down a ruling concerning this issue and its application to the balanced budget law of the province. Given this situation, the Chief Electoral Officer was asked to review his recommendation in light of this ruling and what impact the decision of the court could have on other provisions of The Elections Act and this act.

The amendments being proposed today include amendments which will assist campaigns during an election period. Madam Speaker, in order to streamline and simplify the act, advertising will no longer be considered as a separate expense within the overall spending. This legislation provides for one spending limit which has not been increased but remains as is but incorporates those expenses relating to advertising. Parties will have one spending limit and will have, therefore, more flexibility to organize their campaign expenditures. Members may recall that there was a technical breach by a former member of this House, the member for Minnedosa, in which he did not exceed the total amount allowed for in spending but did exceed that portion which was to have been allocated to advertising.

In this vein as well, amendments are being proposed to ensure that any special or related costs associated with the participation by disabled persons as candidates are reimburseable 100 percent.

This bill formalizes the requirement that authorization be obtained in respect of material distributed during a campaign.

Madam Speaker, through these amendments we are updating the legislation in order to, firstly, allow for the use of party logos, secondly, update the formula used for calculating the expense limits with reference to the adjusted consumer price index base year, and finally, provide for a general legislative updating of the act.

Madam Speaker, we will be shortening the time lines for reimbursement to candidates and political parties to effect a 90-day turnaround period. This allows for a more timely payment of accounts, and permits campaigns to close their books in an orderly fashion in a shorter period of time.

As with The Elections Act amendments, this bill also contains the flexibility for the chief electoral officer to file his report as either a separate report or in combination with his report under The Elections Act. Madam Speaker, these and other amendments contained in the bill I recommend to the House.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate on the bill now be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a procedural matter, with the leave of the House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that the French title of Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act, as it appears in the Order Paper be altered to read Loi sur la graphiose.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 11, The Treasury Branches Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les caisses d'épargne), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, this bill repeals The Treasury Branches Act which was originally enacted in 1974 but was not proclaimed by the government of the day or any succeeding government. When the bill reaches committee stage I will be prepared to go into some more details, but I would like to outline the rationale for the repeal of The Treasury Branches Act.

Before we proceed it might be of value to recall that the act was passed in 1974. All four western provinces were concerned about the apparent net outflow of capital from the west, and accordingly enabling legislation was passed in Manitoba because of the perceived success of Alberta's Treasury Branches and Ontario's government Savings Offices. A few years later, Madam Speaker, interest in treasury branches waned, and it was decided not to proclaim the act.

The decision not to proclaim the act was based on the fact that there was strenuous competition in Manitoba amongst chartered banks, trust companies, credit unions and caisses populaires with few locations in the province not adequately provided with banking services. There was also the fact that the cost of building a system to compete with the sophisticated systems in the banking services industry would be extremely expensive and hard to justify. The reasons for repealing the act today are the same as the reasons for not proclaiming it in the late 1970s. There is at present no demonstrated need for banking services in the province which cannot be fulfilled by the financial community, being the banks, the trust companies, the credit unions and the caisses populaires. Banking services can be provided to all Manitobans through automated teller machines, the telephone and computer, but in addition to fully staffed offices, Madam Speaker, the cost of trying to compete with this would be prohibitive, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) recognizes.

In terms of the original concern about net outflow of capital, we now find Manitobans mobilizing their capital as never before to invest in the province of Manitoba in such areas as Builder Bonds, HydroBonds, Grow Bonds, the Crocus Fund and direct purchase of shares in Manitoba companies. In addition to that, we have seen an inflow in investment in Manitoba of headline-making proportions.

Madam Speaker, it is possible that someone, potentially the Leader of the Opposition, will try to make a case for the creation of treasury branches in Manitoba, but one only has to look at the problems which the Treasury Branches in Alberta--and I encourage him to look at Alberta--have suffered in recent years to see why it would be best for us to remove The Treasury Branches Act from our books.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recommend this bill for approval by this House. Thank you.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

* (1510)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am pleased to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 4 which amends the Children's Advocate's provisions of The Child and Family Services Act.

This bill implements the recommendations of the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which conducted a public review of the operations of the Children's Advocate legislative provisions in April and May of this year. The subcommittee presented its report to the Legislative Assembly on June 24 of 1997 making important recommendations, two of which require legislative amendments.

These two recommendations were that the Office of the Children's Advocate report directly to a committee of the Legislature, and that the Children's Advocate be appointed for a specific term of office. The term of office will consist of two three-year terms with a review of the position being completed after the initial three-year period.

Madam Speaker, on December of 1992 our government appointed the first Children's Advocate for the Province of Manitoba. Throughout the past four years of operation of the Office of the Children's Advocate there has been an increased awareness of the services, not only among children but with family members, friends and different care providers that work with children.

The advocate's office not only receives and investigates complaints, but the staff work to empower the children that they come in contact with and help the children to understand what their rights are within the Child and Family Services system. The Children's Advocate has prepared three annual reports over its current term of office as was required by the legislation. These reports have covered a range of issues including reviews of how the office is operated, the volume and profile of clients, reporting on services of Child and Family Services agencies and the Child and Family Support branch, aboriginal child welfare and the availability of information from the Chief Medical Examiner related to the deaths of children known to the Child and Family Services system.

These reports have been given careful consideration by my department in its regular review of its mandate and services. As part of the original legislative provisions of the Office of the Children's Advocate, there was the requirement to conduct a legislative review of the operation of these provisions. Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections established a subcommittee to conduct public hearings and receive written submissions on the operation of the Children's Advocate's legislation.

These hearings were held throughout April and May of this year. With the assistance of video conferencing, the subcommittee was able to receive presentations from individuals and organizations throughout the province. As well, the subcommittee travelled to northern Manitoba for a day of hearings in Thompson. The subcommittee heard and received a broad range of views and issues related to the Office of the Children's Advocate. Overall, the presentations confirmed the important role and value of having a Children's Advocate for children who are receiving or who are eligible to receive services under Manitoba's Child and Family Services system.

With regard to recommendations for improving the legislation and, therefore, the effectiveness of the office, many presenters raised the matter of the reporting relationship of the Children's Advocate, which was to the Minister responsible for The Child and Family Services Act. These presenters suggested that the Children's Advocate could be more effective in carrying out his or her mandate if the office was independent of the minister and reported directly to the Legislative Assembly.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the key features of Bill 4 that established the Children's Advocate as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. The appointment will be by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The annual report of the Children's Advocate will be submitted to the Speaker, who will table the report in the Assembly. The Assembly will be responsible for making general rules for the Advocate in exercising his or her powers, and the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or the minister may refer a matter to the Children's Advocate for a review, investigation, and report.

Madam Speaker, the second recommendation of the subcommittee, which requires legislative amendment, is the establishment of a term of office for the Children's Advocate. Therefore, Bill 4 introduces a term of office, as recommended by the subcommittee, of three years that may be renewed after a review by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for one more three-year term.

Finally, as a result of establishing the Children's Advocate as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly, there are certain consequential amendments required to be made to The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act and The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which has yet to be proclaimed.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to this bill moving into the next stage of detailed consideration by a committee of this House. This stage will provide us again with the opportunity to hear from the public and to listen to their views and comments about the changes that are being made to the Children's Advocate's office.

Madam Speaker, I believe that some members of the Assembly may think that these amendments to the Children's Advocate's office, contained in Bill 4, do not go far enough in meeting their expectations. I hope that members who feel this way will recognize that these amendments reflect the subcommittee's report and will acknowledge that the legislation is a move in the right direction.

I recall that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had indicated that the majority report contained a workable balance, and I am sure he will be pleased that the legislation reflects the elements in that report. I would like to thank the honourable member for The Maples for his constructive approach to the sometimes challenging process of working to achieve a consensus in our jobs here as public legislators.

As well, Madam Speaker, I hope members opposite will recognize and appreciate that, with Bill 4, we are moving forward in the direction that the public has asked us to.

As this legislation resulted from an all-party committee of this House, I hope that all members will give their support to this bill, and I look forward to debate on this in second reading and public input through the hearing process. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate now be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, my seconder has just vacated the premises, but I will ask my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 5, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole), now be referred to a committee of this House and be read a second time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, just a few comments at this time, because the amendments to The Agricultural Credit Act are really housekeeping and of a minor nature. They, in essence, transfer some of the requirements that have existed since the initial passage of the bill, to enable the minister responsible for The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to approve and to enact some of the administrative regulations that from time to time are required in this act. Currently, all of the regulations, all of the regulations have to go to cabinet and be approved by a formal Order in Council. It is in keeping with the kind of streamlining--if you like--of other legislation. It has been deemed appropriate that some of the more administrative types of regulations are more appropriately handled at the ministerial level.

I recognize, of course, that in opening up the act for even these relatively minor housekeeping bills, it is an opportunity for both members of the opposition and, indeed members of my group--I am looking to the upper benchers or something like that--to pass comment as to what, in general, they think is good or wrong or bad about the way the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is functioning. I think Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has the same kind of challenges facing it that all of us in agriculture have as a result of some of the changes that are going on out there, and it is an opportunity.

* (1520)

I invite my critic, the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), to feel free to examine with me the role of this, what I continue to believe is an important agricultural support tool that the Ministry of Agriculture has. It is playing a role in providing, in some instances, not the actual cash but putting the support of the province behind some of the diversification that is going on, particularly in livestock and potato production and so forth.

I can indicate to the honourable member for Swan River that our diversification program, a modest program as she will recall that was announced in 1995, is pretty well fully subscribed. I think I have to look seriously at that program to see whether or not it ought to be expanded, to enable us to continue to provide what I consider to be an excellent way of assisting farm operations to expand or to commence operations by not necessarily having to put up actual dollars but providing that gap that sometimes exists between what the proponent of a hog or a potato farm expansion--a farmer who is transferring from dry-land farming to irrigation farming--requires in the way of capital. There is often a missing gap that will be to the level of equity that a private lending institution, whether it is a credit union or a bank, will provide what the proponent has, and if there is a 20 or 30 percent gap missing, that, in my opinion, can and has been demonstrated to be usefully filled by the loan diversification program as currently operated by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.

So, Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I certainly invite the honourable members to look at the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation in its broader form, because the amendments before you, upon reading them, you will find that--really very little that you can talk to about. It is simply transferring, giving the minister who has the responsibility for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to pass some of the housekeeping regulations.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 6, The Animal Liability and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la responsabilité des proprétaires d'animaux et modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, this is a new bill. It arises, or the need for it arises, out of actions that I took and have been taking the last several years in this Legislature when we in effect brought in new legislation that called for the repeal of some of the old legislation. Some of these features that were in the legislation currently before you that I am presenting to the House and one that was passed last year, if the honourable member were to recall the animal welfare act, that set out more specifically the kind of responsible care that livestock, both commercial or agricultural, and companions as pets, should receive more specifically, and updating and bringing into the 1990s the kind of, I think, concern that we all have that animals in our care be treated humanely, that animals in our care be not subjected to unacceptable treatment. That was the bill that I presented, the honourable member will recall, last year.

This bill deals specifically with a liability that an animal owner has in the term of animals that are his or hers that trespass on neighbours' property or get out on the public roads and highways and can, and do regrettably from time to time, cause serious accidents, and the issue of liability is addressed in the bill before you.

Madam Speaker, I am satisfied that the bill before us strikes an acceptable balance that clearly indicates the livestock owners' liability. We have had, regrettably, some instances where livestock owners should simply accept it or refuse that responsibility. We have had situations where--and, it is surprising, I do not want to single out a particular group, but the wild pigs, the wild boars have caused difficulties in some areas where I gather that they are difficult to fence. They escape frequently, and owners--and understandably they have literally terrorized some of the neighbours when these animals have strayed off the premises where they belong and caused difficulty for other people in the area that then did not have sufficient recourse. There was not enough teeth in the old laws that specifically pointed the finger of responsibility to the owner of the animals in question, that the owner had to be liable for damages, that the owner had very specific responsibilities for the animals under his ownership.

However, having said that, and being still involved modestly in a livestock venture myself, I am only too well aware that accidents do happen, and sometimes they are not at all caused by the owner. The honourable member who is from the farm and is active in farming fully appreciates that regrettably sometimes it can be caused by the wilful neglect of others, hunters trespassing through your land and leaving gates open, unknown to the owner of the animal in some instances, and then these animals straying onto public thoroughfares or roads and then causing an animal--the bill specifically exempts the owner from liability under those circumstances. Call them acts of God, call them negligence on the part of somebody else, but it does provide that provision, and I am sure we will have a good debate on that issue as well.

Again, Madam Speaker, I invite not only the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) or other members from the opposition, but these are issues that involve many of the constituents that are represented by members on this side of the House, and I do invite honourable members to feel free to make comment and to make suggestions either in second reading of the bill, certainly at committee stage. Second reading of this bill will hopefully be referred to and passed, but it is part and parcel of the bringing up to date of the old animal husbandry acts that we had in place before, some of them which have been repealed, new legislation has been put in, in different sections. This is one more step in that process.

* (1530)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), that Bill 7, The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Régie des services publics, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, the import and impact of this bill is very straightforward and very simple. What it is proposing to do is to allow the Public Utilities Board to set the rates for their special advisors who advise the board on applications by the utilities to the Public Utilities Board. These people would be chartered accountants, engineers, lawyers, people of this nature who assist the board in understanding the complex and extensive nature of the applications that are set before them.

Last year, we enhanced the power of the Public Utilities Board by allowing the board to charge directly through to the applicants themselves the bills for the special advisors, but we did not change the rate, and the concept or philosophy behind this is to give the Public Utilities Board a little bit more direct control over their costs of doing business, and to empower them at the committee stage or committee level, which is in fact really an arm's-length committee from government or an arm's-length board from government I should say--and further, which is probably the most important, is that the Public Utilities Board are probably the best individuals to assess the nature and quality of the services that are being offered to them from the special advisors.

The last time there was any change in fees was 1985, and due to the truncated and complex way in which government expresses itself and issues are advanced to the table in government for it to consider on a collegial environment it makes it often very difficult for any change in government. So therefore I commend this bill to my colleague's attention and look forward to the debate on it. I think that it will prove to provide better government, more direct and responsive government for the people of Manitoba, and, in fact, it will allow more immediate control and more up-to-date administration.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that we adjourn debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise again to move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), that Bill 8, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I rise again to give a very brief outline of what is involved with this bill, and this is a bill of a very technical nature, legal nature. It refers to The Real Property Act, as I previously mentioned, and it refers specifically to what could be perceived as a conflict in two different sections of The Real Property Act at the present time. The issue is the title vesting in Land Titles Office to a new registrant or owner after there has been a mortgage foreclosure. Section 137 of The Real Property Act gives the authority to the district registrar, after there has been a foreclosure proceeding, with all the pertinent safeguards and constraints and publications thereto that a new title issued to an individual who has been the successful applicant therefore, and the new title is to be free and clear of all registrations subsequent to the encumbrance that gave rise to the foreclosure proceedings.

However, there is a subsequent section, that is Section 137 of The Real Property Act. Section 141 of The Real Property Act says that where land is sold pursuant to an order for sale made by the district registrar or vests in a mortgagee by order of foreclosure, which are the two ways in which title passes under this process, issued by the district registrar, it shall be deemed to have been sold or vested subject to a number of instruments or interests in the land and for the purposes of public policy. I just give my colleagues an idea of what the interests in land are that we would propose be transmitted and perpetuated into the new title, they would be such items as utility and pipeline easements, building restriction covenants, easement agreements, party wall and right-of-way agreements, zoning caveats, subdivision or development agreements, caveats or agreements filed and related to the expropriation. So these are all interests in land, and of course as Madam Speaker and then my colleagues in this House know, the ownership of land is a bundle of rights. In fact, although we think in our system that we have absolute ownership of land, in fact fee simple, which is the most complete type of ownership that one can have, is a divisible and very complex system.

There are many other interests at stake through the Crown, through various levels of government in all the lands that are owned in the province of Manitoba. I have just outlined by that, be they land management or interests of the public which must be represented, it is to the benefit of the public wheel that these issues be perpetuated in our land titles fabric. So it is for these reasons that it is very important that our Real Property Act be abundantly clear and there not be a scintilla of conflict between the different sections. So therefore we would propose by this new bill to make Section 137, which is the general empowerment under foreclosure to be subject to the qualifications set forth in Section 141 of The Real Property Act, so that the interests of the public can be better served and be served very clearly.

I would expect that my honourable colleagues across the way upon due review of-- [interjection] Consideration. Thank you very much from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), on due consideration of the specificity of this bill that they will concur with the good management being exercised by this government and join me in the general approbation on this bill.

* (1540)

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to the comments from our honourable colleagues opposite in due course.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate on this bill be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 9, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines et les minéraux, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, the intent of this bill is to make the act consistent with its original purpose with respect to the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account. When the bill was enacted, it provided for the establishment of this account by requiring a rehabilitation levy which was to be paid by all owners of aggregate quarries, both Crown owned and privately owned.

The Minister of Energy and Mines was authorized to make expenditures from the reserve account to rehabilitate lands in which a quarry had been situated. However, Madam Speaker, the act does not specifically state that interest earned from this account was to be deposited in the account. Accordingly all such funds have been treated as general revenue. Since the original intent of the legislation was to retain earned interest within the reserve account, we are introducing these amendments to remedy this deficiency. We are also making the disposition of interest into the account retroactive to April 1, 1992.

Madam Speaker, these amendments strengthen our commitment to sustainable development in mining and will increase the resources available to rehabilitate disused quarries, that is, to restore them at least in part to their original state and leave the sites in a safe condition.

We are making another amendment with respect to the Mine Rehabilitation Fund that the act already provides for. This fund is not actually in place, but we expect to put a regulation in place by the end of the fiscal year to initiate it. The principles and requirements are the same as those for quarries.

Madam Speaker, the section of the act dealing with the Mine Rehabilitation Fund, like its quarry counterpart, does not specify that interest must remain in the fund. For this reason, we are amending that section to make it consistent with our changes to the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account.

I commend this bill to this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the debate on this bill be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 10, The Mining Tax Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe minière, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, for a number of years, our government has been strengthening programs and incentives geared to attract exploration and mining development in Manitoba. In this bill, we are aiming to enhance the sustainability of mining communities by adding three new sections to The Mining Tax Act.

Under the act, a mining community reserve is in place, funded by the transfer of 3 percent of annual mining taxes. This fund is used to assist communities when their mines shut down. The act has provided that the maximum amount of the fund shall be $5 million, with any amount of principal or interest beyond that limit transferable to general revenue.

Madam Speaker, after 27 years of this limit, we are proposing to increase it to a more realistic $10 million to ensure that an adequate fund for future needs is maintained. Two of the amendments deal with this change.

In addition, Madam Speaker, we would like to strengthen the sustainability of mining communities by stimulating additional exploration and, we hope, discovery of new mines within reasonable distance of those communities, when appropriate. For this reason, we are expanding the allowable uses of the reserve to include the funding of initiatives to increase mineral exploration. In this way, we will be able to use the fund both to protect communities and residents when a mine shuts down and stimulate activity that could give our mining communities a longer term and more stable future. This particular provision would be utilized when it is an appropriate use of the fund.

I have encouraged input from the official opposition and other opposition members on this particular part of the bill, and also input from northern communities as to whether this option is something that is indeed desired. It has been offered on the understanding that it has been desired by the community, but I am certainly open to points of view from members opposite and from northern communities.

I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate on this bill be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask that you call next Bill 15, followed by Bill 16, and then go back to Bills 12 and 13 and 17 and 18 and leave Bills 14 and 19 to the bottom of the list.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act (Loi sur la graphiose), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Cummings: This is an amending bill to The Dutch Elm Disease Act which is the backbone of the provincial management program, frankly, and has been in place for the past 17 years.

The Dutch Elm Disease Act requires amendments to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the program. The objectives of these amendments are to maintain and enhance a healthy urban forest ecosystem in dozens of our towns and villages across this province. These, of course, provide a unique and important shelter within our communities with the protection from adverse weather and improved property values which is a matter which is far too often overlooked.

These healthy forests--or when they are healthy--also provide habitat for wildlife and overall improved standard of living through aesthetic and economic values. The amendments to the act reflect new management techniques that have been introduced over the last few years, and frankly the reason for this act being here today is to modernize and to streamline the enforcement opportunities and recognize some of the modern works that could be undertaken in order to enhance protection of the elms. It does allow also for various communities to take a more active role in managing the disease within their own local responsibility.

We would like to have these amendments in place by the spring of 1998 because everyone requiring to enforce, implement or work with the act including the City of Winnipeg, municipalities, research scientists, citizen groups, urban tree coalition groups and other experts in Dutch elm disease control and management have all been consulted over the past few years on the content and focus of changes to the act. There is, as far as I can tell, strong support for these amendments, and they should be seen as an improvement in order to deal with a situation which everyone has some significant concerns about.

The amendments are intended to address tree pruning techniques and alternate wood disposal options, tree pruning regulations and certification, the use of fungicides for protective tree treatments and the need to better define enforcement procedures and manage the disease in communities and a revision of the amount of fines for current infractions.

* (1550)

Changes and/or additions to the act include regulation and certification regarding the provincial tree pruning program which has been moved from the Department of Agriculture to Manitoba Natural Resources allowing for the planting of replacement elm species in areas where appropriate, permitting municipalities to serve notice for infected elm wood disposal within their jurisdictions, preventing wilful or accidental damage to public elm trees in Dutch elm disease management areas, to ensure better control of the transportation of elm wood within management areas, to include Natural Resources officers and peace officers as Dutch elm disease inspectors, to allow for the use of therapeutic fungicide treatments as part of management strategies within the communities and the updating of the penalties for contravention of this act.

Amendments fit closely with the overall sustainable development initiatives and commitments that have been supported by this government. The amendments improve the level of Dutch elm disease management in the province and support and enhance the continued survival of our urban forests.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the early completion of the debate on this act.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that debate on this bill be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 16, The Water Resources Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement hydraulique), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, the introduction of these amendments, some of them were in fact subject of some discussion during and after the flood of this past spring. Certainly they are intended to implement changes which we believe will enhance and in fact provide some consumer protection in the affected areas.

The amendments of this Water Resources Administration Act, in conjunction with our existing floodproofing program, should ensure that residents of the Red River Valley are protected and forewarned of, and in many cases, the possibilities of the impacts of flooding. The amendments are needed to this act to ensure that the structures within the Red River Valley, or within the designated flood prone area, are in fact complying with the criteria that we have laid down for floodproofing. Under these changes, the provision can be made to alert potential buyers that the structure does not meet floodproofing criteria and to ensure that government does not have to pay for damages under those circumstances in the future.

Some changes also need to be made to the regulation as it applies to livestock barns and lagoons, and the boundaries of the designated flood area need to be revised to reflect the levels that we experienced in the 1997 flood. The amendments we are speaking to today include that a building will now require a two-stage permit, since two permits will not be issued unless the building's foundation meets the floodproofing criteria. Failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a permit will be an offence, and the person so liable could be liable between $50 to $500 per day.

Having referenced that part of the act, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize strongly, this is not a retroactive, there is not retroaction, there is no retroactivity in this act. It is intended for present and future consideration for construction within the valley, or, as the act refers to it, in the designated flood plain, which would be the appropriate way to reference the area that we are in fact dealing with.

Under the new legislation, a minister may issue a stop-work order if the terms of conditions of a permit are not complied with or if a permit has not been obtained. A minister may file a caveat with the Land Titles Office stating the structure does not comply with floodproofing standards.

After the amendments come into effect, any construction that does not meet the floodproofing standards and is constructed following the implementation of this act will not be eligible for flood protection assistance.

These amendments complement the announcement that was made last August when this province added $34 million to the 1997 floodproofing program to allow Manitobans to floodproof their homes as quickly as possible, and we had 1,850 individual claims that have been received. As we await further decisions from our federal partner on this program we will, however, continue with the cost-sharing. The floodproofing program covers up to 75 percent of the cost to raise or move a home or build or raise a dike up to a maximum government contribution of $30,000. In addition, those who participate will receive their 20 percent co-payment. We will have it rebated or waived in terms of their disaster assistance claim.

These amendments and the additional funding announced earlier will enable us to protect more flood-prone properties regardless of the level of damage they experienced last spring, and it will take up $50 million in the end to provide this individual flood-proof protection. We are well aware of the severe hardships that Manitobans in the flood-prone area of the Red River Valley have suffered over the past number of months.

I am pleased to present to the House these amendments so that future residents of the valley may protect themselves and know what levels they are purchasing into when they buy lands within the valley. I recommend this act to the House.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I would move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that debate on this bill be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 12, The Addictions Foundation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre les dépendances, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a rather simple amendment to the act. It removes the current requirement that the Lieutenant Governor in Council approve the annual grant given by the Department of Health for the operations of the foundation.

The background behind this goes back several years ago when we changed as a government, and it was part of our streamlining and improvement of government operations where we amended the general manual of administration directive and removed the requirement for grants to have an Order-in-Council approval. This change in process did not extend to grants covered by specific statutes and, therefore, an amendment is necessary to remove the requirement from this act.

The funding for the foundation's operations is reviewed as part of the Estimates process for the Ministry of Health. So it simply means that the dollars flow directly without an Order-in-Council approval which is currently the case. That saves us both time and the cost of processing that Order-in-Council, and the dollars, of course, are still subject to review by this Legislature in the Estimates process. We have the representatives of the foundation there for the Estimates process as part of the review by opposition members. So it truly is an administrative housekeeping matter that in no way affects the scrutiny of this agency in its receipt of public dollars.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move that debate on this bill be now adjourned--and seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

Motion agreed to.

* (1600)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 13, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur L'aide à l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this act does three things. First of all, Section 2 of this bill provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the power to make a regulation prescribing conditions to be met by drug manufacturers that are applying to have drugs considered for Pharmacare coverage.

Currently, there is no authority to recover the costs of reviewing such applications. This amendment will permit the assessment of fees to cover the costs of such reviews, and, obviously, part of the cost of having a drug for inclusion in Pharmacare, which is obviously advantageous to its manufacturer, it is our belief that the opportunity should be there for us to recover the costs of that review from that manufacturer. So that is the first thing the bill does, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It allows us to recover the costs from the manufacturer when that particular drug is being considered.

Secondly, Section 3 amends Section 10 of the act which requires physicians, dentists and pharmacists to produce on request records relating to the prescribing or dispensing of specified drugs. This bill amends this section to make midwives subject to the requirement once The Midwifery Act comes into force in 1998. So, since the power, the limited power has been granted by this Legislature to midwives to prescribe, where appropriate, during their work, it is necessary to amend this act to catch them under the same requirements for disclosure of information as others who have the power to dispense drugs.

Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bill adds a provision to allow the Minister of Health to delegate powers given under this act. That is an administrative matter. The practical day-to-day operation of administering this act in a department as large as Health requires that very able people within the department assume those responsibilities, and the power to delegate is required by this Legislature to give effect to that requirement. One should remember though, of course, that ministers are ultimately, in our system, responsible for powers delegated by them, and I accept that, and, certainly, in proposing this bill, I appreciate and understand that, but the administrative efficiency that comes with delegation is important, we believe, in the operation of this particular bill. So I am sure members would agree this, by and large, is a housekeeping matter, is an administrative matter and nothing of policy or substantive change to the act in question.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier and Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 17, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce Bill 17 dealing with The Legislative Assembly Act and to place before the House amendments thereto. The amendment is consequential upon discussions and agreements arrived at last spring with all parties in this House respecting the way we do our business.

I am pleased to have been part of a process, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that culminated in changes to our rules which provide for a more orderly conduct of the business of this House, and I take this opportunity to thank honourable members from all political persuasions in this Chamber, because there are times when we put aside our differences and work towards the smoother operation of this place.

But one of the things, among others, that we dealt with in our discussions last spring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the idea that we could deal with the 240 hours of deliberations under the Estimates of the various departments in an expedient and still thorough way by dividing the Committee of the Whole into three sections rather than just the two that we had been using previously, although by leave previously we had experimented with the use of three branches of the Committee of the Whole House, and it did prove to be an expedient and appropriate way to do the business of examination of Estimates.

So one thing led to another, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and discussions were entered into and agreements arrived at culminating in this new book that I have on my desk, called the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Referring to page 6 of this new publication--I congratulate the Office of the Clerk and the staff there and the printers and everybody who was involved with bringing this to us--if you look at Section (3) on page 6 of this new document, it says: "At the commencement of every Legislature or from time to time as the necessity may arise, the House shall appoint two Deputy Chairpersons of the Committees of the Whole House".

Well, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have only one deputy, and because the rule has changed so that we are now going to have three sections, we need two Deputy Chairpersons of Committees of the Whole House, and, as you know, if you look on the Order Paper, we are proposing that the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) be appointed to that position, but we need the legislative underpinning to make all of that work well and in a statutory way. It also makes the Clerk of the House happy to know that everything is being done in an orderly way.

I have asked that this matter be dealt with in an expedient fashion and, depending on the discussions between the representatives of the parties, we may or may not get this thing passed at all stages at this brief session or brief sitting in the next day or two. If that does not happen, I suppose we will be looking at getting this bill dealt with shortly after the House resumes in February or March or whenever that will be happening, in any event, I suggest, perhaps after the budget. My preference, of course, is to get it done now so that it is another piece of housekeeping that no longer sort of occupies our Order Paper and is a matter of outstanding concern for people like me and people like the Clerk and people like the opposition House leader and anybody who is concerned about the orderly management and conduct of the affairs of this House.

* (1610)

So I think it is a better use of the time of honourable members that we have the three sections of Committee of the Whole. It allows for us to have a dedicated amount of time available for that work, leaving more time available for us to review, examine, debate, deliberate, have public hearings on, amend, and do whatever else it is we do with bills that come before this Legislature.

It makes sense, and I guess that is why members of this place agreed that we should move in this direction.

I know that my predecessor, the former minister from Charleswood, Mr. Jim Ernst, was very instrumental in helping bring us to this point, and I like to offer my thanks to him and those who worked with him in bringing about this result. It is not the most earth-shattering amendment or change to the way we do our business, but it is indeed still important in that it does a couple of things, as you may have heard me say already. But some things are so important, they bear repetition.

It is very important that there was a level of co-operation and a sense of working together in existence in this place, even last June, when Manitobans were facing the flood of the century and working feverishly to ensure to the extent possible that our homes and businesses, to the extent possible, were saved harmless from that awful flood.

All of this was going on at around that same time. So it is a credit to those involved in the process that we have arrived at a place where we are able to order the business of our House somewhat in a better way. I think, speaking personally, there is still room for a fair amount of parliamentary or legislative reform that it could be said that much work could be done. I had made a speech yesterday to an august body here in the city of Winnipeg, and I said that, as long as perfection eludes us, we still have work to do. I regret to say that within our rules we have done well, but we have not achieved perfection. So we will keep working.

My office is always open to honourable members on all sides of the House to move further towards the perfection of these rules by which we all live and which we regard and hold so sacred and follow so religiously each day in this House.

Having said all those things, I commend this bill to the thoughtful consideration and support, timely support if possible, of this bill.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Motion presented.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I now rise to put a few brief remarks on the record with regard to this bill, which amends The Registry Act, which is one of the acts forming the fabric of our Land Titles Office and landholding in Manitoba.

While some would say that this is a bill of some little interest and little moment in our community, I would say, au contraire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that The Registry Act is a matter of some great significance, because there is still a vestige of landholding in our province which is still secured and noted under the registry system in Manitoba.

I would share with my colleagues opposite that in fact we have two very significant forms of registration of land in Manitoba, the first being that of the registry system whereby all the land in the province which was originally occupied by European settlement in the early years of the last century was surveyed and, in fact, one can only look to the times of troubles, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arising in your very community, La Barriere, in 1869 and 1870 to see what a sensitive and significant issue landholding and land registrations are.

In fact, it was, I believe, Padre Ritchot and Monsieur Riel of sainted memory who turned back a number of Canadians who were trying to invade the then colony of Red River, which was without any administrative sovereignty at that point in time. The Hudson's Bay Company having diminished in significance and influence in this territory, the negotiations were ongoing between Mr. Macdonald, the then Prime Minister, and our sovereign lady the Queen, who was executing the transfer of land to the nation of Canada.

But, in any event, I could digress further, because in fact these are matters of significant weight, but the amendment that is at hand here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is in fact an issue of housekeeping nature to amend The Registry Act to allow the Land Titles Office to note transfer of property from the Canadian Crown to the Manitoba Crown, which originally could only be done by letters patent and was being done in perhaps a band-aid fashion by registration of Orders-in-Council but without any legislative authenticity, and this act purports to enable the different Crowns to transmit land that was held under the registry system by way of an up-to-date instrument and to facilitate the transfer of proprietary interest, which is now a very cumbersome and difficult process.

So I would therefore commend this bill to the attention of our colleagues in this Chamber and, likewise, as to the previous bills that I had introduced, I am sure that there will be a spontaneous acclamation of the need for this bill and the efficacy that it will enhance the up-to-date living standards of our good people of Manitoba.

With those few remarks, I would surrender the floor, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 14, The Executions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'exécution des jugements), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

* (1620)

Mr. Toews: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to make clear at the onset that The Executions Act relates to a civil process as opposed to a criminal penalty.

The Executions Act, as it stands, does not allow civil enforcement officers to seize cash or cash equivalent when they are executing a writ of seizure and sale. As a result, this most liquid of assets is excluded when a creditor uses this method to settle a judgment. The Department of Labour initially requested an amendment to the act to allow for the seizure of cash and cash equivalents. The Department of Labour uses seizures to recover lost wages for employees, and the seizure of cash will benefit all creditors. If approved, control procedures will be put in place to account for and safeguard any seized cash.

Those are my comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 19, The Public Trustee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public et modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Toews: Mr. Deputy Speaker, these amendments will repeal Section 15 of The Public Trustee Act, which requires that all revenues earned by the Public Trustee be paid to the Consolidated Fund, and all operating expenses be paid from the Consolidated Fund and subsection 86(3) of The Mental Health Act, which requires that all fees received by the Public Trustee not paid out in expenses in connection with an estate form part of the Consolidated Fund.

When the Public Trustee became a special operating agency on April 1, 1996, the method of accounting for operating expenses and revenue was amended to conform with The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act. That act does not require that revenues be paid to the Consolidated Fund.

These are housekeeping amendments which are required as a result of The Public Trustee Act and The Mental Health Act being in conflict with The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act. The issue has been commented on by the public Auditor in his audit of the Public Trustee's operating statements. We are moving to address that issue.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, shall we call it five o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? [agreed]

The hour being five o'clock, time for private members' hour.