Motion presented.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been debate on this particular bill which has been through a committee. I want to indicate that we have no difficulty with this particular bill passing and are prepared to say go to a vote on third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 3, The North American Environmental and Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act (Loi sur la mise en oeuvre des accords nord-américains de coopération dans les domaines de l'environnement et du travail), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

* (1610)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we oppose this bill for a number of reasons which I have set forth in both second reading and in committee.

Basically the bill accomplishes nothing that is not already made possible under the North American Free Trade Agreement. There are no particular gains for the province, and indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by becoming a cosignatory to this and ratifying the bill, Manitoba opens itself to actions taken by third parties against Manitoba, opens us to challenges should we wish to improve our standards of environmental or labour practices, because third parties under this agreement have the right to sue. Particularly, foreign-denominated corporations have the right to sue if they feel aggrieved under this. Manitobans, on the other hand, through their government, do not have a reciprocal right.

Also, I noted in debate, and the minister undertook to raise the issue, that under the labour agreement, third parties such as labour unions do not enjoy the privileges that third parties under the environment agreement enjoy, which is the right to bring some form of action should they feel that laws are not being appropriately interpreted in any of the participating countries and jurisdictions.

I think also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has to be said that for this government to pretend that it is in support of fair labour practices or in support of ILO conventions on the rights of labour and to have the shockingly bad record that it has in regard to labour is simply hypocrisy. When Canada is not prepared as a country to ratify the ILO conventions on child labour, when this province is prepared to bring forward such legislation as it brought forward in the last sitting of this House and then to say that they are in favour of high standards of rights of labour to organize and to pursue the legitimate rights of workers is simple hypocrisy.

With those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our party intends to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. All those in favour of the--oh, the honourable member for Inkster. I am sorry.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just very briefly, the NAFTA trade agreement currently appears to be working for Manitoba. Free trade appears to be working, and the benefits for Manitobans are obvious, but with the success of NAFTA, Manitobans also face some serious problems, particularly in the area of labour and the environmental issues. This bill is not really needed to address these issues. As MLAs, we have the opportunity every day.

This bill is more an excuse to allow the minister to talk about how responsible and proactive he is on these issues. This bill is nothing more than a public relations exercise in some ways. This government neglects the labour and environmental issues. If they did, why would they introduce in the last session the most regressive, in many ways, labour legislation since the '40s? The record on the environmental issues is equally as cloudy. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 3, The North American Environmental and Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act (Loi sur la mise en oeuvre des accords nord-américains de coopération dans les domaines de l'environnement et du travail).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, say nay.

An Honourable Member: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Oppositon House Leader): On division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), that Bill 4, The Steam and Pressure Plants Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les appareils sous pression et à vapeur), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the elimination of duplicating regulations is an important endeavour so long as safety is the first consideration. After listening to the minister's comments in second reading, we are convinced he has taken the issue of safety into consideration and believe that this bill is a necessary and prudent piece of legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill we are indeed in favour of and prepared to support--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. He has not moved it yet.

The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, she was up before you were.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would hate to challenge that decision. I think we have to check those eyes and those glasses of yours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), that Bill 5, The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le programme d'encouragement à l'exploration minière), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Mihychuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of this bill, saying once again it is high time that the government moved on a program that was poorly founded way back when it was created in '91-92. It was a failure all the way through over the next five or six years supported by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and trumpeted as one of their star programs. We are indeed in favour and supporting this bill. The timeliness is well past; however, there are serious flaws to this program. We raised in second reading and urge again that the department actually look at its programs in terms of proper assessment procedures. We are in fact in favour of passing this bill.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), that Bill 6, The Natural Gas Supply Repeal and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur l'approvisionnement en gaz naturel et modifiant la Loi sur la Régie des services publics), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, a lot of the comments that I could put on record on this particular bill I put on Bill 9, but suffice to say, I still would like to add just a few comments.

Unlike the Klein or the Harris governments, the Filmon style of privatization is a much slower process, but make no mistake about the outcome. It is still the same in many different ways. Instead of telling the voters the truth, many would argue, they move slowly in the backrooms to undermine a system of government that protects Manitobans because they believe in the right-wing Conservative ideology far more than they believe in the protecting of Manitobans. The thought of having Crown corporations that might try to protect consumers from the impact of high natural gas prices is frightening to this government, it appears. What they neglect to tell Manitobans is that while natural gas for homeowners increased by 8.8 percent, the same increase for commercial users was as low as 2.1 percent.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that.

* (1620)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Inkster, and I particularly appreciate the fact that he is clearly, I think, attempting to distance himself from some of the comments that have been made by the leader of the Liberal Party who has said that she is not really against privatization, just the way it is done. I mean, I found that amazing on MTS, and I am not saying it is a shock to the member for Inkster. I think he spoke clearly to the fact that there are probably many people who would support the Liberal Party that do not subscribe to that particular approach and our concern about the issue of privatization.

I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker--[interjection] Well, indeed, and it is interesting that it takes the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) to point out that Liberals in government have been privatizers. The federal government with CN, for example, much of our rail system is being privatized--just ask anybody in northern Manitoba, in rural Manitoba--some of the lines that are being dumped as part of the transportation act. So I think that the difficulty sometimes with the Liberals' approach is that they do want to be on both sides of the fence, and the problem when you try that is you get impaled firmly on the fence, and I would not recommend that to anyone. I would suggest to the Liberals that they listen to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who gave, I thought, some very good comments, because I think there are going to be clear choices ahead for Manitobans in the next few years.

One of those choices is on the key issue of whether there is a role for public ownership in this province. I believe the answer to that question is yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We argued that on the Manitoba Telephone System. We will be arguing that again continuously on Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, with many of the other things that we have within the public sector. Even more broadly, whether it be home care or health care or education, those issues are there. I think also what Manitobans are willing to do is to have mechanisms available for unforeseen circumstances that do involve public involvement in the economic sector, and I want to say that I find it disturbing that the government is not even looking at some of the other jurisdictions. We are starting to see even the Harris government in Ontario starting to slow down on the issue of privatizing Ontario Hydro. So even the Harris government, I think, is learning the lesson, and I hate to use them as an example for this government, God forbid, but they are learning the lesson that this government is only just beginning to learn.

There are some constant themes, and I think this is going to be one of the key choices ahead for Manitobans in the next provincial election: Do they believe in public involvement in the economy in co-operation with the private sector, or do they believe in this ideology, which is a dying ideology internationally, a dying ideology, a right-wing ideology, that only the private sector can do the job? I point to Europe where 13 out of 15 of the governments in the European community now have left-of-centre governments. That is two out of 15 that are right wing, two out of 15. Look at the British Conservative Party, I mean. Even in the United States with the Republican Party, look at what is happening to Newt Gingrich and his agenda. Look what happened in France to the right wing and that with the Socialist victory in France. Learn from what is happening. Do not please try to implement the dying ideology of right-wing ideologues that was in fashion in the 1980s.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

I note today--you know, what amazes me, and I look at the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) because it is interesting the member opposite talks about 60 Reform members nationally--60 Reform and 20 Conservatives. Actually, some of those Conservatives are pretty left wing compared to--you know, a lot of those people in the Atlantic provinces know that. You know, it is interesting, we have seen the Premier (Mr. Filmon) the last few days get back to the 1970s. He talked about the 1970s earlier today, the 1980s. I think he is stuck in a time warp. I think at times the Premier does not understand that in 1997, if he is trying to blame the previous government, he is the previous government. He is the previous, previous government; he is the previous, previous, previous government. The Deputy Premier can applaud for himself if he thinks that they are going to be the next government.

I say to the Deputy Premier: Run on your record, on what you are doing to our public assets; run on what you said to the people of Manitoba in the election about MTS. I suggest you do one thing, I say this to the Deputy Premier, go to the people of Manitoba and say in the next election: From the people who brought you MTS, do you trust us on Hydro, on Manitoba Public Insurance, on our health care system and our education system? The answer very clearly, Mr. Acting Speaker, is no; the government has no credibility left in terms of public involvement in the economy. Manitobans believe in co-operation. They believe in the mixed approach. They believe there is a role for the public sector, and that is why even this legislation, which could provide that kind of mechanism if we run into difficulty in natural gas, even if the government has to repeal this from 10 years ago.

I say to the Deputy Premier, shame on this government. But that is fine if you want to get into a debate over public ownership and public involvement in the economy in this province, we are ready for it. Whenever you have the courage to call an election, that is going to be top on our agenda. I just say to the Deputy Premier, hang on to your hat because you are sure going to hear about this in the next election.

With those few words, I am prepared on our side to put this to a vote, and I want to indicate we oppose Bill 6.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Speaker, I am not sure the microphones, the earpieces were totally turned on there, but if you are saying that you did not hear the vote as being mostly negative, I would indicate that we would ask for it on division.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): On division.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): First of all, I would like to rescind the committee change I made on Law Amendments earlier: St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk); Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), for Wednesday, June 25, for 3 p.m., to rescind that; and

I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen); Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), for Wednesday, June 25, 1997.

Motion agreed to.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that Bill 7, The Midwifery and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les sages-femmes et modifications corrélatives), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about this bill. I must say that it is a bill that people, in particular women, have lobbied for a very long time, and one that I am pleased that the government has listened to the people of Manitoba and brought forward.

An Honourable Member: We are delivering.

* (1630)

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says he is delivering, but in fact this will give the opportunity for midwives to be properly compensated and to do legally what they have been doing for many, many years.

Midwifery is one of the oldest medical practices in existence and one that I would venture to say many people, and many members who are serving in this House, may have been delivered by midwives. I come from a large family, a family of eight, who lived in a rural area, and six of--

An Honourable Member: A large family of politicians.

Ms. Wowchuk: Sure. A large family of politicians, my colleague says, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, living in a rural area, of a family of nine, seven children were delivered by midwives. In fact, the two that were not were delivered in the hospital were delivered there only because of medical complications. So I am very pleased that this legislation is being brought forward, and women who are practising as midwives now will be able to do the job legally and will be properly compensated for the work that they are doing.

I had the opportunity to listen to many of the presentations that were made, and women clearly indicated that they wanted the opportunity to have their children delivered at home with the assistance of a midwife, and those who had had their children delivered in that fashion found they were much more comfortable in their own environment and in many cases were able to have their babies delivered without any complication.

What we have to be sure of is that the proper education is available and that there is recognition of the traditional midwives who are in existence right now, people who have been working, and that there also is co-operation between the medical profession and the midwifery profession, because, of course, as these people who were making presentations indicated, many times their medical doctors are not in full support of midwives. That then leads to difficulties, but those women who could have their midwives with them in the hospital said that when they compared deliveries without midwives, they were much more comfortable with that procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think one of the areas on this legislation when this legislation is passed, we have to ensure that the midwifery services are available to all people and that there is room for people to get training, and that those opportunities are also available for women in rural Manitoba and in the North.

I think one of the big injustices that has been done to society is what we have done in the aboriginal community, and in most cases in the aboriginal communities in the Far North in Manitoba when a woman is going to have a child she is put on a plane and shipped off to, for example, Thompson or some other area, and she has to stay there until after the baby--or in many cases to Winnipeg. Ties are broken with the families, and in many cases, that particular woman may not speak the same language, she is very lonely for the rest of her family, and it is a very long stay and a difficult stay in the hospital, waiting for that delivery to be made. In many cases, then the woman goes back to the community without the supports that she needs, and all of the traditional midwives have lost many of the skills that they had, because the profession is not recognized.

We have to ensure that when this legislation passes that we ensure that the opportunities are there for women from the Far North, and women from the aboriginal communities have the opportunity to take the training and are encouraged to move back to the traditional ways of delivering children. Not all births are high risk. When it is not a high-risk birth, there is no need to bring that woman into the city or into a large centre. In doing this, we will then be making a much more comfortable environment, building stronger bonds for families, but also saving a lot of money for government, because when you think about the cost of plane fares, of stays in hospital, and this government has been doing what they consider--they have been doing a good job of cutting hospital beds and services in rural Manitoba. We are seeing the impacts of that. I worry about these people who have to use these facilities.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I want to say that I think that this is a good piece of legislation, but we have to be sure that, along with establishing training centres, there is flexibility, and that this government recognizes what past governments have done and what other governments have done to reduce services and take away traditional ways.

The medical profession plays a role in this, too, when people are sent out of their community, and that is a real problem. We have to look at building bonds and bringing back more traditional services to a very natural procedure, and that is birthing a child.

Again, we will be watching this legislation, and should there be a need to amend it after it has been in place, we see how it is working, we will be quite prepared to amend it. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to put a few words on the record on the bill that we will be supporting. However, I think this is the height of hypocrisy by this government. At the same time that they talk about more ability for women to access a variety of options for birthing, this is the very government that recently closed the Misericordia family unit, which allowed families to experience birth in a newly renovated, modern facility, user friendly, updated and very much appreciated by the community, used by the inner-city residents, by many of my own constituents, all the way from the west end of the city, who really appreciated the Misericordia. This government in fact closed that ward.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the same time that the whole west end inner city is looking for so-called opportunities and flexibility, this is the same government which has, because of underfunding, threatened the viability of the obstetrics program at the Grace Hospital. So let them not be on the record suggesting that they are indeed progressive. Hardly. What is in reality, the record has shown that they have actually closed the door on opportunities for the women and families in St. James, Sturgeon Creek, Assiniboia, Charleswood, Tuxedo. The whole southwest portion of Winnipeg is being funneled into the Health Sciences Centre. I say shame on the government. They should be condemned for their actions, because indeed what they have done is limited opportunities, forcing families into facilities that are in desperate need of renovation, extremely overcrowded, as the former Minister of Health should know, and does not provide opportunities and flexibility.

There is no room in the Health Sciences Centre to allow a family to share the experience, as we know, is a positive thing for the birthing of children. So in fact this government, while they trumpet the midwifery--and we thank them, for this was a laboured process indeed to bring forward this bill. Women and families have been asking for this for many, many years, so they bring this, but the hypocrisy lies with the fact that they closed the Misericordia. They closed options for the inner city, for the west end, for St. James and Sturgeon Creek, Assiniboia and the whole St. James area by the possibility of closing the Grace maternity unit. I ask the government to make it clear, as soon as possible, to tell families, because planning is essential, that indeed the Grace Hospital will remain open, will remain there for the Grace babies to actually have their own babies. That is a commitment that this government made to that community when they built the hospital and when they built the Charleswood Bridge.

What has happened now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The potential for the closure of the Grace Hospital maternity ward--hundreds of people were out yesterday to send a message to this government. So I take this opportunity today to put on the record that this government has indeed a long way to go before it understands and appreciates the true concept of providing opportunities and flexibilities for family and women.

I would just like to close by saying that indeed we are supportive of midwifery. We look for that in the development of the future, but the present actions of the government must be and will be condemned by the people of Manitoba and this side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

* (1640)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I believe there is agreement to waive private members' hour today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour? [agreed]

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a real short note on this particular bill of great substance no doubt. It is not to belittle what actually the bill is doing.

I understand it is very administrative. It is concerned with creating in the politically correct world, replacing "he" with "he or she." With our huge research department, that is what they could in essence pull out of the bill, trusting that they have not missed anything. Being politically correct in this particular situation would, in fact, be appropriate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Motion presented.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that this bill remain standing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Wolseley, seconded by the honourable member for Swan River, that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy First Minister (Mr. Downey), that Bill 13, The Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 14, 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. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 17, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is, indeed, an honour to be able to speak on this bill on third reading. It allows us to speak about the way the government has handled The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act here in this province dealing with retail outlets. I should say that this is an opportunity to speak about what happened last November dealing with The Retail Businesses Holiday Act and the kind of mistruths we found from the government in terms of how they were dealing with the act dealing with Remembrance Day.

As I recall correctly--and this, of course, affects retailers and I wanted to speak about this--the government wanted to change the way Remembrance Day was handled for retail outlets. We, of course, had passed the bill in this Chamber by the so-called November date, the so-called date which was, of course, dealing with bills that were properly before the Legislature at third reading for votes, as opposed to some bills that were still sitting in committee because the amendments were not in on time, like the telephone act, in particular. We had passed the bill at the Legislature well in advance of the--this Legislature had passed the bill. There was some dispute about the merit of it, and we had passed it in the Legislature and it was therefore law or potentially law on November 8.

Now, the government was so disorganized that evening that they did not bring the Lieutenant Governor in to proclaim the bills that were passed in the Legislature. Then on November 9, they did not take any action, and then further on November 9, they went out and said there is confusion in the marketplace, in the retail sector, because the Legislature and the opposition had prevented the passage of this bill. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), the former Minister of Labour, went around and said he did not know what the position of the government is, and he could not tell them what to do on November 11 dealing with the retail act. [interjection] Oh, the devil made us do it. Oh, it is never our responsibility.

Of course, now the NDP, being the responsible members that we are, went back and did a little research. We found that, for example, the bill dealing with the pedophile registration on the Child Abuse Registry list, which was an omission from the government in earlier bills, one which we had moved in a private member's bill, that bill had been passed in the Legislature and it had been proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in this Chamber, and other bills had been proclaimed. You know all that was required to do to proclaim the bill was to stop the proceedings in this Legislature for a few minutes, walk across the hallway, bring in the Lieutenant Governor and proclaim the bills in this Chamber.

* (1650)

Now, do you think the government could get their act together? I mean, I knew they could not get their act together to jam through the telephone bill in the right time, but you would think the government could get its act together to get this act proclaimed before November 11, so the businesses of this province would have some degree of certainty and the Conservatives would have some degree of certainty. No. So did the Tories accept responsibility themselves for this fiasco on the retail closing act and the confusion that was in the marketplace and in the consumers' minds on a very important date, that being November 11 pursuant to the retail closing act, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act? No, they could not. They could not get the LG in. Did they take responsibility for their ineptitude? Of course not, as the Deputy Premier said. They went through the usual mantra of excuses, blame the opposition.

I am surprised they did not blame Chretien. I am surprised they did not blame the federal government. I am surprised they did not blame the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I am surprised they did not blame--who else do they blame? Oh, union bosses who have participated in the co-operative approach on the retail closing act. They started to go through their usual list of victims and pick them up and blame them, and never did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), the then Minister of Labour, accept responsibility for the fact that he was not awake enough at midnight--I guess he usually gets in his jammies by then--to say, oh, I need to proclaim an act. I have to bring the Lieutenant Governor in here because I have an act that is important for three days later on November 11.

Did they stand up and say that we need this act proclaimed? No. The Minister of Justice was propped up by little sticks because it was really late at night. It was between at least 10:30 and 11, and the next day he came out and, of course, blamed, in the newspaper and on radio, members of the opposition for his inadequate performance in his function as Minister of Labour.

Of course, after he had performed so poorly as the Minister of Labour with the highest number of days lost to strike and lockout, he got rewarded by being the Minister of Justice, and he has been fumbling those issues ever since he got appointed. I mean, this is his reward for fumbling The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act. The reward for fumbling that act was to make him the Minister of Justice and watch him fumble the johns' school act and The Highway Traffic Act, mumble his way through that bill.

You know, last Thursday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) told us that his law would provide for the seizure of cars for johns, and by Monday, as articulated by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the great Monty Python skit--this car is not seized; it is just in a state of suspended animation. It can't be seized; it can't be whatever. Of course, then he went on to chastise us for not wanting to consult with social workers and all these other kinds of people for his inadequate performance on the johns' school and the consequences therefore.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we now have to take a very fresh look at Bill 17 before us today because once bitten, twice shy. That is why I am making these comments about our previous dealings. Now, I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) is on the ball unlike the previous Minister of Labour and will be able to have the ability to proclaim an act when it is needed because certainty in the consumer and retail market for workers and customers and employers and owners is very important.

Now, I notice in this act that the government is going to delegate this authority from the government to the businesses, and it is actually quite interesting to note that this is probably the only thing in this whole session, the only matter before this whole legislative Chamber, where we are actually going to have some power to the people, whereas the other 60 bills deal with more power to the government. Of course, that carries on with the bills that we had in the last session of the Legislature where there was a concentration and a power grab by a group of people who are absolutely bent on power, secrecy and we would argue other words to describe their very characteristics, as opposed to providing for power to the people.

So we think it makes sense to allow the minister to allow businesses to close on various days pursuant to the holiday act for their own employees. We think that that makes good sense, and unlike the mishaps that we saw the last time we had the Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act amendments before this Chamber, we certainly will provide the minister with that authority, as requested in this legislation, rather than Executive Council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I recall it when the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) in his speech to this bill at second reading, we also asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) to publish in the annual report the numbers of times where this practice is utilized by the minister, this fiat or permission is utilized by the minister, for purposes of this act, and I think that is a reasonable request.

It may go against the secrecy provisions of Bill 50 and the overall secret nature of this government to want to withhold that information from people, but I would think that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) would commit on closing the debate on this bill that he will in fact publish the numbers of occasions under which this exemption under the retail act is exercised by the government. Before, we had that information by Order-in-Council by definition, because those documents must be published, although not all Orders-in-Council were released.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is sitting there, and a lot of Orders-in-Council dealing with the infrastructure money for the Winnipeg Jets were withheld by this government through the January to April period in 1995, again, the secret nature of members opposite. I guess the member thinks he is still back at City Hall, you know, the former chair of the gang of 18, I think they called it, the gang of 18 or the gang of 19. Where did they used to meet? Down in the cellar of the Fort Garry hotel, those meetings where they used to make those secret deals. You know, they used to sit there like an Edward G. Robinson movie and cut the cake up and cigar smoke would come out and people would find what wards got what benefits, and the member, of course, was involved in that, and of course he has been continuing on in his secret ways since.

I would say, with those brief words, that we will support the passage of this bill at third reading, but we take the minister at his word that he will publish those businesses that exercise this provision as opposed to Orders-in-Council in his annual report, and we will be looking for that.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, very briefly on this particular bill, I would echo many of the comments that the Leader of the New Democratic Party put on the record with respect to Remembrance Day and what the sequence of events--which I would concur with his interpretation of actually what occurred back then. But having said that, this particular bill we do not have any problem with in terms of seeing passed.

There always has been a great deal of concern with the whole issue of Sunday shopping, and one of the things that I have always felt is that the government has really never worked with the different groups, whether it is the public or some of the interest groups that are out there to try to get a fairer sense in terms of what should be done with respect to Sunday shopping. I know that they have somewhat passed off that responsibility ultimately to a number of the municipalities, through a local municipality to ultimately determine, as opposed to trying to come up with some sort of a provincial policy. It is a hot issue, it is a hot issue, and I can recall at the time we had argued that the government was not prepared to deal with it, and if you are not prepared to deal with it, maybe the best thing to do is to hand it off. But it would be nice to see more consulting with the whole issue of Sunday shopping, because it will in all likelihood continue to be an issue over the years to come.

With respect to the issuing of permits, again, I do think that there is some benefit of having some sort of a listing or at the very least a number that indicates how many permits have been issued out through the minister's office as indicated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. With those few words, we are prepared to see the bill go to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

* (1700)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): The work, I am happy to report, is moving along in the committees that are meeting by leave at this time. However, I think that it would be wise for me to announce that, with the leave of this House, the Law Amendments committee would sit tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to deal with Bill 48, to complete the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 48.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Law Amendments will sit tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., with leave. Is there leave? [agreed]

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 18, The Emergency 911 Public Safety Answering Point Act (Loi sur les centres téléphoniques de sécurité publique--service d'urgence 911), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a bill that enhances emergency 911 service. Any legislation that will ensure public safety and better safety for people in the province is something that we would support. This bill ensures that all public safety answering points which operate within the proper service guidelines regarding--and this deals with staffing and training and performance. It sets standards for emergency response position points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there have been, at the present time, 911 services offered to people in the city of Winnipeg and the areas surrounding Brandon. Through this service, people in that area have the opportunity to access emergency services much more quickly by dialing three digits rather than having to dial the seven digits. Other parts of the province are not quite so fortunate.

In the rural communities--and many communities are now negotiating to have 911 services brought to municipalities, and those I believe will be accessed through the Brandon centre, but unfortunately many parts of the province will not have this service. Many communities in northern Manitoba will not have the opportunity to access 911 service and that is unfortunate.

Many of the communities in northern Manitoba, where there is scant population, people who live in remote areas often do face crises, whether it is fire or need for ambulance service or other emergency services, will not have that service available to them. Now I am not sure whether in time with technology that will be available, but I have to say that I am very concerned with what will happen with emergency services with this government having privatized our telephone system. Is the service going to be available? Is any private company going to be interested in providing services into remote communities?

We have seen this in other areas. We have seen history of what happens in other states, in the United States, where telephone services have been privatized, and it becomes very expensive. You have to wonder whether there is an interest. So I am disappointed that the government has moved toward privatizing our telephone system. We have made that very clear. I am also very disappointed with what we have heard in the last couple of days with MTS applying for rate increases, because with the rate increases that are applied, many people will not be able to have phones.

If they have no phones, they cannot use 911 service. We have raised this issue and I have mentioned it to--one of the members across the way indicated that this new telephone system would reduce telephone rates because long distance rates were going down. What the members across the way have to recognize is that there are many people in this province who cannot afford a telephone. I represent many of those people.

In my constituency there are many people who do not have a telephone simply because they cannot afford it. Many of the people that I represent are on social assistance. Social assistance does not allow for the additional cost of the telephone. Do you think, with these additional costs, with increased rates, that they will be able to have a telephone? No, they will not be able to have a telephone. Whether 911 service is expanded into those areas, they will not be able to make use of that service, so I think it is absolutely disgraceful on the part of this province to say that they are improving services when they move to privatize the telephone system and, in reality, are denying many, many people the service.

So this is good legislation. There is an expansion of 911 service, and I look forward to the day when 911 services will be available to the communities that I represent. I hope that those negotiations go well, and I hope that the costs will be affordable, but with the increase in telephone costs that are being applied right now and the cost of 911 service, I do not know for sure but I think that the 911 service was going to be an additional cost of a dollar a month--

An Honourable Member: 25 cents.

Ms. Wowchuk: In rural Manitoba as well? [interjection] The rate will be 25 cents a month, so if that is the rate for rural Manitobans, that is not an exorbitant cost. Hopefully, it can be delivered.

I would encourage the government to move farther and look at northern Manitoba, look at Thompson, look at all those remote communities that need the service as well. As I understand it, at the present time everything north of 53 is being excluded from the service. That is what I have been told. If it has not been excluded, then I would appreciate knowing that, but we do have to have it.

We have to have other services available for rural Manitobans that require a telephone, and one that I have lobbied this government very hard for is the rural stress line, and I am very disappointed that the government did not recognize that as an important service and refused to fund it. There were some very interesting statistics on rural stress line services in other provinces and the benefits of those services to the health and safety of communities as a preventative service. So, along with 911 service, there are other services that this government should recognize.

This government should recognize that there are other parts of the province that need the service and, in particular, in northern Manitoba where, as I say, the population is sparse but where it is also needed. People who live in northern Manitoba are no different than people who live in southern Manitoba. They suffer heart attacks. Their houses burn down. They have accidents. They have the need to access services as well.

So that is a challenge to the government. Ensure that the services are available to other people. Make a presentation to the CRTC to ensure that the telephone rates do not go up to a point where they cannot be afforded. We have enough people in this province who cannot afford a telephone right now, and those people will not be able to access the services. Think about other services that are needed to provide quality of life in rural Manitoba. Ensure that they are able to access the services.

So, with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we say that we support the steps that this legislation brings forward, but we also think that there is much to be done. We have to recognize that there are other people--and we have to recognize that there is a cost, but the costs that are there are costs that should be borne by the people of the whole province, because that is something we believe in. If a service is cheaper to install in Winnipeg, Winnipeg should not pay a different rate. We should distribute the costs so that all people in the province pay the cost but also that we have services for people throughout the area.

Of course, if we had maintained our telephone system, we would then be able to ensure that we would be able to provide 911 services in more communities. Through a publicly owned service, you have the ability to distribute the cost and treat people equally. What this government has done by privatizing, you have given up that ability to bring equality to people, and I fear for Manitobans with the direction this government is taking when they move towards privatizing our services. I fear for their intention on hydro and what that will mean for Manitobans.

* (1710)

But, as I say, we do support this legislation, because it provides, builds for better public safety for a large portion of Manitobans. There is work to be done. There are more people that need the--to ensure that we have 911 service. There is more to be done to ensure that we have other preventative services that will prevent many of the situations that require emergency services.

So this government has to look more at the whole picture of how Manitobans live and what we need, and the steps that they have taken will certainly hurt the opportunities for many people to get this service or it will result in the cost being much too high for people to afford. I believe that the government should reflect on the errors of their ways and admit that they have made a mistake, and what they have done will not improve services for Manitobans but could end up in some very high costs for Manitobans, and having services such as the 911 may end up costing a lot more under the private sector than it would have under the public sector.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 18 is indeed a bill that all of us, I am sure, can support. The only thing that I would like to emphasize is the fact that not all of Manitoba, as the honourable member for Swan River makes reference to, has access to 911 services.

The success of 911 has just been tremendous, not only in the province of Manitoba but virtually on our continent, as more and more it becomes a number that is embedded in everyone's mind so that if something does occur, they know where to call. I am always pleased when I am talking to young people in particular, and it is from all different ages but young in particular, that they know that if something goes wrong with mom, dad, or guardian or whoever it might be, the number that you call is 911. I think whatever we can do in the provincial Legislature to expand that particular--and make it more accessible to all Manitobans would be a step in the right direction.

I would also want to take this particular opportunity just to give one last kind of a pitch on the piece of legislation that is before us to indicate how wonderful it would be to have, along with a 911 number, an expansion of the Health Links line as being another number that can be communicated to, again, all Manitobans, as being a 1-88 number or a 1-800 number so that individuals can call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and get some advice on health care needs, which would in fact alleviate a lot of the people phoning the 911 number.

I would suggest that the government, what it does need to look at, and I know the current Minister of Health is fully aware of the concerns with respect to the Health Links line, but expansion of that particular line, I believe, would complement the 911 service and provide an excellent service again for all Manitobans.

With those few words, we are more than happy to see it go for Royal Assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 19, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned on Bill 19.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 20, The Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, to put a few words, it is interesting with respect to Bill 20. You know, the government says that it does not increase its taxes yet all different sorts of fines and other forms of revenue have assisted in bringing up the government coffers.

Now, that is not to say that we do not necessarily support some increased fines for speeders, but sometimes one has to question some of the statements put forward by the government. But we do support this particular bill but would just acknowledge that it will assist in the financial coffers of the province.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): As the member for Inkster has pointed out and as our Justice critic has pointed out, this is an increase in fines, but we would want the revenue to go down through a decrease in crime. I think that is the key element which we would support in the increased fines. The fines can sometimes be a deterrent for people who have a heavy foot. It sometimes, perhaps, cannot be a deterrent for people who have the same affliction, if you will, in terms of the vehicles and other areas that would be dealt with under The Highway Traffic Act

and The Liquor Control Act.

We think that safety of the public should be the paramount priority in both of these bills, whether it is to start at the preventative end with the posting of speed limits and the conditions of roads and whether it is at the other end in terms of dealing with penalties for convictions that are contrary to the laws and conditions under which people are required to obey, if you will, as citizens of our province.

We would also note, as the member for Inkster points out, that the fines have gone up. Would it not be lovely, to paraphrase My Fair Lady, would it not be loverly, if, for example, some of that money was reinvested--

An Honourable Member: To victims.

Mr. Doer: To victims, of course, which, of course, was initiated by former governments and slashed and hacked by this government which is contrary to every one of their so-called election promises, although we are not going to stand on a point of privilege on that point, but we will if they say something different in Hansard. Would it not be lovely if we took some of that money from the increased fines and started reinvesting it in some of our roads, particularly in northern Manitoba?

I think that this would be very, very consistent with this act. You know, when we have asked these questions before to the government, they have stated that, well, they make decisions on the basis of the numbers of people that use these roads. That, of course, was totally contradicted and totally set aside with the precedent that was established to asphalt the road to see the ducks at Ducks Unlimited, not that there is anything wrong with having Ducks Unlimited in Manitoba and not that there is anything wrong with the Oak Hammock Marsh which, of course, had a more passive approach in terms of pathways under the previous government. We always thought that the head office, if it is a head office, should be just on the edge of the marsh, so that the former Minister of Natural Resources--now who would that be--would not have to change the act willy-nilly and proclaim the act to allow for edifices in our provincial parks, as he had to, to evade a court challenge.

* (1720)

I would like to see some of the highways in northern Manitoba get some of the money from these fines to be reinvested for the safety of our roads because we know that members opposite, when it comes to priorities, are shortchanging northern Manitoba. They are shortchanging northern Manitoba in terms of the safety issues. They are shortchanging northern Manitoba in terms of the weather conditions. They are shortchanging northern Manitoba in terms of the remoteness of the communities and the distance of the communities and the services.

An Honourable Member: Why do you not drive through my constituency?

Mr. Doer: I have driven through the member's constituency, and I know how far it is from gas stations when you get further north from your constituency on Highway 6 and start heading into the beautiful northern Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, would it not be useful if this government would not just take money from people--and, hopefully, we could decrease crime--but also reinvest it in needed infrastructure, particularly highways, and reinvest this money?

So further to the comments of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the comments I had about decreasing crime, more money for victims, more money for safety on our roads and reinvesting in northern Manitoba, we will certainly support this bill. As the saying goes, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, we certainly would concur with that recommendation, but saying to the government, put money back to the people, put investments back into our communities, particularly in northern Manitoba. Let us start building some roads for the people that are going to be safe for all of us to travel on. Thank you very much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

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

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill 206, please.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 206 (The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le contrôle des substances intoxicantes et les mineurs), on the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I believe this bill is standing in the name of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Oh, I am sorry. The bill is standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a few comments to place on the record in respect of this very important issue.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

Essentially, Bill 206 is a bill to amend The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act and, as is well known, there is already in this province a committee that is looking at the issue of this very, very serious problem. There is the nonpotable alcohol abuse committee, and I have met with this committee to discuss their progress and some of the steps that they wish to take in respect of this matter. It is clear that the issue of nonpotable alcohol, or sniff, as it is commonly referred to, is a very serious one, and we clearly support this committee's activities. The approach that this committee is taking is not simply a legislative one. It is clear that legislation is required. Legislation needs to be brought in, but there is a serious constitutional problem. The main constitutional problem, speaking generally without referring specifically to any provision of Bill 206 at this time, is the division of powers issue. The Zellers case out of the Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed that very difficult problem, and it was as a result of the Zellers case that various amendments were made and new approaches taken in respect of this particular issue.

When I received a copy of Bill 206, I certainly did want to look at it to see whether the government could, in fact, support this bill. Knowing, as I did, the constitutional issue that needed to be addressed, I was particularly concerned about that problem. I have no problem with legislation going to deal with this issue. What I have a concern about is if this Legislature takes the time to pass legislation, bring the infrastructure into place, that the legislation itself be constitutionally sound. So I referred specifically the bill, then, to the Constitutional Law branch of the Department of the Attorney General. As members opposite know, that is a highly respected branch in the Attorney General's department, probably even more so because I am no longer associated with it directly.

There are some very, very good lawyers in there who understand broad policy issues. I could comment on some of these lawyers, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to bring in their names, but the research director of that branch provided the branch with certain constitutional opinions, provided the branch with some opinions in respect of this issue. Very generally, the position of that department was that there are constitutional problems with almost every section of this bill, and what is more important is that the problems cannot be corrected by simply redrafting the bill. There are fundamental flaws with respect to this bill. This is not in any way to denigrate the efforts of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). This is a difficult issue. I know the Department of Health has also looked at this issue, and their activities were also stymied by constitutional concerns.

So it is not surprising that the bill that has been submitted here by the member would also contain those kinds of problems. I think it is very important that we continue to look at this issue and that we continue to work with the member for St. Johns and the committee that is looking at this issue in order to ensure that when the Legislature of Manitoba passes a statute to address this particular issue, it is constitutionally sound and can be administratively carried out.

This is not to say that we cannot continue administratively at this time to deal with the problem and to bring new, innovative ways of dealing with this problem that do not necessarily need legislative change at this time. We recognize legislative change must occur, and that is what this committee is working on together with Manitoba Health and the Department of Justice, and, again, I would welcome the contributions of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) in respect of this particular legislation.

I think just in order to give some assistance to the member as to some of the concerns that have been identified, and I am not going to get into a long, legal discussion on those issues--

An Honourable Member: Well, that is a relief.

An Honourable Member: That is comforting.

* (1730)

Mr. Toews: I know my House leader and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) indicate that it is a relief and that is comforting, respectively, and, generally speaking, I abide by their advice, and I see no reason to diverge from that today.

For example, the nature of the amendment to remove the reference to minors in the legislation so that this act would cover substance abuse by adults as well as minors, philosophically speaking I have no problem. The problem does not disappear when a minor becomes an adult, so that is clearly a recognition that the problem is greater than simply dealing with minors, but what this, in fact, does do is increase the danger of the law from being vulnerable to a constitutional challenge on the basis of a division of powers, so that the impact of that is moving it from the area of health to the area of criminal law which is a federal jurisdiction, and I am not necessarily by saying that on the record saying that I necessarily agree 100 percent with that, but I am saying that given what the Zellers case has already told us, we have to be very, very careful.

Some of the other amendments which deal with a search warrant I am advised violate the standards set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter and Southam which was the first law on unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Charter, and I think that needs quite substantive reworking.

In respect of the penalties and Section 6 specifically, the way the penalties are framed increases the possibility that there would be a finding of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment and thereby contravene Section 12 of the Charter. This is because in Manitoba the courts have determined that a minimum fine and/or the possibility of imprisonment in default of the payment of a fine contravenes the Charter of Rights, and so the likelihood of such a finding under this particular provision can only be increased by the even stiffer minimum penalty for a second offence including minimum imprisonment for seven days and the possibility of an indefinite cease-business order; so again, one of the concerns that has been raised to me.

The issue in respect of the compulsory treatment of a person is, of course, something that the Supreme Court of Canada is looking at today as we speak and in relation to, indeed, a mother who had an unfortunate problem with sniff, and the extent of the Legislature's ability to deal with that particular individual is a crucial part of the case. So constitutionality, especially vis-a-vis Section 7 of the Constitution, is important.

Very briefly, two other issues, 6(7) and (8) violate or certainly the argument is violate the reverse onus or the requirement against reverse onus and also the presumption of innocence, so these are very, very serious problems. I commend the member for his efforts in this respect but, if the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) wants me to elaborate on other issues, I can go into that, but what I am trying to do here is objectively state my position without imputing any motive. We can get into that issue if we want. Certainly I would reserve any comment in that respect if that issue becomes an issue in this House. I certainly would raise it if it does become an issue.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted: "Bill 206 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."

Motion presented.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The response of the government to the legislation has been, in one sense, shameful, and in another, given comments by the minister in Question Period on one or two occasions, scandalous, unfortunately. I just wanted to share with the minister our view that this legislation is not, as he alleged, some copy of some other document or taken from some other document of the Department of Health.

I just want to remind the minister that this bill contains 22 amendments. The Department of Health had been looking at amendments to the legislation and had come forward with eight amendments. There are only two that are similar, and that is because the word "minors" is taken out of one section and the consumption section is reworded to take out reference to all persons under 18. Those two sections could not be rewritten in any other way.

Having got that out of the way, I want to comment that I believe the minister's reactions on the constitutional issues are really concerns about the risk of certain sections in the bill. They are indeed, as he said, concerns. We have had those concerns and Legislative Counsel has had those concerns as we drafted the legislation, but it was important that this legislation be put forward with a view to dealing with health promotion, health prevention and not comprise a new regime of what is a crime or criminal law.

With that objective in mind, we put in here sections that dealt with prohibiting businesses from selling sniff knowingly, to deal with the disposal of inventory, to deal with restrictions on business in a preventative way, which we are of the view went to the issue of health promotion versus criminal law. As well, and I think more importantly, because we are aware of earlier opinions from the minister's department as expressed through the Pharmaceutical Association's committee, that if we dealt with consumption, not by way of fines and penalties, but by way of exposing people to treatment, this legislation could be saved from any strong argument that this is, indeed, criminal law and not within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Mr. Acting Speaker, we think that if the government did have concerns about particular sections in this bill, it had every opportunity to make amendments so that we could work co-operatively to deal with this tragedy in this province. It is interesting that we as a provincial jurisdiction have certainly spent numerable resources and passed legislation and regulations dealing with the control and abuse of liquor, and, arguably, the abuse of inhalants is even more tragic. We know that inhalants dissolve the brains of the abuser, yet, we as a provincial jurisdiction have not taken action to deal with the control of inhalants. I think that speaks not only to a constitutional issue but how this province and this government, in particular, have not been paying attention to these crises which disproportionately affect those in the inner cities and in northern communities.

* (1740)

So with those comments, we thank the minister for his comments on the bill. I think it is important for the government's view to be recorded, and it is our hope that we can proceed with other legislative initiatives, always though recognizing that legislative initiatives are a very small, albeit, important part of the solution to solvent abuse. It is critical that this government move towards preventative and educational programs and towards effective treatment for sniffers. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want to put a couple of comments on record. When I first saw the bill and participated reading it after my colleague put it together, I was hoping that something could come out of this, because you see so much tragedy happening here in the city and especially in northern Manitoba. If any bill, whether brought forward by my colleague or the minister or member of the Liberal Party, it does not matter who brings it forward, if it saves one life, I think it is very valuable and it warrants support. It is not who brings it in, it is who is saved. I think that is how we have to view this.

I am saddened today when I see that, like my colleague said, if there were some problems, maybe amendments should have been brought forward so that way we could pass something that has a little bit of bite to it. If you would just look at the past, you can go for a ride anytime--even right now--and you will see individuals walking the street holding Kleenex and rags to the mouth and they are breathing in through the nose. It is a sad, sad shame because all those individuals are doing is killing their brain cells, ruining their life and what future they have.

If there are any measures that could be taken to bring an individual in for assessment and have someone with the experience to at least give information to the individual, what they are doing, possibly, that would lead to treatment and, hopefully, stop at that point so that individual would have a chance for a future instead of losing the brain cells and eventually hurting any chances that they have. A lot of them unknowingly start at a very young age and they figure it is a great kick. They are high and they have a lot of fun, and after a while they get addicted to it and it is pretty hard to stop. So the sooner we can stop it and the sooner we can put measures in--I know that members of the nonpotable committee have been working for years on this, and they have been trying to find a solution to deal with that. For example, when the bill was brought forward just dealing with minors, it is hard for the police to lay any charges on unscrupulous owners, because they cannot use undercover officers because they do not have anyone under 18 years old that could go in and see what they are selling.

So anything that changes the whole law or the ability of the police even to bring someone in for assessment, education and treatment, we have to support that. As I said earlier, if we could save one life, that would be worth whatever the costs are, because if you look at even the long-range health cost to treat individuals as they progress in their life when they start at a young age, teenage and go on into their adulthood, if they are able to stop that bad habit or that damaging habit at a younger age, it would save us a lot of health care dollars, but also we would be doing a lot to help the individual to live a meaningful life that we all choose for ourselves and hopefully choose for all others.

I would encourage this government, if you see this bill as cannot support, look at bringing your own in. If you bring something in that will help individuals, I am sure that you will have support, because I think the No. 1 is to help the individuals, and it does not matter who wants the credit for it, if we save one life, that will be a bill that will be worth voting for.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to say a few words as well, and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), I want to congratulate him on sponsoring the bill. I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has commended him today in the Chamber for that bill, because I was quite disappointed. I expect the back and forth in Question Period, and I think all of us expect to get as much as we give, and that is fair ball, but I thought the segue on Bill 38 and the disagreement we were having with the minister on the sniffing proposal was right out of line and right out of line with the desire from all members of this Chamber to make a positive difference for the people who are working on the streets, as the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) has pointed out, working on the streets, on the front lines with people who are very, very vulnerable and are even exploited in terms of their unfortunate habit with sniffing.

I sat in a legislative committee that dealt with a private member's bill a few years ago and I listened to people on the front lines, and I was reminded when I was listening to their public presentations--these were police officers and social workers and others--about my own voluntary experience when I worked as chair of the YAP [phonetic] drop-in centre which became the first Boys and Girls Club in Winnipeg. In the inner city, it was a huge problem, and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) knows this full well. People in the inner city who are trying to deal with this--not just the inner city but across some of our other communities--need help. Yes, we need to have measures that will prevent the usage of sniff in our communities, and then we need to deal with those people who, in my opinion, are unscrupulous and are selling these products to individuals in our communities.

I was disappointed. We passed the bill a number of years ago that was supported by all political parties at the time. It was supported by all the people on the streets and in the communities. I believe it was sponsored by Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the former member for St. Johns. I remember we worked very hard in our caucus on this bill. We had two private member's bills that session in a minority government. The other one was smoking in public places, banning smoking in daycare centres and schools, and a lot of us would like to go even further on those provisions. We worked very hard on the bill, and after we passed it at third reading, and after the public and police had presented their briefs and said, yes, pass this bill, we did not proclaim it for years. Then we came back with a bill that we felt, to say the least, was watered down in terms of what people on the streets needed to help them do a better job on behalf of our people.

I think the member for St. Johns--it is appropriate that we bring this bill in. It took a lot of time and effort from members of our caucus. The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) worked with the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). The member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has worked very hard on this issue as well, but all members of this Chamber share a responsibility to get something done.

Why are we not able to develop a law or develop amendments today in the Chamber to deal with a problem we know is not something that just happened overnight? It has been a problem that people have been talking about for years, and people on the streets have been really crying out for help right now. I have talked to city councillors, Mark Lubosch from our area, who, I know, has met with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and others who came to us--or we talked about this during the flood in some of the public events we were at. He said let us get on with it, let us just--you know, the Nike commercial, let us just do it. That is what the police officers are saying; that is what the social workers are saying; that is what the people on the streets are saying. Let us just get it done. If the minister has legitimate concerns under the Constitution--[interjection] There have been times before that this Legislature has passed bills knowing that there is some concern about potential challenges in the courts under the Constitution. There were all kinds of concerns raised about the constitutionality of some of the driving changes that were made--

* (1750)

An Honourable Member: Not on this side.

Mr. Doer: Not on our side either. We voted for it. The attitude, then, was if it is in the public interest and that is what the people on the streets need and that is what they are asking us for, let us just do it. The interesting option, I agree with the member opposite that you do not want something challenged in the court and you certainly do not want to lose, but in the absence of something else that is there, why not pass this bill. What if it is--let us pass the bill. It may pass in the courts. It may not be struck down. The Minister of Justice has said that he has reservations about his own legal opinion. Let us pass it and if there is something there that may be more vulnerable to the courts, let us amend it next year before they get it to the Supreme Court and in the meantime we have done something for people who are crying out for help.

So I do not agree with the minister's strategy to hoist it. I agree with the member for St. Johns' strategy to just do it, get it done, get it going. I think this Legislature has actually been very hesitant to listen to the cries of people who are working with people who are going through this horrible affliction and the people who are exploiting them through that affliction with the unscrupulous sale of these products to these people. I am against the hoist. I think we should go ahead and let us take on the courts. Let us use the best lawyers we have to defend action rather than go into a full fetal position and do nothing because we are afraid of a future court challenge. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice--that is on the amendment, is it the will of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those in favour, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: It is eight to six.

An Honourable Member: On division.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): On division.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, would you call private members' resolution 76, please?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Before we get to Private Members' Business, we will deal with the main motion as amended. Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): The question is on Bill 206, as amended. Is the House ready for the question? All in favour of Bill 206 as amended?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those in favour, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: On division.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): On division.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),

"WHEREAS the Spring of 1997 witnessed the worst flood in over a century requiring the evacuation of 28,000 Manitobans from their homes; and

"WHEREAS countless volunteers, community organizations, the Armed Forces, municipal and provincial employees and officials and businesses sacrificed great time and effort to ensure flood protection and to assist flood victims throughout the province; and

"WHEREAS many Manitobans are continuing their recovery from the strain and personal loss and are involved in the clean-up and rebuilding from the flood.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly acknowledge and recognize the flood victims of Manitoba who have suffered great strain and loss; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly thank and commend the volunteers, organizations, the Armed Forces, municipal and provincial employees and officials and businesses for their selfless dedication to the flood effort and for the spirit of community shown during the 1997 Flood of the Century; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly applaud the decisions of authorities and individuals, such as Duff Roblin, legislators and public servants, for their foresight and the public investment in flood prevention infrastructure such as the Winnipeg Floodway and the permanent dikes and waterway improvements throughout the Province which proved their great value during the Flood."

Motion presented.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if there might be leave of the House not to see the clock until this resolution is dealt with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Is there leave of the House to not see clock? [interjection] And also for committee changes. [agreed]

Mr. Mackintosh: This resolution was constructed jointly by this side and the other side, and I thank the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for his input. I also want to acknowledge at this time the role of the member for St. Norbert in the flood effort. It was an absolutely extraordinary effort that he put in. Of course, I also want to acknowledge the role of other members in the flood effort and also the minister that was mainly responsible for the flood effort.

The remarks that I will put forward on the record today really regard the effort on Scotia Street. I want to just acknowledge the role of some of the people that resulted in us being able to hold back the waters. There were so many schools from north Winnipeg that were involved in this effort. It is extraordinary to have seen the number of youth that were streaming in the gate every day. I just want to note that the schools went out of their way, not just by way of their daily effort but by the decisions of the school authorities, to recognize that participation in the flood effort was also an education. I saw on the dike lines how people interacted, how very different schools were on the same dike line, how youth were on the same dike line as seniors, how south-enders were on the same dike line as north-enders.

People from all walks of life were sharing this experience and contributing to a common goal, and I believe that even though we were able to see the effects of the flood effort, we were able to see the sandbags, we did not see directly the good outcome of the effort which is, I think, greater bonding between Manitobans. So I think it is important that we do look for some of the positive outcomes of the flood, because there are not many obviously. This was a great tragedy for this province. I think, at least through my experience on Scotia, we now have a closer knit community, and I hope that the benefits of that will become known over time.

I want to acknowledge as well the parents who brought their children down to the dike lines. It was so important, I thought, for these children to see, as their parents understood, what was happening in this province, what was happening in their community and more importantly, though, to understand the importance of putting others ahead of self and putting aside time, whether it is in front of the TV or anything else, to come down and contribute to the flood effort.

* (1800)

There were great lessons that were learned. It was important, of course, for the youth to be involved as well, and many youth, they asked, they begged for their schools to let them out to contribute to the flood effort. When they found out that they were all equal on the dike line, when they found out that they were needed, there was a difference for these youth, and I think it explains or it shows the importance of ensuring opportunities, both recreational and employment, for youth. They have so much potential, and they have so much to give.

I want, as well, Mr. Acting Speaker, to note the tremendous contributions of the City of Winnipeg workers. I think there is a renewed respect for city workers. I saw troopers from the City of Winnipeg do work that was absolutely extraordinary. I know there have been difficulties and attacks on city workers, particularly lately, and I hope that what transpired during the flood effort in the city of Winnipeg will change the minds of those who have not, I think, appreciated the critical value of our city workers. I also think, of course, of senior officials in the City of Winnipeg. I think of the Salvation Army. I think of the police. I think of those who worked at the canteen, those who worked at the registration desk, those who drove the bobcats, the businesses which provided food and supplies.

I cannot name them all, and I wish I could. I think of the churches. I think of all of the Brownie and Guide troops, the classes that did baking, but most important of all I think of the residents of Scotia Street. They were the ones who, of course, had to be most involved, and not only did they have to suffer under the strain of the threat of the waters, but they were working so hard to their abilities.

Now, the flood has reminded the community that when the neighbour has a problem, so do we. We are all in it together. Let us hope that this reminder will now flourish and grow to rally or struggle for greater protection for those facing misfortune not only due to flooding but due to poor health and disability or injury, joblessness or poverty. Thank you.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want to add a few comments to this resolution.

I appreciate the fact that this resolution is before us. I think it is timely. I think that the co-operative manner in the manner and in the way this resolution is before us does indicate that we are capable in this Chamber from time to time to set aside partisan differences and collectively make a statement.

My statement, quite frankly, is one to remind us of a gentleman who had a great deal of responsibility in providing the flood protection works for the city of Winnipeg, namely my predecessor in the then seat of Rockwood-Iberville, the late George Hutton who was the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation, as it then was known, the department for Duff Roblin, and whom I succeeded, both in his seat, on June 25, 1966, and then, somewhat to my surprise, succeeded right into the Department of Agriculture into Duff Roblin's cabinet in 1966.

If I may be permitted just to put on the record, it was my privilege, and I consider it a privilege, to have authorized the last half-million-dollar payment on the Winnipeg Floodway. The floodway had been completed, and on time and on schedule, and, Mr. Minister of Finance, within budget. On a massive project like that, a consortium of contractors did have some differences with the engineers, and a very formidable senior lawyer in the city of Winnipeg, regrettably also late, the late Dick Hunter, from one of our law firms was representing the consortium of contractors. They had a difference of some $370,000 to $400,000 of the total $60-million project that they felt was owing to the contractors because of changes, some minor modifications that the engineering staff of the Department of Agriculture and Conservation had made to the original contract justified their claim.

I am happy to report that we were able to settle without going to court but, to this day, I am pleased that I had that role in the construction of the Winnipeg Floodway and was then pleased on a year later together with Lester Pearson, the then Prime Minister of Canada's Minister of Agriculture, Joe Green, and the then Premier of the province, Walter Weir, to officially officiate in the official opening of the floodway in 1967.

I must say, and I want to put on the record as we, and certainly I think all Manitobans, appropriately acknowledge the role of Duff Roblin, the then Premier, my first boss, my first Premier that I served, in the vision and the decision to do this. Let us also acknowledge that with the help of the then Northern Affairs and Natural Resources minister, a long-time standing member from Brandon, the Honourable Walter Dinsdale, helped persuade the then Prime Minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker, in putting up 60 percent of the money. That was a major diversion, if you like, of eastern money into western Canada, compliments of that.

I was then privileged in that capacity to oversee and be responsible for the completion and the building of the Portage diversion and to let the first initial contracts on the Shellmouth Dam. Regrettably, politics intervened; I was thrown out of office, and the Shellmouth Dam was left to members opposite to complete, which was a major $22-million project. The then Minister responsible for Water Resources, the honourable Sidney Green, and Ed Schreyer, you know, completed that third leg to the tripart support of flood protection, which included, of course, the Winnipeg Floodway, with its primary dikes in the city of Winnipeg, the Portage diversion and the Shellmouth, a $100-million commitment that has stood us so well in the province for far too many occasions and, regrettably, geography has not changed, likely to stand us in good stead for many years in the future.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge the role of those former public servants, Honourable George Hutton, the Honourable Walter Dinsdale, and, of course, the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker in providing, along and together with the principal that this resolution also includes, my first Premier, my first boss, the Honourable Duff Roblin. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put on a very few words in support of this resolution. As has been said earlier, this effort put in by all citizens of Manitoba was nonpartisan. The best example I could give about that was when I was sandbagging on Kildonan Drive, and I saw an unusual sight in that I saw a federal candidate for the NDP, RomanYereniuk, pass a sandbag to Rosemary Broadbent, who was a Liberal federal candidate, who passed the sandbag to myself, who then passed it on to a Reform school trustee from River East, who passed it on to Mark Lubosch, and nobody really talked about politics.

I made it a point during the entire flood fight to go to areas, West St. Paul and other areas, where I was not known. It was interesting listening to conversations about what people thought of politicians--I made sure no one knew I was one--with the conversation that occurred. It was wonderful to see, as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) mentioned, people from all different backgrounds, the wealthy, the poor, the young, the old, from all different races and religions working together. It was a very uplifting experience, I know.

I attended Maples Collegiate grad yesterday where the councillor from West St. Paul, to show that community's appreciation for the volunteer effort put in by Maples Collegiate students, presented a scholarship to one of the students who was recognized for overall volunteering efforts during the year. I think whether it is the students, all citizens of Manitoba, the volunteers that came from outside of the province, the military, the police, the RCMP, we all worked together, and I think it was an uplifting experience and something that maybe should happen more often. So I fully support this resolution, as do my colleagues.

* (1810)

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): I, too, would like to rise and support this resolution. It is good to have a resolution, as the honourable member before me said, that we can all agree upon. Certainly, the value of the floodway to those of us in Winnipeg, I think, is something that all of us can agree upon.

On a personal level, we bought our house simply because the floodway was there. We bought our house in 1968. The floodway was not yet proven. Houses on our street went very inexpensively, although to a young couple, we thought it was a lot of money, but houses did not move very quickly on our street before the floodway went in. So our front street is a primary dike, and until this year we had never sandbagged--not that we are on the river, we are on the right side of the dike--but still it was an experience on a personal level.

As an MLA, I also experienced the advantage of the floodway working with the residents of Kingston Row and Kingston Crescent. It turned out in the end there were 192 houses that were evacuated for many a long week, but it was a very good experience working with those residents. They pulled together as a community, and for me working with them, it was a real pleasure to be able to help a group of people.

Something else which I think all the other members have also spoken to is the way everybody, wherever you lived, whether you lived in Winnipeg, outside of Winnipeg or even outside of the province, how Winnipeggers, how Manitobans, how other Canadians, and indeed likely Americans came in, and helped when the call went out. So I know I say thank you, on behalf of all of the Kingston Row, Kingston Crescent residents, to all the people, be it students or, as I say, other Manitobans, other Canadians, who came and helped our community because it was their help, along with the floodway, that saved the 192 houses on Kingston Row, Kingston Crescent.

So I will just end by saying thank you to Duff Roblin and his government and the public servants that were there during that time that put the floodway into operation. Before I forget, I should mention that I also had the pleasure of meeting Ed Kuiper, the Dutch engineer who is a resident on Kingston Crescent, and many a delightful hour we spent as we passed each other with sandbags and whatnot, but listening to his stories on the background, the building up to the floodway, most interesting. It would be very interesting to have him as a speaker here, sort of outside of this Chamber, just telling about the 1950 flood and sort of the, as I say, the background building up to the building of the floodway.

So again, Mr. Acting Speaker, just on behalf of the residents in my constituency of Kingston Row, Kingston Crescent, we are very, very grateful that the floodway went in, very grateful to Duff Roblin.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for bringing forward this resolution. I was very happy to second it with him. The member for St. Johns did a great job up in his area, in the Scotia area, by co-ordinating all the volunteers.

As a matter of fact, I am not sure if I should thank him for first talking to me about the idea when we were standing in the hall, because I was not going to be doing anything at the time, but I figured after talking to him that maybe I should open my office up as he did, and it tended to blow away on me after that. I think I would have rather been in the House after a while. Mr. Acting Speaker, he has got to be commended for the job he did within his community. It has just been fantastic.

Mr. Acting Speaker, it would be hard to try and thank everyone who got involved. All I can say is that I am proud to be Canadian, and I am proud to be a Manitoban. I have never seen anything that brought people together as well as what Mother Nature did this past spring. There were no political boundaries. As the flood knew no boundaries, the politicians knew no boundaries. We worked together and we got the job done. I do not think if we would have drawn those lines we could have gotten the job done the way we did. The government workers, the MLAs who were out to help us in the evenings and during the day and whenever they had that spare time, the staff within our building who were there, all the government employees, the city workers were fantastic. The honourable member for St. Johns has named a number of people. I do not want to repeat them. I think he has covered off that list. I do not think there is any way to say thank you. I have said this before.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) had the dike behind his home. Other members had water around their homes in Emerson and in Morris. It was phenomenal when you looked at it. When you flew over the site it was a war zone, and yet the day that my wife was taken from Fort Richmond, they came and picked her up and said they just wanted to get her away for a while because that was all she had been doing for those 42 days was fighting the flood, and they came and they picked her up and they brought her down to Osborne Village. She said it was as if nobody knew what was really going on. Everything was normal. She saw the people cutting their lawns and golfing and shopping, and she said they did not really see the impact. They did not have that same vision as those who were on the front lines and fighting it.

The news clips, the newspaper stories did not cover what was really there. You had to smell it, see it and feel it, and it got into your heart, and it brought tears to people when they lost their homes. The victims that were out there, you had to feel for them, and you had to do all you could to try and preserve what they had left, and in some cases it was not much. The people got together and in some cases pulled toys and small things from homes that were being flooded at the time as the dikes were giving in. We had people who gathered toys for some of the children who had lost everything, clothing, and it was within the community and that community spirit.

So I am more than proud to second this resolution brought forward by the member for St. Johns. I think it is a great effort, and I think working together we have shown how we can combat Mother Nature, we can win, and we can be proud to be Canadian. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Is it the will of the House to adopt the resolution?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): Agreed.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh); Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), for Thursday, June 26, 1997, for 10 a.m.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Helwer): The hour being after 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned, as previously agreed, until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).