Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 3, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquêtes médico-légales, be now read a third time and passed.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, Bill 3 is just three sections long. It very basically allows for the Chief Medical Examiner to provide a report, a summary of recommendations, every year on information as a result of the Chief Medical Examiner conducting inquests and other forensic audits of children's fatalities.

This is a bill that we are prepared to support. I would however like to share with the House, and by extension the people of Manitoba, the fact that this very simple, very short, very easy to understand piece of legislation has been asked for by the Chief Medical Examiner and the official opposition for at least four years.

I have correspondence from the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the Family Services critic, to the member for River East, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), going back as far as May 1995, asking for the recommendations of the Chief Medical Examiner when it comes to infant and children's deaths to be part of The Fatality Inquiries Act.

* (1510)

Madam Speaker, it is important for the Chief Medical Examiner to have this right for The Fatality Inquiries Act to be amended, to allow the Chief Medical Examiner to make this summary of recommendations annually on his findings, because we need to know. It is critical for us as a society to know what the Chief Medical Examiner has found out about infant and children's deaths.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, can we have a quorum count, please? [interjection] There are committees?

An Honourable Member: I do not think so.

Mr. Lamoureux: If they are in committees, then it is okay.

An Honourable Member: Better check.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, I am not certain if the committees are still sitting or not. I have not been advised that they are not. I assume they are. [interjection]

Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster had been up on his feet and requested a quorum count. It was being determined whether indeed there was a committee sitting concurrently or not. Subsequent to that, numerous members have now entered the Chamber, so now I ask the honourable member for Inkster to clarify whether he wants the Speaker to put the motion or not.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I think not. That would be fine.

Madam Speaker: Okay. The honourable member for Wellington is speaking at third reading on Bill 3.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying before I was interrupted, the importance of this piece of legislation, although it is short in the number of sections that it contains and very simple actually, it is a very important piece of legislation because it is critically important that we, as legislators, that the medical community, that Child and Family Services agencies, that all Manitobans know what the results are of the recommendations of the Chief Medical Examiner. It is important for us all to know what the recommendations are of the Chief Medical Examiner, who is charged with doing investigations into deaths of infants and children. The reason it is important for us all to know what the Chief Medical Examiner's recommendations are is so that we can, as legislators, as agencies that deal with children, as parents, as citizens, take advantage of those recommendations and put into effect laws and policies and programs that will hopefully reduce if not eliminate children's deaths in this province.

We are not talking just about deaths of children as a response to abuse or neglect or murder, although those are terrible things to have happened. We are also talking about children's deaths that may occur in the home accidentally, that may occur on farms, in rural areas, in northern areas, children's deaths that occur in any way, from anything, any cause, which are of great concern to us all, because we are parents, we are members of families, because we have a responsibility as part of the state to ensure that children are healthy, happy, safe and secure. The Chief Medical Examiner, Madam Speaker, unfortunately has information at his or her disposal that we need in order to pass laws and put in place programs to help children.

As I stated, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was asked as long ago as May 1995 to put in place rules and regulations and laws that would allow for the Chief Medical Examiner to issue a public summary of his or her recommendations while maintaining the confidentiality of the system and the situations that are being spoken of. In April of 1996, in Question Period, again the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the Family Services critic, asked the Minister of Family Services (Mrs Mitchelson) to put in place their amendments. The Minister of Family Services said, and I quote, that we will be going out to the public with a comprehensive review of The Child and Family Services Act, and the specific question that he is asking today will be addressed through that process. That was three years ago, 1996.

Finally, Madam Speaker, in 1997, the minister says that they are working on a format to be finalized, so that the Chief Medical Examiner can issue such a report and such recommendations. It is, I would say, verging on–well, I will not say what I was going to say, because I probably would be ruled out of order. But I think it is very unfortunate and shows the lack of commitment on the part of the current government to children, and the safety of children, that they have been asked for more than five years, more than four years now, four and a half years now at least, to put in place legislation that would allow the Chief Medical Examiner to give recommendations annually based on his or her findings in the cases of children's deaths. The Children's Advocate has also made representation to the government on several occasions in the past in this regard.

Finally, in the dying days of this government, after more than 11 years in power, the government is putting in place Bill 3, which, as I have said, we are planning to support. But it really is incomprehensible that it has taken this government so long to put this simple piece of legislation before the people of Manitoba.

The other concern that I have with Bill 3, and I would welcome discussion or an explanation from the government on this, is that the bill is permissive. It says that the Chief Medical Examiner may prepare a summary of recommendations for inclusion in the chief Medical Examiner's annual report. Now it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that if there are no recommendations coming forward from the Chief Medical Examiner, which I find hard to believe that there would not be even a submission of recommendations that had been made before that perhaps had not been dealt with, but perhaps there were no fatalities in that calendar year that the Chief Medical Examiner had to investigate in the case of children's deaths. Now perhaps that is an outcome devoutly to be wished.

* (1520)

But even in the case where there were no recommendations outstanding and there were no fatalities that the Chief Medical Examiner had to report on, it seems to me that the Chief Medical Examiner in his or her annual report could simply say there were no recommendations outstanding and there were no fatalities that he or she wished to report on at that time. But I believe that this legislation should not be permissive, that it should be required that the Chief Medical Examiner respond to this issue to state either that there are no recommendations, or that there are recommendations and that the recommendations follow. I do not understand, and I am hoping that the government can satisfy me in that regard.

I cannot know for sure, but it would appear to me that one of the reasons that the government has been so lax and has delayed for so long in bringing this piece of legislation to the fore is because they do not want to be held accountable, because there are numerous cases still where this government has not been held accountable or responsible for the actions or inactions of government agencies that have resulted in deaths that will be looked at under this legislation.

Children are still dying. They are still dying in the care of government agencies. They are still dying in their family's homes. They are still dying as a result of accidents and of misadventures. It is incumbent upon us all as legislators and as responsible people in this province to know what the Chief Medical Examiner has to say about these situations. Why would we not want to know? Why has this government taken almost five years at least to bring forward this piece of legislation? It certainly cannot be because there was a lot of legal mumbo jumbo to be dealt with.

The minister kept responding that it was confidentiality that needed to be protected. Well, that is very simple. You just state in the legislation as it states in Bill 3 that confidentiality must be protected, that it is a summary of recommendations. That is what we need. We need the recommendations of the Chief Medical Examiner based on his or her actions in the last year. We do not need to know the specifics of every case, but we do need to know what the Chief Medical Examiner's best recommendations are. I think it is very wrong of this government to have delayed this small but important piece of legislation to the dying days of their mandate.

With those few words, I am prepared on behalf of our caucus to finish our debate on third reading on Bill 3, again reiterating that this government has to take a look at its inaction over the past number of years. I just wonder, Madam Speaker, how many children's lives could have been saved had this legislation been enacted in 1995 instead of 1999.

Mr. Lamoureux: As the member for Wellington pointed out, this is something in which the Chief Medical Examiner and others, whether it is political parties or individuals or Manitobans, were wanting to see brought in quite a while back. In essence, what it is going to be doing is it enables our Chief Medical Examiner to prepare summaries for annual reports and also puts a deadline on it in terms of the report by the December 31st in any given fiscal year, from what I understand.

We think it is a positive bill all in all, albeit a long time in coming. With those few words, we are quite prepared to pass it through third reading.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading Bill 3, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committee of Supply): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might seek leave to report from Committee of Supply.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to report? [agreed]

Mr. Laurendeau: This section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), that the report of the committee be received.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 4, The Law Fees Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les frais judiciaires et modifications corrJ latives, be now read a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading, Bill 4. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier et modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 7, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 8, The Ozone Depleting Substances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les substances appauvrissant la couche d'ozone, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 9, The Securities Amendment and Commodity Futures and Consequential Amendments Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières et la Loi sur les contrats à terme de marchandises et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.

* (1530)

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999; Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives (Nunavut), be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I would like to just place some comments on the record as it relates to the new territory of Nunavut. I am sure that members of the House here would join me in welcoming this new territory to this great country.

Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), and also the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), and also the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman), had a very unique opportunity in the history of this country to be able to be in Iqaluit on the very day just a few hours after the first premier of Nunavut was appointed along with the new cabinet from the territory of Nunavut.

The evening of the day that they were appointed, we had the privilege of hosting the new premier-elect at that time and the new cabinet ministers to a reception. Indeed it was an important mark in history on my part and also on my colleagues' part because this was the first government of a new territory, the first premier of a new territory. Indeed, they did welcome us with open arms and showed us some tremendous hospitality in the city of Iqaluit.

Madam Speaker, the territory of Nunavut has always been an important part to Manitoba, and the new Kivalliq region, which used to be the old Keewatin region, has certainly been an important trading component to the people of this province, and especially to the city of Winnipeg, because many of the products that are produced here that are shipped from Winnipeg do make their way into the territory of the Kivalliq region. For years and years we have had the benefit of being a trading partner with the Keewatin region. However, in recent years, there have been others who have looked at this as a lucrative market and have taken away some of the market share from Manitoba. It was for that reason that the Premier of our province did realize that we had to give more importance to the region and pay a little more attention to the region.

So, as minister responsible for the memorandum of understanding between Manitoba and Nunavut, I have had the privilege of leading two trade delegations to Nunavut. In addition, I received a trade delegation from Nunavut. Also, the people from Nunavut did attend a rural forum now on two occasions. So the relationships have been re-established in a very positive way. People from the territory have told us directly that they like doing business with Manitoba, that they want to do business with Manitoba, but indeed we have to do business in a commercial way where it is competitive and where there is a two-way benefit, a benefit for us as a province, but also there is something in it for them as a territory.

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that this morning we had a debriefing with the private-sector people who joined us in the trade delegation who reported to us this morning that, in every aspect, they have increased their activities with the territory of Nunavut. It is not just with the city of Winnipeg now. Indeed, communities outside of the city are also doing business with the territory of Nunavut.

The one area where we need to enhance our relationship with Nunavut is in the area of education, because today post-secondary education by the people of Nunavut is being obtained in places like Alberta and also in the eastern provinces, in Quebec, but very little of that comes our way. Madam Speaker, we have to form strategic alliances with the people in the territory to ensure that students from that territory have an opportunity to gain their educational post-secondary training in our province as well.

Madam Speaker, I hope later this year that I will have an opportunity once again to travel back to Iqaluit where I will be able to meet with my counterpart in Iqaluit and also the Premier of their territory to further the relationships between our province and the new territory.

So Madam Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, on behalf of our government, I once again want to say congratulations to the new territory and the people of the Nunavut area and the Nunavut territory on gaining their independence. We want to wish them well as they begin the process of building a government, building a territory, one that can eventually stand on its own two feet, because there are tremendous resources in that area that need to be harvested for the benefit, developed for the benefit of the people of that territory. So with those few remarks I just wanted to ensure that we welcome the territory in an appropriate way.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 12, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1999; Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 13, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Université du Manitoba, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 15, The Cemeteries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les cimetières, be now read a third time and passed.

* (1540)

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh) that Bill 16, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment and Parental Responsibility Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le recouvrement des petites créances à la Cour du Banc de la Reine et la Loi sur la responsabilité parentale, be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): We are pleased to support this bill, but we are displeased on two other counts. First of all, I think it was unfortunate that the minister, when he introduced this legislation, did not recognize the good efforts of the Law Reform Commission of Manitoba when it did a review of the Small Claims Court last year. That report, I would believe, was largely behind these amendments, and those people on that commission have been through a lot under this government, having lost almost all their funding support. and yet have continued in the fact of that to try and bring forward progressive change to the laws. The report on small claims was an excellent one, Madam Speaker. I think it speaks volumes that the minister would fail to acknowledge their work generally and fail to acknowledge their work specifically in this area.

The other area about which we are displeased is that this legislation reflects really the lack of vigour and energy that remains on the other side of this Chamber. I look at the reports that have considered small claims, whether it is the Law Reform Commission report of last March, whether it is the report of the Canadian Bar Association, entitled Systems of Civil Justice task force report, from 1996, whether it be the government's own Civil Justice Review Task Force report of September '96, chaired by the now Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman). In those reports, individually and cumulatively in particular, are some very significant recommendations to make the Small Claims Court system accessible and much more useful to the ordinary citizen of Manitoba.

The Law Reform Commission, in its report, identified what it called the hallmarks of a small claims system. It said that it comprised simplicity, accessibility and effectiveness. The original Law Reform Commission report from 1983 that led to The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Act stated: the object and purpose of that act is to provide for the determination of claims in a simple matter as expeditious and formal and inexpensive as possible, commensurate with the matters at issue in each claim.

Madam Speaker, we all know of how the litigation system in this province and indeed elsewhere is becoming more complex, more costly. It is becoming inaccessible. Changes to the small claims system are imperative, and it is amazing that, in the face of all that assistance from those three reports and in the face of the reality and the needs of Manitobans, this government can only bring in this legislation to raise the jurisdiction of the court from 5,000 to 7,500 and a nominal change to the limit for general damages.

It is interesting that the minister never even so much as explained why he was rejecting the recommendations from those reports. Why did the government reject the Law Reform Commission's recommendation on the limit for general damages, for example? Why did the government not move to a limit of $10,000 as recommended by the Canadian Bar Association and as is in place in British Columbia?

I just want to look at the Law Reform Commission recommendations. They wanted to increase the amount for general damages up to $3,000. They wanted the court to hear interpleader applications. They wanted a mediation program set up, and I believe that is dealt with in the government's own task force on civil law reform. They wanted to increase the role of default judgment when the defendants do not file a notice of intention to appear.

I was particularly attracted by the recommendation to better allow for the collection of court awards through payment schedules and the ability to subject the debtor to proceedings for contempt of court. There were other recommendations, for example, regarding expert reports, but why this government would be so weak-kneed, so played-out, that it could not bring in comprehensive change is very disappointing.

With those remarks, Madam Speaker, we will take what we can, and we support this legislation for as far as it goes. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very, very quickly, and the member for The Maples had already spoken to this particular bill, but I was listening to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). One of the things that I think is very beneficial for the Small Claims Court is the fact that you do not get, generally speaking, people going out and hiring lawyers in order to represent them.

The more that you raise that fee, like, if you could possibly get $20,000, for example, out of a Small Claims Court, there is going to be that much more pressure on individuals to get lawyers more involved. It is not necessarily to discredit lawyers, but it is a question of ensuring that there is a bit of balance to the small claims. I am very sympathetic in terms of having due compensation for violations of whatever nature that it might be, but I see $7,500. Should it be more than that?

Well, I do not necessarily have the expertise that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) or even the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has on this particular issue, but I just want to put that on the record in terms of it is important, as much as possible, that we recognize the primary purpose of the Small Claims Court is for the little guy and that little guy being able to go in there without fear of having to go and hire a lawyer.

Madam Speaker, with those few words, I am prepared to see the bill get Royal Assent. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading Bill 16. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

* (1550)

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 18, The Correctional Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services correctionnels, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act; Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole, be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, very quickly. We understand that the legislation as it stands–and it will be receiving third reading with our support–does provide or give more strength to our Agricultural Credit Corporation, which is a very positive thing. Added to value of farming and the impact on agriculture in Manitoba, it could not be any where near where it is today if we did not have an aggressive Agricultural Credit Corporation. It has done and been there for us in many different ways in the past, the Red River flood, for example, the role that it played in terms of assisting farmers. In fact, there was a resolution from the southwest that farmers, at least in part, acknowledged the need to have a delay on interest and principal in order to assist those farmers who were hard hit. We trust and hope that the Agricultural Credit Corporation will, in fact, be able to assist these farmers.

With those few words, as I say, it is a bill that we believe gives more strength which is a positive thing, given the positive impact that this corporation has on our farmers or for our farmers. Thank you.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to put a couple of words on the record in regard to Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act. In fact, for this act, I ask the full support of the House in third reading. It is in fact a document which updates the corporation and its operation, and it will allow for it more flexibility to address the demands of financing in the agricultural sector.

I am one of that agricultural sector in my past involvement prior to joining as a member of this Legislative Assembly. I am very proud to say that the agriculture community is one that is a sector that perhaps does not ever want to provide a lot of fanfare. It is a very modest occupation by nature. In fact, that modest upbringing–and I grew up in a home with no running water and a one-room schoolhouse–I think it is a character builder in coming from the agricultural sector and the farm.

I truly believe, though, that everyone should take a moment at times when they are partaking of the bounty of the land and at mealtime to recognize the true contribution of the agricultural sector not just here in Manitoba but worldwide and how very fortunate we are to have a plentiful food supply because it is, in fact, the very foundation of all that we are and all that we are able to accomplish.

Madam Speaker, last week we discussed here a resolution which involved a report submitted by Justice Estey, and I did not have at that time an opportunity to address that. But again that particular discussion was very much involved at the time, and many arguments were made in support of the Justice Estey report, as well as there was critical analysis made during that discussion.

All that I want to say in regard to all members present and for the record is that in fact the farmers of Manitoba, of which I am very proud to say I am one, are those that are going to be in competition with all other sectors of agriculture insofar as the supply sector and the diversified processing of agricultural products, the distribution of those products and most certainly the transportation. It is not competition between two railways or between trucking and railways or custom haulers and farmers themselves, but in fact we, as farmers, will take up the challenge of competition in diversification and modification of our processing of our production.

Madam Speaker, no one need be afraid that there is not competition or will there be competition from agricultural sectors in Canada and in Manitoba specifically. We will persevere, and we will provide that competition. It need not be left to the large corporate sector because we, as farmers, will adapt. In fact we will provide for ourselves and for future generations of farmers here in the province of Manitoba because we will in fact modify what we are doing so that we can still remain viable and profitable so that our children and their children can continue the legacy of which I am proud to say that I am third-generation farmer. I hope that our farming operations will continue into the next generation and the generation thereafter.

Madam Speaker, with that short address, I very much request all members to support Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act, so that this corporation can continue its support of agriculture here in Manitoba and the producers of which I am very proud to say I am one.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for Monday afternoon, July 12, be amended as follows: the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

I move, seconded by the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Monday, July 12, be amended as follows: the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

* (1600)

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have two matters. First, I understand there is leave of the House to waive private members' hour today.

Madam Speaker: No, we have not done it yet. Is there leave of the House to waive private members' hour? [agreed]

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I understand there is agreement that the Industrial Relations Committee will sit 7 p.m., Monday, July 12, to hear Bills 29, The Victims' Rights Amendment Act, and Bill 34, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet also Monday evening at 7 p.m. to consider Bills 29 and 34.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, in case in the morning they do not complete consideration of the bills being heard by the committee in the morning, perhaps there would also be agreement that the Industrial Relations committee consider such bills not finally considered in the morning of July 12.

Madam Speaker: The Industrial Relations Committee scheduled for Monday evening will also consider those bills not completed at the Industrial Relations Committee scheduled for Monday morning.

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer) has a motion.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): If I might be of assistance, we did have agreement to get 203 called even though we waived private members' hour to call it. Also, we had general agreement to get to report stage, a call by leave, from the bills that have already been reported by the committee.

Mr. Newman: My understanding is that we are prepared to agree unanimously that Bill 203, The Graffiti Control and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la lutte contre les graffitis et modifications corrJ latives, proposed by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) be given second reading and remain standing.

Madam Speaker: No. Order, please. We are now moving to Private Members' Business, public bills. Is there leave to move to Private Members' Business, public bills? [agreed]