Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): The following committee changes were moved by leave during the June 25, 3 p.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic Development, and I am now moving the same changes in the House so that the official record will be correct.

I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development, for Wednesday, June 25 at 3 p.m., be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); and the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey).

I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House be amended as follows: the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan); the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).

Motions agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with leave of the House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections respecting the report of the subcommittee established to review the sections of The Child and Family Services Act pertaining to the Office of the Children's Advocate, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

* (1430)

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be so

kind as to call the condolence motions.

THAT this House convey to the family of the late William Kardash, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty and the useful life of active community and public service; and

THAT Madam Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.

Motion presented.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to extend to the Kardash family, on behalf of Premier Filmon and my colleagues in our caucus in government, as has been stated in the motion. I want to add a few additional comments, because I believe that, having read the history of Mr. Kardash in the obituary, he truly was a man who was committed to his cause, coming from a farm community to work to better the conditions of those people in the farm community through the co-operative movement. I can certainly associate with that, that there has always been a struggle to make sure that the values and the inputs of the farm people of this country are recognized. I also want to recognize the fact that he was certainly an active participant in the fight for the causes which he believed in and was not afraid to put himself forward in the kinds of actions that were necessary to enforce his beliefs.

I also want to add another note, because I think, if my memory is correct, that during my term in university, I had the opportunity to be on the fundraising committee for the annual yearbook. I believe Mr. Kardash at that particular time was involved in the Manitoba dairy and poultry co-operatives, which I had the opportunity to meet and solicit some support from, and I have to say that he was very generous in the receiving of myself and another young student who were out promoting the cause of the yearbook and had the opportunity to meet him first-hand. It is not often these kinds of things happen, that I find myself in this situation today in having to introduce and to speak to this.

I know the family members were very close to this individual. It is like any one of us when we lose an individual, regardless of the age. It is a loss to that family and it is a loss to the loved ones, and one can fully appreciate what they are going through. But it is time to give thanks for the contribution of those individuals and to say, without them, we would not have had the kind of country and province that we have had. There was a contribution made which we are all to be thankful for, and so I am pleased, on behalf of my wife and son, to express our sympathy to the family of Mr. Kardash for his contribution to the province.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): It is a pleasure to pay tribute to the late Bill Kardash, former member of the Legislature for Winnipeg North, and I would like to acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of members of his family today.

There has been a very lengthy obituary in the Winnipeg Free Press giving a long biographical history of his very interesting life, and I am not going to repeat what is there. I would rather just add to it. Also, there were many fine speeches at the Labour Temple at the time of the memorial service for Bill Kardash, and I was privileged to be asked to speak on that occasion as well.

As many of us know, Mr. Kardash was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, and belonged to the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion. He felt throughout his life that this battalion of Canadians who fought in the civil war did not receive the recognition and certainly did not receive any benefits from the Canadian government. However, he was fortunate enough to live long enough that there was a tribute paid to them by the unveiling of a historic plaque, I believe on the grounds of the Ontario Legislature, and he was healthy enough at that time to be able to attend and to speak and was very pleased to be a part of that occasion. I once mentioned the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion in a speech of mine and sent it to Mr. Kardash, and he was very pleased that I had brought it up in the Legislature.

We know that he was a member of the Legislature from Winnipeg North and was elected in 1941 and re-elected in 1945, 1949, and 1953. He was a member of the Communist Party and unabashedly a Communist. He would make no apology for that. He was proud of his political beliefs and stood by them and defended them throughout his entire life.

I think it must have been particularly difficult to defend those beliefs, particularly during the Cold War. I know that he faced discrimination. I am sure there were many kinds of discrimination that he faced, many of which I am not familiar with. However, I did have the opportunity to visit him in his own home, and I visited him many times when he was in the hospital after a stroke, and I would like to share some of the examples that he and his family shared with me.

Mr. Kardash once told me that a colleague in the Manitoba Legislature told him about a benefit to which he was entitled as a member of the Legislative Assembly. It was actually the responsibility of the Clerk of the House to tell all members about all their benefits, and he believed that it was pure and simple discrimination on the part of the Clerk of that day that he was not told about that benefit.

Some members of the Legislature tried to ignore him, and he coped with this I think in a rather creative way. They would not even acknowledge his presence or say hello to him, so when he encountered them, in spite of being ignored, he would give them a cheerful hello and how are you.

In the last election in which he ran, I believe unsuccessfully, it was when the multimember seats had been abolished, and he believed and he spoke many times to me about this, that it was gerrymandering on the part of the government to get rid of him. He was very successful in terms of popular vote in the multiparty seats but was unsuccessful, I believe, in a single-member seat.

I visited Mr. Kardash only once in his home before he had a stroke, and I knew that some day I would probably, if I was still in the Legislature, speak on a condolences motion, so I asked him if he had any regrets. He said, yes, he did have a regret. He regretted that he spent so much time in the evening and on weekends attending meetings that he neglected his own family, which I think is something that all of us as members here can identify with. However, I know his son, Ted, and I know his daughter, Nancy, and I do not think they share this regret. All I hear from them is a great deal of pride in their father and what he stood for and the progressive issues that he fought for.

I have often attended the seniors club at the Ukrainian Labor Temple and when I first got elected, there were usually four or five tables of seniors sitting in rows and there was always entertainment, the mandolin orchestra or the choir or both. When I used to attend there six years ago, both Bill and his wife Mary Kardash were there, and they would not sit in the straight rows. They were always circulating and talking to people and asking people about their family and their well-being and their health and always took time to speak to me. Now when I go to the Labor Temple, whether it is a seniors club or other events, it does seem strange that they are not there and circulating with people. I know they are greatly missed, both by the progressive community of which they were a part and by their family and by me. Thank you.

* (1440)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, want to rise on the condolence motion for William Kardash and offer our condolences to the many friends of Mr. Kardash and to his direct family, his son, Ted, his daughter, Nancy and his granddaughter Dana.

Truly, it can be said that Mary and Bill were political and social powers in the north end of Winnipeg, people that fought tirelessly for working people and their families, together, whether it was on the school boards through Mary, or Bill in this Legislature, they fought on behalf of people and the poor people every hour of the day.

They are remembered with a lot of fondness, respect by people in the north end. I heard it even in this federal election, comments about both of them, and today we pay tribute to William, or Bill, 17 years in this legislative Chamber, which is a long time by any political measure. Certainly, the values of his upbringing and the values of his life are ones that all of us, I believe, respect and honour here today in this condolence motion to his family through this Legislature.

As the Deputy Premier has pointed out, he had a history of starting in farming and the co-operative movement in farming, the values of co-operation which we believe are so important to western Canadian producers and still remain an important part of our western Canadian prairie culture, each of us working together and banding together for the greater good, for our total producers, rather than going off as individuals in a kind of Darwinian marketplace.

He, of course, as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has pointed out, was also a person who volunteered to fight the fascists in Spain in the '30s, a person who was ahead of his time in terms of recognizing the danger that fascism presented to not only Europe directly but also to the free world in the 1930s. He volunteered in that struggle and was a veteran of that war and came back to Canada to warn people of the dangers of the authoritarian nature of fascism and the intolerance of fascism in terms of what it would represent for free people everywhere.

Bill was very involved in the co-operative movement, as the member for Burrows pointed out, in the Ukrainian Canadian organizations, whether they were seniors or the other organizations. I always found my contacts with Mr. Kardash to be a person who had dignity, a quiet strength that came through his personality. His strengths and his contributions to the people of the north end and particularly the poor people, for both him and his wife, Mary, are remembered today in the communities he served long after he was a member of this Legislature. His fight and his struggles on behalf of working people and their families that he and his wife participated in are remembered and are remembered with great honour and with great respect. That is the greatest testament that all of us can have or give to anybody else, the respect of the people.

Bill Kardash had the respect of the people. We are proud to honour his life here today. Thank you very much.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I wanted to put a few remarks on the record on an incredible life, an incredible time period in this province. I want to reflect on a couple of points, and that is the uniqueness of Bill Kardash's political life and the unique times. This is somebody that volunteered, along with 1,400 Canadians, to fight against fascism in Germany and in Spain, fighting against the--I say in Germany, but against the Germans, the Italians in the 1930s tested their brute use of force and terrorism and mass murder on the people of Spain, against the democratically elected government of Spain.

Bill lost a leg in that fight. I remember I was very pleased about a decade ago, when we dealt, even in the 1980s, with the continuing fight of the Mac-Paps for recognition, a resolution brought in by the member for Inkster. Bill and others reminded people in the 1980s that despite the fact that they fought against fascism in the 1930s, because they were ahead of their time, there was not only virtually no recognition but, for many people, they came back blacklisted, subject to the kind of discrimination that was talked about before.

What I found particularly fascinating in Mr. Kardash's case was the fact that he went on a few years later, and it is funny how times changed. It would seem remarkable to some today that he served 17 years in this Legislature. When he was first elected in 1941 times had changed. Soviets were allies. At that period of time we were not into the Cold War psychology that came later. But I think what is even more remarkable is that he continued his political career representing the north end, the Labour Progressives, the avowed Communists not only during that period but in the post-war period. This was a period when people could be expelled from political parties, including parties of the left, for doing nothing more than supporting the peace movement because that was seen as being a Communist front. But, when you consider the fact that he was an avowed Communist and had the courage of his convictions and sat and was re-elected throughout the Cold War, I think that is a testament to his courage but also to the unique diversity of this province.

We have had people in this Legislature that range from Social Credit, which, I think, everyone would say is on the far right, and very few people today even remember, outside of the north end, that we also had representation from the left in terms of elected Communists who were also by the way in Winnipeg. In the north end we had Joe Zuken for many years. For many years this was the only city in North America where you had elected Communists. It is interesting because in the psychology of the Cold War, and it continued later into the '50s and '60s and even '70s and '80s, in some ways, where it was considered the worst epitaph to call someone a Communist. I find it interesting in many countries of the world there are Communists now democratically elected, and this is part of the political culture. One looks at even Spain today. One looks at countries like Greece or Italy or France.

I wanted to comment on that because if there is one thing, I think, that is important for all of us to learn from the life of Bill Kardash and others is, regardless of whether one agrees with somebody else's political philosophy, I think you have to value the courage that he showed. A remarkable life; remarkable times. I do not know if there will ever be the Bill Kardashes again. That kind of courage to volunteer to fight Fascism in the 1930s in Spain. I do not know how many people of today's generation would ever have that courage. A lot of people in the 1930s and 1940s showed that type of courage. He, I think, was probably the most remarkable example. As I said, a remarkable life; remarkable time.

I do not want to just pay tribute for the 17 years in the Legislature because I remember even discussing this the time the Mac-Paps were here. That was simply one chapter in his life, and he left a legacy of fighting for social and economic justice in the north end. I say to a lot of people, I always get enriched when I go to the north end. I get strengthened because that kind of tradition is still very much in existence.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1450)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I welcome the opportunity to put a few words on the record. As a student of history in the province of Manitoba, of political history, the name Bill Kardash certainly had a role to play in the political history of our province. I remember having met Mr. Kardash when I was a university student at a particular function and had a chance to speak to him about his time in Spain during that period of the Spanish Civil War, and it was only after I had actually met him that I came to realize that he had served 17 years in this Assembly as a member, I believe, first elected in the days of the 10-member Winnipeg constituency and then later, when that was divided into three three-member constituencies, served as the member for, I believe, Winnipeg North as the third member elected on a number of occasions.

His loss to this Legislature, or defeat, I think, came when we went to single-member constituencies. I think it was the CCF or the New Democrats who replaced him in the Burrows constituency at that time.

On this side of the House and certainly myself, I do not necessarily agree with many of the political philosophies or positions taken by Mr. Kardash, but I certainly want to acknowledge here today a respect for his conviction, a respect for his dedication to what he believed, and I certainly do not want to pass judgment on him in the context of his time. Because it is very easy, looking back today on that period, to speak about the facts, what went on in the Soviet Union and things during this time that were not necessarily common knowledge to many who promoted that particular turn of events. They were very turbulent times, very divided times in terms of philosophy and politics and dogma, in essence, that the division of political philosophy and belief was very, very great and divergent in the world, perhaps a characteristic of this century. As we near the end of it and we look back, perhaps one of the characteristics of the politics of this century will be the great division in political viewpoints and philosophy that determined so much of the history of this century.

Mr. Kardash, with his conviction, his sense of purpose, and his experience growing up in the north end and background, led him to travel across the world to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and I appreciate the comments of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). That was a war many people do not want to talk about, but it was, in some ways, given the involvement of fascist Italy and fascist Germany, somewhat a precursor of what we would become involved in a few short years later in fighting those enemies. It became more than just a battle of political philosophy or government in Spain but really became a testing ground for other armies and philosophies that would lead to the World War. Mr. Kardash, like many from Manitoba and from Canada, found a role in that conflict and put his convictions into practice in serving in the international brigades.

He returned to Winnipeg and was elected to the Legislature. He, with great conviction, for those who have studied the record, always advanced the causes that he felt were important. I have come to appreciate in my brief political career the importance of exchange and dialogue, the importance of hearing other points of view, because I think one of the great results or the great characteristics of this latter part of the century is that we have modified our political philosophies considerably because we have listened to each side of the spectrum. We have modified towards the middle, and even though in this Chamber from time to time we get into what appears to be great debates of left and right, the realities compared to the early part of this century is that we are all far more moderate in our beliefs and views than those who have come before us, and perhaps we have learned from that time for the betterment of our citizenry. It might not make for as interesting politics and it may not make for great philosophical debates, but I would like to believe it is meant for better government for all in our population.

In some ways, Mr. Kardash's contribution of representing one part of that spectrum in those periods of the debate, like reference to Social Creditors who have sat in this House, Jake Froese, being the last, have contributed to, I think, moving that debate. Because we had debates of broad view, we ultimately as a province moved to, I think, the more moderate position that has served us well over the years.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, today we recognize and we pay tribute to a former member of this Assembly and an individual from really a very different time, but an individual, nonetheless, who served his province to the best of his ability. I think, as a historian, with his death, it really marks the passing of a period in our history of great turbulence, of great debate, of great activity on the international scene, of great change.

As the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I think, so rightly pointed out, this Legislature has always had a history of many points of view. In fact, in the first--the election of 1936, if I am not mistaken, there were five political parties, five or seven political parties represented in this Chamber, the Communist Party, not with Mr. Kardash, but with Mr. Jim Litterick, represented here all the way to a five-member Social Credit caucus, Conservative caucus, a progressive caucus, a labour caucus, I think an independent labour group, a wide variety of opinion.

Manitoba has always been a very diverse place politically. We have always tolerated that diversity, and I think it has strengthened us as a province.

So we say from this side to recognize him and his family, his contribution not only to Manitoba and this Legislature but, certainly, the courage of his convictions in fighting for what he believed. Any individual who does that is worthy of respect, and we offer that here today. Thank you.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable members please rise and remain standing to indicate their support for the motion?

A moment of silence was observed.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae),

THAT this House convey to the family of the late Edward McGill, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation for his devotion to duty and a useful life of active community and public service; and

THAT Madam Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.

Motion presented.

Mr. Downey: Ed McGill was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba on June 25, 1969, for the electoral division of Brandon West for the Progressive Conservative Party. He was re-elected in the general elections of June 28, 1973, and October 11, 1977. He was not a candidate in the November 17, 1981, general election.

Mr. McGill served as Minister of Consumer, Corporate and Internal Services, Minister of Co-op Development, responsible for MTS and Communications, and responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Act from October 24, 1977, to October 20, 1978; Minister responsible for MTS, Manitoba Forestry Resources Limited and MPIC from October 20, 1978, to November 15, 1979, and as a minister without portfolio from November 15, 1979, to November 30, 1981.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

* (1500)

Mr. Acting Speaker, Linda and I were good friends of Ed and Eve McGill and their family. I can say, as well, that Ed was truly a dedicated Manitoban, Canadian and a man who I held in high esteem. I had the opportunity of serving with Mr. McGill as part of the caucus and as part of the cabinet of Sterling Lyon in the 1977 to '81 period. He truly was of tremendous support and assistance. His sage advice and guidance for a young, rookie politician and minister was an example to follow which I tried to in many ways.

I also want to add that Ed had a distinguished military record with the RCAF and, of course, in continuing on with his public service and the recognition of that, McGill Field was named after Ed in Brandon. I also knew Ed before entering politics as the leader or the head of the Brandon Flying School, where I had the privilege of getting my pilot's licence under the guidance of Ed and the team of pilots that he had at McGill Field, and, again, had the privilege of knowing him through that particular part of my life.

On the lighter side, Ed was sometimes referred to as Mad Dog McGill, as truly reflecting in the opposite way his gentle demeanor and his quiet way in life. Of course, quite often that is the way people try to acknowledge an individual. But it was done with the greatest of respect in referring to Ed in that way.

Many community activities, whether it was with the Kinsmen, whether it was the many lodges, many activities that Ed participated in, everything was done to the finest with the finest of detail and making sure that everything was done to the exact way that had to be done. Of course, I am sure that his son and his two daughters and their families are extremely proud of him and his distinguished career as I am of being a friend and certainly knowing the individual in the way in which I have.

So I, Mr. Acting Speaker, want to extend to all the McGill families, on behalf of my family, sincere condolences.

I also want to on behalf of Premier Filmon and the members of our caucus, Mr. Acting Speaker, express all our sympathies to the McGill family as well. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I too would like to rise on the condolence motion to honour the life and other contributions to this Legislature and to Manitoba of Ed McGill and to send our words to his family. I know he has three children, Mickey, Douglas and Patricia, and a number of grandchildren that he certainly was very proud of.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I met Mr. McGill on a couple of occasions in my former career as president of the employee organization. I met him in events in Brandon, and I met him as Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. I always found him to be, I guess I could use no other word than "gentleman" to describe how he acted and how our meetings took place. He was a person who was respectful of the role you had as representing the employees. He was thoughtful in terms of what you would present to him. He listened. He would sometimes act on the issues that we would raise in terms of employment in Brandon or employment across the province or other issues that we felt could improve the public service of the corporation to the people of the province of Manitoba. I always found him very good to deal with, a very, as I say, a really dignified individual.

I know in the community of Brandon he is certainly known for his contributions to aviation, whether it was at the flying schools or the clubs or the airport in Brandon, and I am not sure whether the field is named after him or not, but--it is named after him? Certainly that was my connection when I first saw the name of the field; I thought, Ed McGill. He always did get a military story or a flying story into his comments even though it may be only two sentences long, because he was kind of a Gary Cooper kind of character in terms of his language. Perhaps all of us could learn about his economy of words when it came to dealing with particular issues. I would say that he did not waste words. He did not waste sentences. He just merely was kind, dignified, intelligent, and respectful.

I want to pay tribute to his three elected terms here. If I recall correctly, I thought at one point he was the Deputy Premier, when he was minister without portfolio. I believe he was Deputy Premier of the Lyon government. I am not sure, and it is not in the obituary, but I thought he was. Now, maybe it is not listed because it is not an official title, or--he was not? I thought he was. I thought when he was minister without portfolio he was also Deputy Premier, but I am just going by memory. Members who have served in his caucus would have a much better recollection of that than I would. However, he had a number of cabinet portfolios through the Lyon years, and he obviously had the respect of his constituents. I know he is well respected by people across all party lines in Brandon and in the Brandon West area of the constituency.

I know that there was some controversy about some of the policies about the Lyon government, which, eventually, were dealt with in the '81 election, but I know that people respected Ed McGill throughout the disagreements that they had with the Lyon government, respected his integrity and his strength of character. So I just would like to put those words on the record, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have known the McGill family since I was 16 years of age. Certainly I have known Mr. McGill since that time over the years. Indeed, initially, when I came calling to the McGill household, calling upon Mr. McGill's younger daughter, Patricia, my recollection is that the economy of words referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was certainly one that struck me at that time, leaving me to wonder just in what esteem I was held by the father of that particular household.

Some of the things I have to say about Mr. McGill this afternoon will strike a particularly responsive chord with Mr. McGill's fraternal associates and my own as well, but these words would also strike a responsive chord for anyone who knew Mr. McGill. Ed McGill was a man who moved quietly and modestly in the sphere of his life without blemish. He fulfilled his duties as a man, a subject, husband, and father. Never ostentatious, he served his fellow citizens without self-interest and without courting applause. Ed McGill was respected by all noble-minded people. He was not the kind of person who would proclaim what he had done, would do or could do, but where there was need, he served with resolve, determination and dedication. After his distinguished life of service to country, province, and community, Ed McGill retired without pretension into the multitude, because all of his good acts were performed not for himself but for the cause of good. Ed McGill was the personification of all of the highest ideals of good citizenship.

Although his life's partner and wife, Eve, predeceased him a few short years ago, Ed McGill is survived by Mickey, Doug, Pat and Betsy and their families, and we join them in remembering fondly the life and the person of Ed McGill. In so doing, we also offer them our condolences on his passing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dyck): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dyck): Would the honourable members please rise and remain standing to indicate their support of the motion.

A moment of silence was observed.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier) I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture (Mrs. Vodrey),

* (1510)

THAT this House convey to the family of the late James Cowan, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty and a useful life of active community and public service; and

THAT Madam Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.

Motion presented.

Mr. Downey: Mr. James Cowan, Q.C., elected to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba on June 16, 1958, for the Progressive Conservative Party for the electoral division of Winnipeg Centre. He was re-elected in the general elections of May 14, 1959, December 14, 1962, and June 23, 1966. He was defeated in the general election of June 25, 1969.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to say at this particular time it is clearly evident by the obituary of the commitment of Mr. Cowan not only to his community and a larger part as an elected member of the Legislature, but also in his service in the army, in the Second World War, his continuation and involvement in the legion housing program, plus a life member of the Royal Canadian Legion. He also was elected as city alderman, helping to direct the City of Winnipeg. So I do not think there is any question, Mr. Acting Speaker, of his commitment to the public and to the general good of his province and his community at large. He, as well, was from a family of pioneer stock, truly involved in many activities in life. He also, I understand, was involved in the general insurance business as well as practising law.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it points out again, as it has been said many times today, the commitment of individuals like James Cowan to spend a portion of their life to work, whether it was to be in a Legislative Assembly, City Council or to put themselves forward in the protection of the freedom of our country. Each and every one of us want to say thank you for that contribution.

So at this particular time I want to extend to, particularly Rose and to any of the Cowan family who are still with us, on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), my colleagues and my family, my sincere condolence to them and say thank you for the life and contribution of Mr. James Cowan. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I will say just a few words. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) knows Mr. Cowan and the family, and I will leave it to him to make comments about the personal contributions of Mr. Cowan to our community.

I just want to say that we join with the Deputy Premier in the condolence motion here today. We want to honour the life of James Cowan, his contributions to his fellow citizens, to his community, to the people of this province. As the Deputy Premier has noted, Mr. Cowan served, before he was elected, in the armed services. He was elected as an alderman to City Council in the city of Winnipeg and was elected in '58 through the Roblin years through to '69, elected and re-elected a number of times in the Winnipeg Centre constituency. He obviously had the success of his constituents in mind in his continued re-election. Obviously he was an able representative because he was re-elected on a number of occasions to this Chamber. As the Deputy Premier has also noted, he was a participant in housing projects through the legion and a participant with the legion--and he is obviously, reading his history--a person worthy of tremendous respect from his fellow Manitoba citizens to his contributions to our community, to our province. He has obviously been part of making this province of Manitoba one of the best places to live, and I, on behalf of our party, want to honour his life and thank him for his great contributions to his fellow Manitoba citizens and Canadian citizens. Thank you very much.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Acting Speaker, Uncle Jim, as we affectionately called him, came to my home many, many times. Uncle Jim and Auntie Rose, his wife, were close personal friends of my mother-in-law. I know the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) had the opportunity to meet my mother-in-law a number years ago in the Toronto airport, and they shared many political thoughts during that brief meeting which I am sure, my mother-in-law said, was a memorable event. Uncle Jim and Auntie Rose were personal friends of my mother-in-law, my wife and myself. Uncle Jim was a lawyer prior to his being elected to the Manitoba Legislature. I believe it was in June 1958, when he was first elected. Of course while he was serving as a lawyer, he was appointed to the Queen's Counsel, something which he cherished. It was a very honourable event for him to become a member named to the Queen's Counsel.

Uncle Jim, unfortunately, lost election in June of 1969, so he served some 11 years in that capacity as MLA representing Winnipeg Centre constituency, and served honourably during those years.

Uncle Jim was a generous, caring and gentle individual. I know that my wife and family members cherish the times that they spent as children, in particular my wife's case, for the years when they went to Delta Beach where Uncle Jim and Auntie Rose had their cabin. Uncle Jim and Auntie Rose had the opportunity on many occasions to invite not only family members but friends to Delta Beach to share their humble summer home and to take part in the many, many barbecues that they shared together.

I know I look back fondly on events where Uncle Jim would invite us, in one particular case, to the Winter Club here in the city of Winnipeg when his daughter came to visit him travelling all the way from Ireland with her family. Uncle Jim gathered up the family members in the province of Manitoba here and close family friends and rented out the facilities at the Winter Club and put on a huge, huge dinner for his daughter and her family that came from Ireland. So we remember that with great fondness for that particular occasion. His daughter, Margaret Gubbins and her children were the ones that we were honouring on that particular occasion.

I look back too on the days when Uncle Jim used to come down the street where we live now, driving down the street, and you could hear that car coming from some distance away. There was, obviously, some difficulties with the exhaust system underneath it. It was a 1970 vintage Dodge Aspen. I can recall going out and talking to Uncle Jim out in the driveway in front of my home and saying to him, it looks like it might be time to send on this particular automobile to greener pastures. Of course, no, he saw that there were still many more years of useful service that could be gained out of this automobile. In fact, when he used to get the odd fender bender or nick, you know, in and about the yard, moving into the yard--or he had the great habit of getting out the bucket of yellow house paint, going out and touching up the nicks on the fender with the house paint just to make sure that the rust did not set in, that he could preserve the automobile for further use.

* (1520)

I know that members opposite--and I think back to not that long ago when we went to the funeral services for Uncle Jim that the former premiers of Manitoba, Premier Lyon and Roblin, were at the funeral services recognizing Uncle Jim's contribution not only to the province of Manitoba, but to the Conservative Party of Manitoba. I note in their conversations and in their eyes, the surprise that Uncle Jim would have friends that were beyond the Conservative Party, but Uncle Jim was a kind, gentle, and caring person and made time for people from all walks of life. He treated everybody fairly and equally, and for that we are quite thankful to have had the opportunity to know him personally and to have him come to our home and to share in our family times together.

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

So on behalf of my family and my colleagues, we would like to extend to Uncle Jim and to Auntie Rose, who is now in, I think, Central Park Lodge--she has Alzheimer's and is unaware of events that are transpiring around her, but I know our thoughts are with her as well. We extend our sincere condolences to Auntie Rose and to the rest of the Cowan family members, and we wish them well. Thank you.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will just put a few comments. I may be moved because of what the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has just said, but I have to reflect on other events of this week in sort of extending condolences to the Cowan family, because Mr. Cowan obviously served in the Duff Roblin government and was part of the government that put the floodway in place that just saved the city of Winnipeg one more time.

I think it is important that we pay recognition to people that contributed in that period of time to that great decision that the Duff Roblin government made. Mr. Cowan was part of it and, indeed, on behalf of myself and the citizens of Manitoba that live east of Winnipeg, I respect the decision he made in terms of protecting citizens from future floods that we have just encountered again.

With those few words, I extend my condolences to the Cowan family for what he has done in that great period of time of decision making in the Duff Roblin government in the 1960s.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would honourable members please rise and remain standing to indicate their support for the motion.

A moment of silence was observed.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay),

THAT this House convey to the family of the late James Mills, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service; and

THAT Madam Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.

Motion presented.

Mr. Downey: Mr. James Thomas Mills, or more commonly referred to, as it reads in the obituary, as Jim, Mr. Mills was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba on December 14, 1962, for the Progressive Conservative Party for the electoral division of Kildonan. He was defeated in the general election of June 23, 1966. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to as well extend, on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and my colleagues, to the family of Mr. Mills, our sincere sympathy.

I can say by reading the obituary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I guess I should reflect at the last--when was it?--Jim or James, this is a Jim or a James--I have quite a bit in common with that name and, reflecting on the obituary, can clearly get a feel for the kind of individual that Mr. Mills truly was. Truly a family person, he excelled in everything he did. I think it is also important to point out, and this is true, certainly not necessarily a necessity but an asset in the career which Mr. Mills was involved, he truly loved people. I think that has to be part of not only--it is not essential--but it is certainly an important asset to have in the role that he played not only as a member of the Legislative Assembly, but also holding positions as a city councillor and also involved in the greater Winnipeg election committee, as well as a member of the other activities in this community such as Rotary, the Knights of Columbus, Toastmasters International, which I can associate with, the Progressive Conservative Association of Manitoba and the Winnipeg executives. Truly a busy person, also a very active businessperson not only in his years in business in Manitoba, but when considered moving out west to retire, he did not retire. He continued on to carry out business activities and further fulfilling his ambitions in life.

I think it is also important to note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reference to "Papa Jim" made it easy for a lot of people to associate with him. Again, his ambition and his hard work truly, I think, is again reflected in the comments that are made in the obituary, that to follow his lead was to help to make the world a happier place. So I want to extend to the family of Mr. Jim Mills the condolences from myself, my family, and all the members of our party and of this House.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I, too, want to forward our condolences to the Mills family, his wife, Eleanor, his children and his 13 grandchildren, and pay tribute to his contributions to this Legislature and to the people of this province. He sounds like a person who would be a very interesting individual to spend time with. Obviously, a person who loved to sing, who loved to be with people, who passed on words to all of us: Do not despair, we want to all leave this life, leave our communities in a happier condition than when we first came to them. He sounds like a person that lived life to the full in terms of his community contributions and his personal successes.

His personal successes obviously start with his family. Thirteen grandchildren is a tremendous success by anybody's definition in terms of the ability to have a continuance of the family and contribute to the happiness of so many other people. He also was very successful in business, it appears to me by reading his history. It looked like wherever he would start something, he would succeed and succeed well, whether it was here or Victoria or in the winter place in terms of where he spent time with Eleanor.

* (1530)

He certainly was elected--I believe part of his constituency would be now in the constituency of Concordia. It was called then the Kildonan riding. It was East Kildonan. I am sure he would have been very happy to see probably the seniors at the Morse Place Community Centre, that probably was in his riding, where Manitoba Seniors Day was being celebrated, and song and dance was the order of the day for people in that community. It sounds pretty consistent with his love of life. Certainly he had the respect of his fellow citizens. He was elected to the City Council, and that always meant, in my view, that you were close to the people, close to the grassroots, because councillors are always elected on their connection to the people. They are not elected on party banners. They are elected on their contacts with the people in the area.

He was elected to this Legislature in '62, and would have participated in some of the debates, the early debates, about dealing with the reports dealing with the Winnipeg flood and the recommendations on the floodway and the Shellmouth Dam and the Assiniboine diversion. Obviously, those of us who live in the east side of the city, those of us that are closer to the river, would appreciate the decisions he made with his other colleagues in the Roblin government in those periods of times and, of course, laid the groundwork for the Shellmouth Dam that followed in the Schreyer years in the '70s. I again want to pay tribute to his life and honour his contributions to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba. Thank you.

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

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would honourable members please rise and remain standing to indicate their support for the motion.

A moment of silence was observed.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you call the bills that are on the Order Paper--I believe was the agreement of the House--calling the bills for the debate, continue third readings as they appear on the Order Paper.

I am just getting some signals from above. Bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will yield the floor to the House leader who has been in discussion with opposition.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the motion standing in my name on page 5. Last day, this matter stood in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I believe there will not be leave to allow that to stand in his name any further and that the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has something to contribute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable government House leader (Mr. McCrae)

THAT, in the case of all bills referred to committees of this House during the present session--dispense.

and proceeding to enactment, Legislative Counsel be given the authority to take the following steps at any point before publication of the Act:

(a) change all section numbers and internal references necessary to give effect to amendments to bills adopted by this House and its committees; and

(b) make editorial changes in bills that in no way alter the intended legal meaning but are necessary to correct errors in spelling, numbering, cross-referencing and capitalization, and to correct punctuation and formatting that is not consistent with Manitoba style.

THAT the Legislative Counsel be required to mark all changes made pursuant to this authority in red ink in the affected blue bills as soon as possible after the end of the Session.

Standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale),

THAT the motion regarding minor corrections to bills by Legislative Counsel be amended by striking out Clause (b) and substituting the following:

(b) without in any way altering the intended legal meaning make minor changes to bills to correct obvious errors like spelling, numbering, cross-referencing and capitalization errors, and to correct punctuation and formatting that is not consistent with Manitoba style.

Motion presented.

Mr. Mackintosh: This clearly is an unusual motion, and I am not even sure whether one can change a bill without changing a bill specifically. I really have doubts as to whether this is effective or not. But with regard to the intent, it is a housekeeping intent, so our amendment really is addressed at our concern about the words "make editorial changes." The words "editorial changes" could have different meanings to different people, although it would appear that it is limited by the description of the kinds of changes later in the paragraph. Just to be absolutely certain, given the unusual nature of this motion, the amendment was moved.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the amendment, it is my understanding that routinely at the end of consideration of bills in committees, Legislative Counsel prepares for the minister responsible for the bill a motion to allow for renumbering to take account of the various amendments that get passed and a motion similar to what we are talking about here. What this does is allows that process to go forward up until the time of publication of the bills. Our Legislative Counsel is an extremely competent person, and the people in her office indeed are competent and an office Manitobans ought to be proud of.

I certainly can see the concern expressed by the honourable member for St. Johns, and readily would agree with his amendment this afternoon to make it clear what our intent is, not to allow unelected persons working in the Legislative Counsel office to be making changes that are not in line with the spirit and intent of the Legislature of the province.

So with those words and with our agreement to the amendment put forward by the honourable member, I believe from an administrative and workload standpoint, this will help facilitate the publication of legislation in our province that could probably be described, certainly since the project of bringing our legislation into line with Supreme Court rulings and modern day usage, probably amongst the best body of statutes anywhere in Canada. So I am proud of that, and as a former Attorney General I was pleased to take part in the process, but I also am glad to see the co-operation shown here today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment--pass. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion as amended? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we could move now to third reading debate on bills. Would you begin calling the bills as we left off earlier today with No. 24.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 24, The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sûretés relatives aux biens personnels et d'autres dispositions législatives), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

* (1540)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put a few words with respect to Bill 24 on the record, we were somewhat taken aback by the government's passing of amendments to a bill that has yet to be proclaimed by the government, as the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) had mentioned in second reading. This revelation was made by the member for Elmwood, as I indicated, and it is interesting that his comments--and I think he is correct in pointing out what probably is a first in terms of a government action.

That said, having had the opportunity to go over the text of this bill, we find there are no great problems with it. I would remind the government that in the future if they want to pass amendments to legislation, they should proclaim the legislation first. Otherwise, I have to question why we just do not rename the bill and pass the whole thing at once. I was particularly struck by the number of simple spelling mistakes that seem to have plagued this particular piece of legislation.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have any problem with this bill passing.

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.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 25, The Proceeds of Crime Registration Act (Loi sur les enregistrements relatifs aux produits de la criminalité), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): We are prepared to see this legislation passed, but we want to again remind the government it is important that they put in place the administrative framework to ensure that they know when orders are made by the court which will allow for the registration of an order under this legislation both at the provincial level and at the federal level.

It is my understanding from the questioning in committee that the government had not turned its attention to how it will actually use and enforce this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, again to put a few words, this is legislation that is in fact long in coming. Those who commit criminal activities should not benefit from the crimes in any way. This legislation prevents a criminal from disposing of property that was otherwise obtained from the proceeds of crime. It definitely assists our Crowns.

The Liberal Party has long adopted this view, and this legislation has come about because of a new section of the Criminal Code enacted by the federal government. This act will extend the striking distance of the long arm of the law, if you like. It will, I hope, cause some difficulty for drug dealers and the like who make their money from the misery of others, and their life a little bit more difficult in terms of receiving proceeds from crime. Thank you.

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.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 26, The Corporations Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We recognize that this bill is dealing with the federal superintendent of trust and loan, dealing with authorized investments, conflict of interest guidelines and filing of reports, and this bill allows us to conform with Canada-wide practices. We will support this bill at third reading.

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, Bill 26 will have an impact on approximately 45 extra provincial trust and loan corporations currently doing business. The largest of these is likely Investors Syndicate. The bill arises out of the need for Manitoba to harmonize our regulations with federal rules regarding the operation of branch offices. The $5 million authorized capital limit, for example, of the parent corporation for any of these branch offices is, in my estimation, a fair dollar amount to allow corporations to operate in Manitoba, and it reflects, in this case, some federal regulations in which I also would add, I think it is very important that legislation like this is examined closely and passed. I note that there has already been an amendment to the bill made in the committee stage, from what I understand. The failure of any of those 45 trust companies operating in Manitoba would have severe potentially devastating consequences for the people of Manitoba. This is legislation that provides, in this respect, a firm but fair regulatory environment.

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.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Could you please call Bill 27.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 27. Just one second.

Mr. McCrae: That is why we need to have leave.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 27, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques), reported from the Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 27, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

* (1550)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to put a few remarks on the record at this point at third reading because we did vote against two sections of this bill. They were the sections dealing, first of all, with the offloading, I would say, of buses, the responsibility for school busing and for the maintenance of school buses on to school divisions, who have been feeling for many years now the burden of the government's offload of education responsibility. So, although this bill, in particular, enables school divisions to sell or to otherwise dispose of buses without going back to the minister for permission, what it does in principle is to codify the offloading of the responsibility for the busing of public school students.

So, in principle, we felt that it was important that we draw to the minister's attention that this is something which is a tremendous burden upon school divisions, that the government has over a number of years been expanding the age, extending the age of school buses leading to increasing costs. We have, and we mentioned this particularly at the committee hearing, increasing concerns about the safety of school buses, about the maintenance of school buses, about the regularity and frequency of inspections. In principle, to draw attention of both the minister and the public to the significant changes that are happening for the most part by regulation and in secrecy about school transport, we wanted to draw attention to that.

The second part that we voted against was the rights of students as they are determined in the bill. The minister, in an attempt to clarify the rights of students to attend school, public schools, from the age of seven to the age of 21 or a diploma, whichever comes sooner, we believe and not inadvertently limited the opportunities for some students in Manitoba. The minister arranged a briefing on this part of the bill. She was concerned that we had not understood that she intended by regulation to enable a student to return to high school for four credits beyond the diploma. We acknowledged that and the minister has tabled material on that or at least intended to table material at the committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we say is that these are very important principles. The right to attend school between certain ages, the right to a school education up to the age of 21, we believe was a very, very significant right and that it should not be limited by regulation as the minister intended to do. Though we acknowledge the four credits extra that she intends, although has not yet put into formal regulation, she has indicated it in a formal letter which she tabled to superintendents and to divisions. However, regulations can be altered easily and such issues as rights and the right to attend school we believe should not be dealt with by regulation.

Secondly, the extension to four credits, although welcome in itself, is not one that necessarily meets the needs of many of the students who will be using that opportunity. It is often used for students who are returning to school to get upgrading in certain areas, as well as to get particular, very specialized technical training. So it is very important to schools such as Sturgeon Creek, such as Lord Selkirk, the large regional secondary and technical schools throughout the province.

Many of the teachers, and indeed the principals and superintendents of divisions where those schools exist, will tell you that four credits is not enough, that in order to get the specialized training that will make a difference, that will give students some ladder to other parts of post-secondary education and technical training, they will need to have at least eight credits or possibly six. Again, we feel that that part needs much further discussion and that the limiting of a student's right to attend school is something that should not be done by regulation.

Thirdly, in this same area and under the same section of the rights of students, we know and the minister confirmed, there will be at some time in the near future the definition of a diploma for students of special needs. Again, what this section of the bill will do is, if that diploma is to be awarded before the age 21, then it again limits the opportunities of students who have in the past been unable to go to school until that age.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we hear many times from parents and teachers that the opportunities for students with special needs to be educated, to be trained, to broaden the opportunities that they may or may not already have had is very limited in the ages between 18 and 22. So I think there is, for a number of students throughout Manitoba, significant diminution of their opportunities for education.

All of those we had concerns about and voted against that section of the bill. I also want to note that the Manitoba Teachers' Society made some very strong points about the changes in the bill to the role of principal. Again, I believe that the issues that they underlined are very significant. The minister is intending in this bill to enable a superintendent to become, as it is in a number of designated schools across Manitoba, the principal of a particular school, and in this case it is South Winnipeg Technical Centre. I gained some comfort from the fact that the school is specifically named in the bill. It is not in regulation.

We have the opportunity to keep a watching brief on this and assurances that we will be able to assure people that this is not something which is going to take place on a wide-spread scale, because indeed there are very genuine and deeply felt concerns in the Manitoba Teachers' Society that should be taken very, very seriously about the prospective changes in the role of principal that have already occurred as a result of this government's policy, and may indeed be intended in the future as the government moves in many ways to limit the role of the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

With those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will conclude, but I believe we have another speaker.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I rise to put a few comments on Bill 27. This is a bill that has several different clauses that deal with fairly separate issues. In particular, we are concerned about two sections of this bill, one relating to the transfer of authority from the province to the school divisions, the replacement of school buses, and the other section which deals with the right of students to attend public school between the ages of seven to 21 or until they receive a diploma.

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

Both of these areas are particularly significant, and that is why I rise today to put a few comments on the record. In terms of the capital bus program, this government has, as far as my sources indicate, unilaterally decided to move away from their requirements of buying new buses and replacing them for school divisions, to moving that responsibility onto the local level in terms of school divisions. Now, the pretense that they argue is on the basis of local autonomy, that the government is trying to decentralize, provide more opportunities for school divisions to make these decisions on their own. In some sectors that may be appropriate.

However, I ask the government which school division has asked for this program? Which school division wants the responsibility to replace the school buses? I have heard of none and the reason for that being that transportation is often, when looked at in terms of priorities, lower on the scale. Trustees and school divisions try to provide the best educational services possible. Providing students with transportation becomes an area which is extremely expensive, is a fairly significant budget item for school divisions and is sometimes considered an area that we can reduce or look at perhaps other options.

We have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of students being transported in today's transportation system for schools than we did in the past. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, the trustees association did a recent analysis I believe in December of '96 that looked at the results of funding levels of transportation programs, and we have seen the reduction of over 4,000 students that at one time used to be bused are now no longer receiving that service.

Why is that, Mr. Acting Speaker? Obviously school divisions have been faced with underfunding since 1989. When you are faced with providing fundamental services to children in the classrooms or perhaps modifying programs for transportation, obviously school divisions have chosen to try to make those other choices, choices that would not impact directly on the student. What that has meant is that many school divisions have opted for a longer pick-up distance, so that if you once lived within one kilometre or at the one kilometre distance, you would have received the transportation provision and your children would have been picked up by the school bus and taken in.

* (1600)

Or in the city, there are certain programs that received busing, language programs that received busing, because it is one of equity and the ability of those children to be able to access that program. If a family decides that, yes, indeed they are going to take up the government's option of an immersion program, is there not an obligation to help that family for instance to access the school which would be well beyond in many cases their local community school? So if we wish to have those options become realistic or viable, it is important to provide the supports necessary to families, so that they can actually reach those opportunities.

So we have seen the pick-up distances moved from one kilometre to 1.5 kilometres and perhaps in-between stages as well. We have seen students have pick-up spots which are a little bit further from where they used to be picked up. Perhaps there was pick-up on their street or in front of their home, and now they are required to walk to a certain pick-up spot. It is significant, because what it means is less ability, fewer services for families, a greater reliance on the local families to actually drive their children to school or arrange some other alternative, and that, Mr. Acting Speaker, means another expense, another cost, basically incurred because this government has chosen not to fund public schools at the same level as it was in the past, has decided that it is within their parameters to see these types of programs and services reduced. For that reason, when the government claims that there has been no tax increases, it falls flat on the ears of the constituents in St. James. What they have seen are further expenses being incurred in many, many different sectors: by user fees, by charges for virtually every sector of government, additional charges in every component of our life. That is why when the Premier and the Filmon government stand up to trumpet this no-tax policy, it is indeed not believed, not believed because the record indicates that people have had to dip into their pockets much more significantly now than they did from the past.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

The capital bus program is a significant cost expenditure for school divisions. For instance, we know that there are a considerable number of vehicles that, indeed, have come to the end of their typical useful life. In some lease programs conducted by the private sector, school buses are replaced at a seven-year age limit. What is particularly shocking are that public schools are being forced into using vehicles that are double that age, not seven years--when the private sector would write off a bus for one dollar, I understand--but they are keeping them well beyond 14 years. Some school divisions will be forced to have and maintain buses that exceed 15 years, 15 and a half years, and what is really shocking is that this year the government has decided to lift the maximum age on these transportation vehicles, on school buses.

Now they talk about flexibility, but what it really means is that on the roads we are seeing older and older vehicles that do not have modern-day safety equipment, may not meet what we consider to be safety standards that we would like to see in all of our vehicles that are transporting students. What it also means is that there have been radical increases in the cost of maintenance for school divisions. We know that the maintenance portion of the transportation is the responsibility, and has in the past been the responsibility, of school divisions. What they saw was maintenance costs rise from anywhere from 20 to 40 percent additional costs in terms of maintenance without the appropriate grant level to cover those expenditures, and where would the money come from?

Well, obviously, it comes out of the property taxes that all of us share and which most people feel is unfair and that the true responsibility should remain within the realm of the provincial government, as it always has in the past, as is the case in other jurisdictions. What this is is another example of the government downloading its responsibility, trying to skirt its financial obligations to provide sufficient funding, and in Manitoba's case, tragically, we have faced a situation where we lost another child in regard to school bus safety concerns.

The question has been raised over and over again: How many children will have to die before governments will take action and take the appropriate steps? What is very, very unfortunate is that here we deal with a bill that actually guarantees that what we are going to see is older buses, higher maintenance costs, more pressure on school divisions to perhaps tighten corners at a time when we mourn the loss of another child to a terrible, terrible tragic accident. This is hardly the time for this government to bring such an amendment to The Public Schools Act. In fact, I would suggest that the onus on this government is to ensure its responsibility, wait until the inquest has reported and then look at the overall bus transportation policy to ensure that our safety inspections are up to par, to ensure that the inspection policy change, which was implemented, I understand, a couple of years ago, from having each bus inspected annually to one of a random inspection process where 10 percent of the fleet is inspected, one that relies on individual school divisions to do daily monitoring.

We know from the minister's department that indeed we are seeing a greater number of infractions for school buses and that would only be normal given the age of the buses. The aging buses are more difficult to maintain and older vehicles have a number of challenges. I would know that personally, Mr. Acting Speaker, having recycled my vehicle for probably too long. I know that maintenance costs go up on older vehicles and how it is extremely important to ensure that it actually is up to date in terms of all of our standards and what we expect on vehicles.

* (1610)

The situation, in terms of the bus capital program, is one that is even more serious and calculated. It is our understanding that the bus fleet is actually fairly aged, but it is not a method where there is a certain number, let us say 100 buses that need to be replaced a year, that in fact there is a large number of vehicles that have reached the end of their real life. That is why the government extended the age.

Well, instead of 12-years replacement, let us push it to 13 years. That way we will defer the need for doing that capital replacement. When they finally hit the wall in terms of extending the age, they then turned to this idea of, well, let us argue we will provide more flexibility. More flexibility to do what? You provide the opportunity to ensure that we are going to see older buses on the roads, higher property taxes and more safety infractions. That is a fairly dismal proposal.

They hit the wall this year because there is a large number of vehicles that, by all rights, should be replaced by this government. Instead of doing the right thing, even in the very year where we had a death of one of our own children, instead of doing the right thing, they have downloaded the responsibility to school divisions. Hang your heads, because this means a virtual guarantee of more incidents. So instead of reflecting on how we can improve safety, they have ensured that safety standards will be eroded. There are so many things that the public is dealing with that this item they are pushing through in a bill that has several different sections that deal with a number of unrelated topics. We know that school divisions will not have the funding to replace those aged vehicles.

In fact, our local school division--my riding of St. James is split. There are two school divisions in the riding. One, unfortunately, is in the circumstance where they have a huge number of vehicles that require replacement, and that is the Winnipeg 1 School Division. Their annual capital program allowance is $99,000; their needs are close to $2 million. Now, I would call that a very significant cut to the ability of that school division to do the right thing, to replace those buses and to provide the optimal safety opportunities to their children. What is that school division going to do?

An Honourable Member: Which one is that?

Ms. Mihychuk: Well, that school division in this case is Winnipeg 1 School Division, which will have to look at other opportunities, other--what would we say--flexibility, to be polite. What it really means is how can they transport their children to school in vehicles that are old, vehicles that need replacement, vehicles that have huge maintenance costs and have come to the end of their useful life with a grant of $99,000 when they have the needs that exceed that by a factor of twofold. Instead of $99,000, they need $2 million to relace those vehicles.

What have they done? They have changed the length of the distance of pickup. They have reduced the grade level. Instead of having it to the end of Grade 5, they now only transport children to the end of Grade 4. We know that these children are faced with significant safety concerns even taking public transit. If this government was serious about providing public safety, it would recognize its responsibility also in the city of Winnipeg. We have many young children in Grade 4. That would make them nine-year-olds, 10-year-olds, being required to stand on many streets that are extremely busy during rush hour to get on public transit to go to their schools. Some of them are required to transfer buses and find their way to their local schools, a condition that most of us would think is unacceptable.

Those reductions to programming are inevitable and are going to be accelerated because of this government's bill, because of Bill 27, which basically offloads the responsibility of the province to ensure safety, to ensure the replacement of buses and provides a meagre, insufficient funding allowance to local school divisions. This is at the same time when schools are facing increased needs. We have seen the real needs increase, the number of special needs students increase, the number of students that require the extra help to grow; we have seen child poverty increase at dramatic rates, a shameful record.

What does it mean when we see child poverty increase? Is that just a fairly abstract proposal? Hardly. What it means is that the children that are coming from those homes that experience poverty have a more difficult time because they are disadvantaged. They do not have the library perhaps at the tip of their finger; they do not have a large selection of resources at home. Many of their parents are working two, three jobs part-time, looking at low-paying jobs. They are not available to provide the supports in many cases.

Poverty also leads to unstable housing conditions, and when that happens, we know that children suffer because they have a certain length of time where they have to get familiar with the teachers, get settled into the classroom, become familiar with the curriculum to get into the mode of learning. For each move, that child is probably pushed behind by half a year, and some families move four or five times in one year. It is very, very difficult for those children who are being moved because of the their economic situation, accelerated by this government's policies to have to move four or five times a year to be in a positive learning environment. That is fundamental for learning.

So our need is growing, absolutely. Needs are growing in the school because that is where they are facing the front line, and the staff in schools see the increased needs. Children are coming to schools, many schools in the city, Stevenson-Britannia School, which is in the division of St. James, provides a clothing depot, a food bank, a toy-lending library and parent resources. This is in St. James School Division. There are families throughout Winnipeg who are relying more and more on schools to provide what we would consider fundamental needs like food and clothing. That is shameful, and we are seeing more and more reliance on schools to provide those extra supports for families at the time of need. Why is that? Because this government has not taken up its responsibility to ensure that families are receiving what they need, that we see real positive meaningful work to allow families to be in a stable location in a healthy neighbourhood. Therefore, we would see the less reliance on the schools so that we would see, in fact, the needs of students decrease. But, no, at the time when students are coming with greater needs, this government has decided through this bill to offload the responsibility for school buses. Well, if you have a choice between providing direct services for students or--

* (1620)

Mr. Acting Speaker, we are facing the challenge that as the needs are increasing, the province has actually through this bill had the nerve to download another sector of educational funding, and under the guise of pretence of flexibility, it means underfunding and it ensures higher property taxes, less safety standards. We say shame on them. They should at the minimum withdraw this clause, wait until we hear the results of the inquest, look at a comprehensive review of the school buses in Manitoba, ensure that they meet the safety standards that we intend, ensure their stub-nosed vehicles, ensure that they are replaced in a timely manner and ensure that the province maintains a hands-on approach towards safety.

The other section of this bill that we are opposed to is the section that deals with the rights of students to attend school. The bill clarifies some of the age limits on when they enter, and that is a positive aspect, but what is particularly disturbing is the government has decided to basically limit students' rights to attend school under the age of 21. This is actually a regressive step. What is now in legislation is that students have the right to attend between the ages of seven to 21. The government has decided to add a clause, or until the minister, or until they receive a diploma as defined by the minister. Well, is that acceptable? I think not.

Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister may wish to assure us in whatever way that she wants by conducting meetings and providing this assurance that there are going to be four additional credits, but that is not sufficient. In today's world, where we are seeing students being challenged more and more, a Grade 12 diploma is basically a requirement to be a ditch digger; students need the opportunity to come back into a high school program, a secondary program, to receive the credits that they need.

If they decided to now come back for a vocational upgrading, so be it. Should we not support our young people? Should we not encourage them to come back and get the education they need so they could find meaningful work? Do, indeed, we think that students should get a diploma and then get kicked out? Are we saying that our children who are 16 or 17 years old should have a definitive what--career plan?

We say, no, there needs to be lifelong learning. And what has the government decided in this bill? It is that we are going to actually limit their ability to come back, a regressive move, at a time when young people face unemployment rates that are unacceptable, at a time when minimum requirements will exceed the necessity of the job.

Many of the jobs that now require a Grade 12 we know do not need a Grade 12 in terms of complying with the job. Many employers now use it as a screening tool. If a student, for example, decided to--and I know this may seem unbelievable, but some students may take the easy road through high school. I am sure that the government members would never consider that. But sometimes our young people decide to take a general program. They do not think they are going to go on to a post-secondary institution. They are going to try and get a job after high school. Then the cold world of reality hits them, and they realize that their diploma is not going to get them meaningful work, that they are going to have to come back and take some credits that are prerequisites for the university or the community college that they wish to enter.

Does it mean that this government does not think they have the right to go back, that they do not have the right to look for meaningful work? Yes, that is what this bill means. That is what this bill means, that instead of looking at a more open system, at a flexible age, a more flexible age of entry and exit, this government has decided to be more restrictive, close the door on students, close the door on young people that are asking to come back, perhaps to take another degree, another diploma, to look at options.

What does it mean, Mr. Acting Speaker, for students of special needs? We know that for many pupils with special needs public schools provide them with an opportunity to be in a warm, caring place and to develop their skills to the maximum. Can we imagine a day where the minister, perhaps under regulation, which is very easy to amend, decides that perhaps 12 years of formal education is the maximum that these students will be allowed to stay in school? Is there going to be the pressure for instance, unfortunately, from school divisions that are so extremely underfunded in terms of special needs that they are going to ask the government to look at that because they are in such a situation they cannot provide the services for special needs students? Are we going to see the day when parents are going to say our special needs students do not belong in schools?

That day is coming, Mr. Acting Speaker, and this clause is actually facilitating that, facilitating the pressure on special needs students, facilitating the system kicking out kids because they maybe made the wrong choice. Instead of making more opportunities, ensuring our young people have a future, they have decided to shut the door tight, ensure that there are fewer opportunities and a more difficult time in the future.

So rhetoric is on the record from the throne speech where the government talks about more ability to go back to school, lifelong learning, but their actual record in terms of this bill is exactly the opposite. For that reason, we are opposed to these two sections: No. 1, that it is going to have a serious detrimental effect to our young people in terms of the transportation system; No. 2, in terms of limiting the rights of young people to attend school. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading on Bill 27.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

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

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): On division.

* (1630)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division. The motion is accordingly carried.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 29, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole issue of intellectual property is a very serious and difficult issue. The issue of intellectual property is a very serious issue. Members who have read the whole evolution of trade disputes in the last 15 years will know that United States in particular, to a lesser extent other nations, but in particular the United States, has argued long and hard and successfully finally that intellectual property and copyright should be protected at a very high level, and that basically it becomes, essentially in trade talk, a tradeable good and becomes subject to all the same kinds of protections that trade goods have enjoyed, that hard goods have enjoyed over many years.

Members will be aware that there have been three at least large and long battles in this country over the issue of drugs and drug patent legislation, and the whole business in that industry of intellectual property. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made. Intellectual property is a class of property that ought to be carefully protected and carefully thought about in terms of its status in law, in terms of how its use can be enjoyed by various people and what obligations they have when they make use of new intellectual property or existing intellectual property.

The whole area of copyright, in particular, is full of great difficulties.

You know, it has been said by various philosophers that there is no such thing as a new idea, that there are only new packages for older ideas. So in the sense that we talk about the protection of intellectual property as though it could be owned by any one person, that presents some very serious problems. Who owns and who can be said to own the mind of a great musician that develops the kind of music developed by a Beethoven, a Mozart, in our own century, a Sullivan or a Joan Baez or a Brian Wilson or a Ralph Vaughan Williams or any number of composers, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

The whole notion of how the cadences of music and the relationships of notes develop and who uses the various signature cadences, how one develops the various scales that are used in western and eastern music, and who can be said to own the pentatonic scale or who can be said to own a chromatic scale is a very difficult question, because ultimately all music is based on some sense of the mathematical relationships between notes, and notes are simply sound frequencies. So how this can then be translated into individual property that is owned by an individual musician or author, of course, becomes a very difficult question. How long should an author have the rights to the property that has been created?

When the great Gilbert and Sullivan musicals which many schools have performed over many years and which some of us have had the joy and pleasure of taking part in as older folk--Gilbert and Sullivan wrote in the 1880s--the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has performed, I am sure, in a number of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas in his local career. In fact, I am not sure whether I can see him as a Mikado or as a Katisha. This would be a difficult choice. Nevertheless, they have given great pleasure to many school children who, up until reasonably recent times, have enjoyed the ability to use this music without having to pay onerous copyright. Yet, you know, the family of Sir Arthur Sullivan gave the copyright to the producer of the operas, D'Oyly Carte, and D'Oyly Carte became an opera company. The opera company owns the copyright to the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. So when one produces an opera now, a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, you have to give credit to D'Oyly Carte, who actually owns the copyrights for these operettas.

When you think then of the written word, as opposed to music, the whole question of how do schools get access to ideas that are obviously the reason that schools exist is to explore and to transmit and to challenge ideas. How does one then get the right to produce material for students to study and to reflect on and to use in projects if every time that is accessed, there is a copyright fee? The initial cost may be small, may be only a matter of a few cents, but in aggregate, over a period of years, the cost of the copyright far exceeds the cost of the book that had the material in it in the first place. When you add to that the difficulty that schools face when a government, such as the one opposite, reduces and reduces and reduces funding in an environment where the costs of educational materials are escalating far more quickly than the cost of inflation, then you can see the tremendous difficulty that faces schools who want to have materials available for their students and, of course, at the same time do not want to infringe on the copyright privileges of authors who created materials that students would want to use.

I can remember my sister as a teacher in Newmarket, Ontario, telling me that until the copyright legislation came in, because of the cuts that had happened in their school division, the hottest place in the building was the copier room, and it was because the Xerox machines were running off the copies of old textbooks. She said the hottest room in the building was the photocopier room where the machine was running virtually the whole day photocopying texts or portions of texts because they could not afford to supply the texts to the students. So they were actually incurring higher operating costs in their school by photocopying than were the costs of the texts, but the text came out of a different budget and that budget was empty, so they could not buy any texts. What a silly, silly situation to be in in the first place. [interjection] The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) says he remembers that well. Well, I know he would never infringe on a copyright law. Never.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole issue of copyright for print materials is a very, very difficult one, because, as I said earlier, who owns ideas? Who has the right to say I have an idea? Finally, when you couple all of this with the situation that our schools find themselves in, where this Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and this government have so reduced funding that the value of funding to every pupil in the system is $500 less than it was only six or seven years ago, how are schools supposed to provide the adequate materials that they need to provide the kind of classroom environment that students ought to have? What does this act say? This act says that not only do they have to abide by copyright, but the Department of Education will charge each school a copyright fee when they send out materials. So no longer is the department itself absorbing all of these costs, as we did historically; we are now going to offload these costs as well, thereby increasing the cost of education to school divisions and decreasing the effective support that the province provides.

* (1640)

So, with these remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we express our great concern about this legislation.

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

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that Bill 55, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to put a few words on the record about Bill 55, and I would indicate that I know our critic has a few words to say as well. The Deputy Premier has mentioned something about selling Manitoba Hydro. I know that this is part of what is happening with this bill, and that is that the government has refused to put in any guarantees, real guarantees, that would require a vote of the people of Manitoba before they could sell off our hydro company. So I am glad he is talking about selling Manitoba Hydro. We know we cannot trust Tories with our public assets. I can just see them, you know, in the next election they are probably going to run on from the people that brought you the sale of MTS, coming to a venue near you, the sequel.

An Honourable Member: The former Filmon team.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, the not-so-Filmon Filmon team. You know, save the Jets; we will not sell your phone company; we will make sure prostitutes' cars are seized; and we will protect your health care. We are going to do a top 10 list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of Tory campaign promises that I do not think you are going to see in the next election. Somehow, I just do not see those issues coming up. I must say the Conservatives were pretty creative in the last election. There were a lot of people who believed that they actually, really were going to save the Jets, believed them when they said they were not going to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System. I just want to say that is why our critic moved, in report stage and in the committee, an amendment that was very straightforward. What was it? It was called, entitled "citizens' vote."

We are all citizens of this province, people who have lived in this province, and we all own Manitoba Hydro through the government. I am a believer in public ownership, and I find it amazing that in a way this Conservative government is clinging, I think, to a sort of an older concept of state ownership. It is interesting, I do not think that the state necessarily is a negative thing; but, when you have a removal of the sense of ownership, and I do not mean in the sense of being able to sell it off bit by bit, but I think what we are trying to do is say: hey, Manitoba Hydro is an asset that belongs to all Manitobans; it does not belong to a particular government. They do not have a right to sell it off unless they have support from the people.

Do you know what they did in committee? They would not even consider the amendment. Do you know what they did in the House? They would not even consider the amendment in the House. By the way, it is interesting because we know why. Because the minister said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he said in committee a few weeks ago and our critic was there, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I was there, and he said on MTS, for example, the decision was made by that group of Manitobans, that large group--you know, I could use the word "club" because that is sort of the words the stockbrokers used--and who was it? Did he think a million people? Did he think those that vote in an election? Did he say people that might vote in the citizens' vote? No, he said, he did not even say the Manitoba Legislature. His version of democracy is that you elect a government. It does not matter what they promised they were going to do; once they are in power for four or five years, they get to make these real tough decisions, and, in this case, they sold off MTS. I note, by the way, it was not even the caucus. It was not even the caucus; it was the cabinet. I say to members opposite, backbenchers on the other side, we are on your side too. We want you to have a say over the future of things like Manitoba Hydro and MPIC. Think about it.

It is interesting, I mean I have asked questions going right back to May: what happened to MTS? It was confirmed they did not even take it to their caucus. That is how much they trust in the judgment of their own elected members. I look around the room, and I see, for example, the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). I would have trusted the member for St. Vital to have a say on this. I would have trusted many of the other people who are not in cabinet or who were not in cabinet at the time. I look at the member for Riel (Mr. Newman). Well, then again, I think I know which way the member for Riel would have voted, but I would have trusted the fact he would have given it serious consideration, to be fair.

That is what we are fighting for with Manitoba Hydro, and what is sad about this particular bill is, you know what they are doing now? The Tory communications team has decided to come up with a new sort of way with dealing with the fact no one believes them on public assets any more, and there was that section in there saying you cannot sell off a part of Hydro and the rest of it. Now what is interesting is, why would they oppose to having it going a vote of the citizens, the people of Manitoba, a citizens' vote? If you are to believe what is in there, what would they have had to lose? If they had no plans to sell off Hydro, what would it cost them to put that in there? Nothing. I would hope that would never be used. I would hope that no one would think of selling it off, because it is a major public asset, but you cannot trust Tories with our public assets. Hey, if you trusted them with MTS before the 1995 election, I make my point. I mean, I just want to see them in the next election, trust us. I actually wonder what they can even say trust us on anymore. [interjection] Well, there is an interesting analogy relating to the car thieves from the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), and indeed there have been a lot of car thefts under this government as well.

I just say that let us learn from what happened last year with MTS. You know, that was not the way to make public policy. That was, I think, one of the saddest comments I have ever seen in this province. That was one of the biggest decisions in Manitoba history, the decision to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System. It was not raised in the provincial election. It was not put to a vote to the people of Manitoba. You know, they promised public hearings, they did not even have public hearings before they made the decision. They would not even have public hearings in rural Manitoba. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that 78 percent of rural Manitobans and the UMM and MAUM were opposed to the sale. I say to members opposite--[interjection] Actually, it is all about reform.

You know, they are lucky there is no recall legislation in this province because they all would be recalled in rural Manitoba for not representing their constituents. [interjection] It is interesting that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) now is using Preston Manning as an example for breaking promises. I guess we could compare who has broken his word more, Preston Manning, Preston "Stornoway" Manning, or the Deputy Premier, Jim "I will not sell off your phone company" Downey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say to members opposite that is not the way you deal with major decisions. Well, what choice does that leave us? I want to just reference one other issue before moving a motion. We asked questions today that were raised by MKO. By the way, I want to, on the record, commend MKO, particularly former Grand Chief George Muswagon, whom I worked very closely with on many issues, and who was an outspoken champion of First Nations people, First Nations communities. I wish him well, of course, the new Grand Chief Francis Flett, former chief for The Pas, and I want to say on their behalf I am disappointed that the government did not consult with MKO. Surprise, surprise, surprise. I say to the government, recognize the reality of First Nations. Recognize the fact that you are dealing with self-government. You are dealing with First Nations that are seeking to reassert much of what at times appeared they had lost, but in my opinion they never lost. I say treat--[interjection]

It is interesting because the friends of aboriginal people in the Conservative Party did not even consult with MKO, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not even consult. That may have something to do with the reason why--and I must admit I remember the last election well, and I could recite the election results, because they like to crow about, you know, northern Manitoba. They like to talk about it.

* (1650)

I love the fact that aboriginal people voted clearly. I went to my constituents, I think there were four votes for the Conservatives in Nelson House, 200 for the NDP. There was one in Ilford, we had 43. There were six, I think, in York Landing. Split Lake, there were, I think, about a dozen. We had 220. I can say categorically--oh, by the way, it was interesting, the Deputy Premier, he was Minister of Northern Affairs for a while, and then the current Minister of Health was. I know who accepts responsibility for this, but this is the Tory record in northern Manitoba. They got their lowest vote in Thompson in 30 years. More people voted NDP in Arthur-Virden than voted Conservative in the Thompson constituency.

I remember when the Deputy Premier used to say that I should come down there and challenge him, and I say, well, you should run up in the North. I think I know the result in the North. But I tell you, with the growing base of New Democrats in rural Manitoba, especially in Arthur-Virden, it is almost tempting to take on the Deputy Premier or run against him on MTS. Maybe we will do a trade here. We will see how much support he gets in northern Manitoba.

I want to put this on the record because we have serious concerns about this bill, because it does not protect Manitobans against the sale of Manitoba Hydro. We have serious concerns too because I am concerned any time First Nations are not accorded the most basic principle I believe that we have to accept in this province with First Nations; that is, respect.

That is why I move that the motion be amended by deleting all words after the word "that" and substituting the following, and that is moved by myself, seconded by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) that Bill 55, the Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur L'Hydro-Manitoba), be not now read a third time but be read a third time this day six months hence.

Motion presented.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): This is, and I ask all members to support this motion, which basically asks the government to let Manitobans have a voice on Manitoba Hydro's future. Mr. Deputy Speaker, today we see a call from MKO, a call asking the Minister of Energy and Mines responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Newman), who happens to be also the Minister of Northern Affairs to have some sensitivity, to have some appreciation and listen and provide for the opportunity of MKO members to reach out to him and speak out on this bill.

We have asked in the past for this government to consider a six-month delay. We asked in this House, and what did the government say? No. We asked in committee, give us six months; let Manitobans speak out; let Manitobans have a voice; let Manitobans have a share in the vision of Manitoba Hydro; let Manitobans tell this government what they think of Manitoba Hydro's future--should it be private or should it be in the hands of the people. Do they agree with the Filmon team selling it off?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we raised those concerns in committee, the minister rejected them outright. We urged the government, now that we have heard from the First Nations community directly appeal for a time to review the implications of this bill, which are changing the structure of Manitoba Hydro in a significant way, provide the time, provide the ability for First Nations to understand the implications, to understand what the minister is presenting in Bill 55, give six months time for the people of Manitoba to review the bill, to talk about Manitoba's future. If the government is so assured of this bill, then why will they not allow MKO and Manitobans to look at it, to speak to it, and give us six months time to review The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me quote directly from the MKO press release that was put out today: "' There are too many potential implications for the MKO First Nations in Bill 55 for MKO to accept the attempt by Manitoba to unilaterally impose this legislation. MKO will be contacting the Minister's office today and insisting that Manitoba set Bill 55 aside until First Nations have had a full opportunity to express our concerns to the government,'" concluded the new Grand Chief Francis Flett.

I would be glad to table this press conference, because perhaps they have not had an opportunity to hear from First Nations, and if not, then they will support this motion of a hoist for six months. Would that harm Manitoba Hydro? Six months consultation with the people of Manitoba. Is it going to hurt the government? Six months consultation would provide an opportunity for all of the stakeholders to have a chance to talk about Hydro's future. We heard the appeal from many workers in Hydro represented by CUPE. We heard the appeal over and over again by our side. We heard the appeal from Manitobans in a small survey conducted by one of the local news media. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we now hear the serious concerns of MKO, First Nations communities, directly impacted by many of the Hydro development projects that occurred in the North. They represent those communities. They deserve a fair chance. They deserve the respect of this House to put the bill aside for six months, provide an opportunity to hear their concerns, look at the future of Manitoba Hydro, and then come forward.

So I urge the minister, as the minister representing Northern Affairs and Manitoba Hydro, have respect for First Nations, listen to MKO, provide us with the time to look at the future of Manitoba Hydro and to tell this government that Manitobans want Manitoba Hydro in public hands with the people of Manitoba, and even though this government has put a quasi "Manitoba Hydro is not for sale." We say, let the Manitoban people speak to this government and tell them what they want. They want Hydro; it is a Crown corporation for the people of Manitoba, even though this government has said no over and over again. So give us six months time to review the bill, listen to the people of Manitoba and listen to MKO. Thank you.

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

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

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

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays.

* (1700)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yeas and Nays have been requested. Call in the members.

The motion before the House is the motion moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following: Bill 55, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act, be not now read a third time but be read a third time this day six months hence.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 21, Nays 24.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is accordingly defeated.

* (1730)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was paired with the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), as my colleague from Inkster was paired with the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). If I had the opportunity to vote, I would have voted in favour of the motion.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I move that we adjourn debate, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder, it is 25 minutes to six, if there is leave to waive private members' hour today?

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

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to discussions amongst party leaders, it is felt that we could not see the clock this evening at six o'clock and sit until nine, and that for the purposes of this particular agreement, if there are any divisions, they would not be the standing recorded type of division from here until nine o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to not see the clock at six o'clock until nine? [agreed] Is there leave that the recorded votes not be allowed, that any recorded votes will be on division? [agreed]

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader) I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Prime, Premier--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. McCrae: It is probably only a matter of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker--that Bill 30, The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection des pratiques agricoles), be now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would just like to take a few moments to put a few words on the record to indicate that we had indicated earlier we support this legislation. I want to also put on the record that this legislation replaces the old Nuisance Act, and this legislation deals with odours and noises that are typical of the livestock industry and changes the original legislation to allow the board to rule on specific issues and have the ability to have a court hearing.

What I want to say on this bill is that we all recognize the importance of the livestock industry in this province. It is a growing industry and one that is changing, and along with growth and change, there is often confrontation, although to many people who are urban dwellers or people who are not used to living close by livestock, the odours may be offensive. That is why we have to do much more. The government has some responsibility to do much more in research to ensure that odours from the industry are handled in a way that they are not offensive to people who live in close proximity.

I had the opportunity to see some of the new technology that is being used now to dispose of wastes, particularly from the hog industry, and I have to commend the people who were involved in the industry for their new technology, but as I said earlier, there is much more that has to be done. This is one area where the government should be doing more research. I have been critical of the amount of money that the government chooses to spend on agricultural research both federally and provincially.

* (1740)

I think that we have to do much more of that and use new and innovative ideas to ensure that the by-products of the industry are incorporated in a way that is not offensive to other people, does not create problems. The waste from these industries is a natural fertilizer and can save--by using the wastes from the hog industry or any industry, it can reduce farm costs for fertilizers tremendously. But we have to handle them in a way that--and I believe that there is much more work to be done. As the industry grows, we will have to ensure that that research is done. The government has one project that has been funded now at the University of Manitoba, I believe it is, where they are testing the odours to see how they can be handled better or how you can decrease the odour from these wastes. That is a good project, but it is one of many that have to be done.

I think one of the things the government seriously has to look at is how we are going to handle the increased amount of waste. I firmly believe that we have to be looking at ways of processing waste, particularly as we move towards larger operations, because as these larger operations are established, there is more waste and the land base is not always there for distributing the waste. If the waste was processed in some manner that it would then become a dry product, it could be a value-added product that could be distributed in organic farming. I believe there would be a market for it, and it is one thing we have to look at.

There is no doubt the problems result when people who are expanding their hog operations decide to build in close proximity to urban centres or where there are already residential set-ups, and that is where problems lie. We have seen just recently there was a hog operation that was supposed to be built in the Eldon R.M. near Brandon, and it was rejected because of concerns. There are hog operations that are being proposed in the Interlake area; in fact, I understand there were four new ones that are approved, so there is a difference. In some municipalities they are being rejected where they have more zoning by-laws; in areas where there are no zoning by-laws, the projects are going ahead.

I believe that the government should be working much more closely with municipalities, and perhaps we should be looking at ensuring that there are zoning by-laws in all municipalities so that then we do not have to worry about operations establishing themselves too closely to one another. There is a beginning of hog operations in my part of the province, and although only the first hog barn is being built, we are hearing a bit about a confrontation between people who have smaller operations who are concerned about disease spreading from one operation to the other. The industry is going to grow. We have to be sure that it grows in a fashion, as I have said many times, that it does not have an impact on neighbours, but certainly, now that this amendment has been brought forward, those people who have a concern and when they go for a hearing, the board now has the power. The board's powers are enhanced to allow them to take it to a court hearing. The board's powers are also enhanced in other ways which make it clearer for them to get involved in addressing certain issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I want to say that we are in support of this legislation, but I would encourage the minister to find those resources that are needed to ensure that the necessary research can continue so that we would avoid types of conflicts. Incorporating the wastes into the soil, straw spreading on top of lagoons are some of the things that can be done, but there is much more. It is an issue the government has to address if we are going to see the industry, various livestock industries grow in this province. But, in particular, it is the hog industry that tends to cause the most concern, because it is that industry that has the sweetest smell to it and sometimes not greatly appreciated by those people who happen to live in close proximity to the industry.

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

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

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

Motion presented.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, I would just like to take a few minutes to speak on Bill 31, The Livestock and Livestock Products and Consequential Amendments Act and say that this bill, as we indicated before, is the result of changes that were brought forward last session in the new Animal Care Act. I want to say that most people who make their living by raising livestock and animals are very caring about their animals, because if you do not look after your animals well, you certainly are not going to reap the profits of it. I look at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). The Minister of Agriculture is involved in the cattle industry. I am sure that he would agree that if you are going to reap the benefits of the industry, you certainly have to keep your animals healthy.

This bill was brought forward because there were complaints on how people were handling puppies. There was the whole puppy mill industry, a horrible documentary that we saw on television, news clippings, where people who were raising dogs for pets, were raising them in some horrible conditions. Of course, the Humane Society and most people in the province were upset to see that these kind of activities were taking place but really there was no ability, I believe, under The Animal Husbandry Act to enforce any charges against them. As a result, the department looked at what could be changed. What was brought forward was The Animal Care Act, and the changes have been made to result in that.

But as I was indicating, I am very pleased with the way the livestock producers in Manitoba, the majority of them do look after their animals very well and, in fact, there are very, very few complaints that are reported in the livestock industry. As I say, there are complaints with pets.

In the livestock industry, one of the groups of people that I want to commend is the people who are in the PMU industry. Just a few days ago, there was a very good report that was put forward on how the livestock and the horses in the PMU industry are being raised. I know that the PMU industry producers have been doing a lot over the last few years in improving their barns. I have had the opportunity to visit a few of the barns that were below standard, and they have done a tremendous amount of work. They have done a tremendous amount of work to improve their image.

* (1750)

There is much more that has to be done, but I want to commend them on the work they have done and on the report that they have received on the quality of the animals that they raise. Certainly, a