Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask for the first hour this morning if you could carry on with the work that we did not complete yesterday afternoon, and that would be continuation, I believe, of debate on second reading. I believe we have a number of bills–[interjection] Pardon me, for introduction. If we could carry on with the debate on second reading on Bills 35 and 43, then followed with the introduction for second reading of Bill 44.

At eleven o'clock, if we could then call, with leave, a private member's resolution moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), which I believe has been filed, with which we could deal later on this morning.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 35, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to Bill 35 to indicate that I am prepared to yield the floor to my colleague the member for St. Johns, who will put our comments on the record with respect to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The main purpose, apparently, of this bill is to give peace officers the ability to seize motor vehicles of motorists who have been driving while disqualified or prohibited, been driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 or have refused a breathalyzer test, and there are some provisions to deal with cases where the driver of the vehicle was not its owner. The bill also increases sanctions for those who refuse breathalyzers by increasing the licence suspension period to two years from one year on the first offence and to seven from five years for subsequent offences.

It is commonplace to hear the government touting its record on how it deals with impaired drivers in this province. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), in particular, are often heard to say that Manitoba has the toughest drinking and driving laws. I think they say that at every opportunity. Well, it is not true. I wish it were true, but, again, the government's puffery and their rhetoric does not match the reality. It may be that a number of years ago, perhaps 10 years ago, Manitoba may have had the toughest drinking and driving laws, but since then other provinces have surpassed Manitoba in many ways. We can find longer suspension periods elsewhere. We find legislation in British Columbia and Ontario of indefinite suspensions on the third offence. We find a zero tolerance elsewhere dealing with new drivers.

Indeed, if we are going to get tough on impaired driving that is truly effective, we have to deal with the hard-core repeat drunk drivers. Impaired driving has generally decreased relatively significantly across the western world. There has been a newfound stigma attached to impaired driving. Social attitudes have certainly changed. That decrease is noticeable in Manitoba. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be more noticeable here as in some other jurisdictions. We are not doing as well as many other jurisdictions, and that belies the government's talk as well.

But it is the hard-core driver that comprises the 1 percent of drunk drivers that continues to be a very, very serious threat. That kind of driver, while only comprising about 1 percent of the drunken drivers, is responsible for over 50 percent, perhaps as high as 60 percent, 65 percent of injuries, I understand. So while there have been changes to the attitudes and behaviour of many social drinkers, the hard-core repeat drunk driver continues, and that is where there must be abatement. That is where there must be the focus. If this government wants to talk tough, it should have acted tough against those repeat drunk drivers, but it has chosen not to. It has failed in this regard over the last 11 years.

Indeed, I do not think the statistics of Manitoba, not even comparing this province's rates to those of other Canadian provinces, but there has not been a significant change in the injuries and deaths as a result of impaired drivers over the years, not the kind of change that we need and that our safety demands.

So this legislation, Madam Speaker, is not good enough. I know every once in a while the government comes along with a little announcement about some change to the impaired driving laws. This is another one of those. Instead of getting serious and dealing with the most daunting challenge in this area of public policy, we have this kind of legislation that falls short.

You know, it is interesting, here is the government that made a promise, and we made sure it lived up to it, that required the forfeiture of motor vehicles from johns. Yet when it comes to impaired drivers, those who repeatedly drive drunk, who fail to be dissuaded by the laws, who essentially use their vehicles as a weapon against Manitobans, who continue to drive while suspended, they get to keep their car. Why the double standard? What is the message here?

In terms of the specifics of the legislation, we will have some questions for the minister as to how innocent third parties, that is owners of vehicles which are being driven by impaired drivers, are dealt with in the event of a seizure. Madam Speaker, we are putting the government on notice that we are bringing in amendments to this legislation, and, of course, within the scope of it which is limited, but we will be introducing amendments that are indeed focused on the hard-core, repeat drunk driver. We will introduce tiered sanctions based on blood alcohol content and on how many times a driver is caught driving impaired. That is the way to go; it is the only way to go if indeed we are ever to attain the title of the province with the toughest drinking and driving laws. Those amendments would be a good start.

* (1010)

So we support this bill in principle, of course. We will be seeking to toughen it up, and if the government is serious, if the government wants to match its rhetoric with some action, it will support our amendments. We will move this to committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 35, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 43, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield the floor to my colleague the member for St. Johns who will place our comments on the record with respect to this bill.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): There is a mess to clean in this province, several messes, but the one I want to speak of is the mess that has grown under this government in fine collection. We have seen nothing but mismanagement of potential revenues from fines and, as well, a mismanagement of a system of law enforcement that is essential to maintain authority and respect for the law in this province.

We understand that there are millions and millions of dollars, indeed the last figure available–and the minister would not update us in Committee of Supply–was that there was $11 million in uncollected fines relating to traffic offences alone. That is how weak this government is. That is how weak on crime this government is.

So, in response to that, Madam Speaker, we have over the years provided suggestions to the government. Then in January of this year we brought forward a comprehensive plan, first of all to establish Canada's first comprehensive restitution program, and in terms of the collection of restitution, we intend as new government to relieve the victim of the onerous obligation to supervise and collect restitution where a victim so applies. We will legislate and enforce powerful collection tools and prioritize restitution debts above most other debts to ensure payment.

In terms of fines, we introduced the offender debt collection program that we will implement, and it will track, via the latest technology, all fines and restitution orders, fine surcharges, court costs, bail bond forfeitures. That program will vigorously collect money through payment schedules, asset identification at court appearance, by garnishment, attachment, licence revocation when there is default.

This legislation, Madam Speaker, pales in comparison to what we plan to do as new government. This legislation is all that they have come up with in the face of their pathetic collection record. The Premier said the other day: is that all you have got? I have got to ask the other side. Is this all you have got? Is this the best you can do? It is not just a matter of forgone revenues, as I said earlier. It is a matter of the law being enforced.

This legislation enables the government to refuse to issue or renew a licence for all unpaid fines. This government has had the ability to do that with regard to traffic fines for years. I understood that they were actually doing that at one time. I cannot say for sure if they ever did, but I was told they were doing that and that there was a communication link between the courts and the Department of Highways, the motor vehicle licensing people, to make sure that that was done.

Well, the next thing I had heard was that there was some glitch, some breakdown, those two parties could not get their act together, and the information was never passed on. Of course, the amount of outstanding traffic fines grew and grew, and they made some feeble attempts. I think they got some outside agencies to try and collect. I do not even think there is any outside agency anymore. As I understand from Estimates, there is no collection agency doing that work since the end of March. No, they cannot get their act together, so they bring in this legislation to make it look like, oh, they are tough; you know, they care. But their record speaks volumes. They have had the opportunity, they have failed and now there is a mess.

This legislation, which, of course, we will support, if this legislation passes, and I trust it will. I am not convinced that this government has the wherewithal, the ability to put it into force, to actually use the legislation and not renew the licences of those who have outstanding fines. I have no trust either in the words, promises, or the deeds of this government. I have no reason to start to trust this government now. Absolutely not. It has gone quite the other way.

We will also be asking the minister what must be done to trigger action under this legislation, if it would ever come to fruition, to help ensure restitution payments. What is the role of the victim? Does the victim have to pursue action, or will this be monitored by the courts?

So, with those observations, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to move this to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 43, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

* (1020)

Hon. Shirley Render (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 44, The Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act (Loi sur les options locales en matière de jeu (appareils de loterie vidéo), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mrs. Render: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce The Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act for second reading. The purpose of this new act is to allow municipalities to conduct and implement the results of video lottery terminal plebiscites as part of the municipal election cycle. The act will implement the government's decision to accept the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission's report of July 1998, the municipal VLT plebiscite review report.

When our government released that report, the commitment was made to formalize a process to allow municipalities to conduct and implement the results of community-based plebiscites. I am honoured today to speak in support of this important proposed legislation. The commission's report made a number of recommendations that have been incorporated into the new Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act. In addition to directing the timing of plebiscites, the key recommendations were: that plebiscites be initiated by petition or decision of a municipal council; that a standard question would be used for both petition and plebiscites; and a minimum requirement for a decision would be a majority vote. These recommendations, based on community consultations, serve as the backbone of this new legislation.

The commission's report made a number of recommendations that have been incorporated into the new Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act. In addition to directing the timing of plebiscites, the key recommendations were: that plebiscites be initiated by petition or decision of a municipal council; that a standard question would be used for both petition and plebiscites; and a minimum requirement for a decision would be 50 percent plus one. These recommendations, based on community consultations, serve as the backbone of this–Madam Speaker, I just realized I have two copies of page 2, so my comments of the last couple of seconds were a repeat. [interjection] Repetition, hardly ever.

Madam Speaker, the plebiscite process in this act is modeled on the Local Option section in The Liquor Control Act. Other highlights of the bill are: it will prohibit the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation from conducting or managing a video lottery scheme in a municipality under local option; it will prohibit registration of a site-holder agreement under The Gaming Control Act in such a municipality. It will require cancellation of a site-holder agreement four months after the local option has been exercised by the municipal electors.

As you may be aware, Madam Speaker, last fall the citizens of Winkler conducted a plebiscite requesting the removal of VLTs from that community. This legislation supports that community's will. This legislation will recognize the legitimacy of the 1998 VLT plebiscite in Winkler. The four-month waiting period I touched on earlier will begin upon the proclamation of this act. In addition, the bill will provide immunity with retroactive effect for the cancellation of the agreement for Winkler.

Madam Speaker, the Gaming Control Commission will be responsible for developing the standard question to be used for petitions and plebiscite votes and for ensuring the validity of the petition. However, the validity of the plebiscite itself will come under The Local Authorities Election Act.

Madam Speaker, an important aspect of this bill is the incorporation of plebiscites into the municipal election process. We agreed with the Gaming Control Commission that VLT plebis-cites are a local issue; therefore, they should be decided at the municipal level. This legislation recognizes the importance of community characteristics and supports local decision making. By contrast, provincial constituency boundaries do not reflect those of individual and separate municipalities, and the outcomes from major centres would unduly and perhaps unfairly skew results. Municipal elections are scheduled every four years. This means that the elections will serve as a way to hold VLT plebiscites at minimum cost and disruption. In addition, VLT siteholders would have fair notice of a possible plebiscite. This is important given that this aspect of their business may be at risk.

As well, Madam Speaker, and as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the act allows plebiscites to be introduced into the municipal election cycle by one of two processes. First, by resolution of the municipal council; second, by valid petition of 20 percent of electors in that municipality. We believe this proposed legislation will clearly establish and clarify the rights of municipalities with respect to local option, local decision making and the related process respecting VLTs. It will help VLT siteholders by ensuring a clear process for determining if municipal residents want the establishment or continuation of VLTs in a community.

Finally, the bill strengthens local control over a decision and process that are clearly local in nature. I recommend this bill to you. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of our caucus. I am not the Lotteries critic. I am actually the former Lotteries critic, but on behalf of our Lotteries critic, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I want to indicate that this is an issue that a number of us on our side, having been Lotteries critics, including the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), have been fighting for quite some time.

We believe in community choice, and I think one of the most unfortunate aspects of government policy that we have seen in recent years in this province is the way in which this government brought in a massive increase in the degree of gambling in this province, particularly with the implementation of VLTs, with absolutely no public consultation initially and absolutely no involvement of the communities involved. I give credit to the community of Winkler for taking a very courageous move in having the referendum. I say I have always argued, as has our caucus, that it should be a community decision. It is not a question of whether we individually are for or against VLTs. We have in this province that ability with liquor legislation. I mean, Steinbach is a good example of where a community has decided not to have facilities that serve liquor. I commend the people in Winkler for making their own decision. I think that is a legitimate decision that needs to be made by communities and should be their choice.

I want to say that I look in Saskatchewan, and there is a model of what should happen. In fact, shortly thereafterwards, in terms of Alberta, they moved far more in this direction than this government did. The reality is, and let us put the cards on the table here, to use a gambling analogy, the bottom line is this government wanted the revenues so badly that they did not want public input.

I say to government members opposite, particularly to a lot of the rural members here, they should recall that the original purpose supposedly of VLTs was for rural economic development. Do you remember those signs up in the hotels, and it was to support the hotel industry? Well, they did not stop at that. When they found it was a major producer of revenue, they rapidly expanded to the point where now we have $220 million a year plus, coming from gambling generally, a lot of that from VLTs.

I also want to put on the record that some of the other things we have raised in addition to communities having the ability not to have VLTs. We have talked about ideas such as doing what we do with liquor legislation. We have seen in liquor legislation a situation where different approaches were tried historically, for example prohibition. Prohibition did not work, and it was not popular with a lot of people.

But, you know, I give you an example with VLTs. We used to regulate the number of hours in which you could have a licensed facility open. People may remember the 6:30 to 7:30 supper hour closing. What is interesting is that what I find when you talk to people who are VLT addicts, and it is upwards of 2 or 3 percent of the population, there are people who will literally go into the casinos or go into the bar, and they will spend all day on the VLTs. I have had addicts tell me that.

* (1030)

Let us not forgot that, for example, in my community we have VLTs now in the shopping mall because there is a licensed facility there. I have had reports of people going in, leaving their kids in the restaurant, and going and playing the VLTs. These are people that are admitting that they have an addiction problem. So I want to suggest that one of the next steps we need to make here, in addition to this act today which reinforces the ability to have plebiscites, is that we may want to look either on a provincial basis or on a local basis of having regulations that will deal with VLTs and gambling in the same way that we do with liquor, not prohibition necessarily, but having some restrictions.

I will just put this on the record. What if we were, for example, to have some limitation on hours? What if we were to have some limitation, some closure period? I remember even when we had the 6:30 to 7:30 closing time, there were reports that I used to get from people who would say that that was one way that did help break that sort of all day problem that people who had a problem with alcohol would be facing for that period of time. So I want to throw that out. There may be other ways in which we can do it, like, for example, should communities have the ability to restrict VLTs so that they cannot be in shopping malls? I am not sure myself if I want VLTs in the shopping mall in my constituency.

So what I want to suggest is, yes, we support this, but I want to urge the minister, perhaps particularly being a new minister here and not coming in with some of the baggage of previous ministers, but, you know, we have done it for liquor. We have evolved over time. We have constant changes in terms of liquor regulations. I want to suggest that what we do is understand that VLTs are a separate type of situation we are dealing with, but they do have an addictions component. I want to suggest the regulation that should be put in place for VLTs should not be what it currently is. The current regulations, by and large, reflect the liquor legislations. Let us not forget, to have a VLT in a facility, you have to be licensed. So, basically, what we do is we use the same regulations for liquor licensing that we do for VLTs.

Now, I want to suggest we need to have some separate focus on that. I think that is the best way, by the way, of dealing with the problem of the 2 to 3 percent major problem gamblers but at the same time allowing, in communities where people want to have VLTs, allowing people who are recreational users of the VLTs, the 97 percent who do not have an addictions problem. That is what we do with liquor. I mean, a percentage of people who go to licensed facilities are addicted, have a substance problem, an alcohol problem. The vast majority do not.

We have rejected outright prohibition on a province-wide basis. We have in the case of liquor a very similar parallel to VLTs. Steinbach, for example, does not have licensed facilities. But I want to suggest that is the next step. Now we have got some level of consensus, I think, for what the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and myself and the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) and our caucus have been pushing for for some time. I want to suggest, let us do it.

I want to throw out another suggestion. This is something I mentioned in the past. I do not know why at some point in time when issues like VLTs and even with liquor, and I am the liquor critic here, and I will put this on the record, why we do not look at an all-party approach, perhaps a committee of the Legislature that can deal with this. I mean, surely when we are dealing with addictions issues, surely when we are dealing with licensing and regulation issues, surely when we are dealing with something that can have a significant impact on communities like VLTs, surely we can have something of an all-party approach on at least the regulatory aspects. I want to throw that out towards the minister because I would certainly love to be able to participate in a legislative committee in a constructive way in terms of some of the suggestions that I have and I know other members of our caucus have.

So with those words, we are pleased to see this bill go through to committee and once again pleased to see that we do have the choice now. Winkler has made that choice. That is our position as a party and has been since the VLTs came in. Communities should have the choice over whether they have VLTs, and we are glad to see that the government finally, somewhat belatedly, in this bill is reinforcing that as a legal right. We are finally glad to see that communities in Manitoba will truly have the ability to choose on VLTs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, want to say a few words before passing this bill into the committee stage. This is indeed an issue that has been around for a good number of years. In fact, I can recall upon first getting elected is when the government really made the decision that they were going to get seriously involved in gaming in a very significant way. Some of us will recall that what we saw first and foremost was the issue of the Crystal Casino being a year-round casino, and the government's line was not to fear, this money was, in fact, going to be going towards health care.

Well, I can recall, in opposition at the time, we said, well, you know, you kind of confused the debate. If you say that you are going to move into gaming on a full-time basis, that should be the issue that needs to be thoroughly debated. It never was really debated inside this Chamber. The government was very successful in terms of trying to deflect any sort of criticism by saying whatever money we get from gaming is going to go towards health care at the time. It was expected that we would make a few million dollars a year by having this casino. Well, what we quickly found out was that there is a lot more money that was being made, and before you knew it we had the government wanting to expand.

So then they came up with the idea of, well, we have these great little machines, these VLT machines, in which we have a lot of communities out in rural Manitoba, let us put them out into rural Manitoba. Of course, not wanting to debate the issue of gaming, the government then came up and said that what we would do is that all the proceeds that we get from those rural VLTs would go towards rural economic development. Madam Speaker, again, what we saw was trying to defuse the bait, and it was quite effective for the government, I must admit even though it frustrated me personally. The focus of the debate was, well, look you cannot oppose rural development so why not encourage individuals to participate in the VLT playing in rural Manitoba.

Well, what quickly became the reality of the situation was that there are great gobs of money that are being made, far more than what the government had even anticipated was possible with the VLTs. So as a result of that, what we saw was the government had just too much money coming in through VLT revenues, and they could not give enough away in terms of rural economic development. So, what they did, Madam Speaker, is they said, well, we will put some of that money also in health care, and because it is so much money, any excess we will put towards the deficit. Then before you knew it, now we have VLTs in the city of Winnipeg.

Again, the arguments are that it is going towards health care, it is going towards economic development, it is going towards deficit financing. Well, the bottom line, of course, is that it is going into all the same coffer, the provincial coffer. It is, in essence, revenue coming into the government, and that is where we have seen huge increases in revenue. It is in the gambling area to the extent where we are talking of hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

In fact, one of the stats that was provided to me, and the minister responsible can always correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that each one of those thousands of VLT machines throughout the province collects approximately, on average, $10,000 of revenue for the province. Now, that might be out somewhat, and I look to the minister to correct me if, in fact, it is out by very much, but I do not believe it is.

Madam Speaker, you know, we have always argued within the Liberal Party and myself, personally, consistently, through the years since 1991 that what we need to do is to acknowledge that, yes, there is a role for gaming in the province of Manitoba. We have acknowledged that. It would be irresponsible for us not to acknowledge that.

In fact, Manitoba has led Canada on gaming policy, Madam Speaker, because I can recall once getting a call from I believe it was the Toronto Star when Ontario was moving into gaming, and they did not have any critics. So I guess they went to Manitoba, and they believed, because I was the critic at the time, that I was an expert or an individual with great knowledge, which really illustrates the lack of debate that has actually occurred on this whole issue.

* (1040)

We do not have the type of expertise, I believe, that is necessary in order to have had the type of debate that would have been warranted and that could have influenced government policy back then. But what we and what I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, had articulated, Madam Speaker, is that gaming policy should be tourism driven. That is a very important point. From our perspective, the gaming policy of the government has been nothing more than revenue generation for the Province of Manitoba.

Given what we have seen and the social costs, everything from suicides to marriage breakups to a person's economic livelihood being taken away to criminals being made through this form of addiction, we underestimate the real cost to us by having this. That is the reason why I said, look, it is the way in which you administer gaming policy. If you have casinos, for example, and I have suggested and the government often refers to my suggestions from 1993 in terms of gaming–[interjection]

Well, the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) points it out, the three casinos. Well, the suggestion was that we take a look at Hecla Island, or we look at an Elkhorn resort. We look at the possibility of a boat. That is all it was, was the fact of looking into, as opposed to having VLTs in every corner of the province.

We have VLT machines that are right across the street from high schools, Madam Speaker. Whenever I get class tours that come into the Legislature, I always bring up one of the questions, where do you think we get our revenue from? One of the things which I always do is I show a little bit of action, you know, those little machines you kind of pull down like this. All the kids' eyes kind of light up, or a good number of the kids' eyes light up, and they say, oh, yes, that is a VLT machine. There is no shortage of people who are prepared to answer that particular question. [interjection]

Well, the minister asks how many times I have been to the VLT machines. You know, the McPhillips station is actually in my riding, and I have never set foot inside it.

An Honourable Member: So you are an expert on this then.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, he poses the question: am I an expert on it? Well, I have had many discussions with people who have serious gambling problems, Madam Speaker. I think, you know, for me, I do not want to come across as lily clean and never do anything wrong. I am sure there are things which I have done wrong in my past.

But, having said that, I do believe that the government really needs to refocus the way in which it provides gaming in the province of Manitoba. The focus needs to be more so on tourism as opposed to revenue generation. In terms of the bill itself, I think that it is a progressive bill in the sense that it is moving forward by allowing communities to have their referendums. It is something which we have advocated for in the past.

Of course, Madam Speaker, the real question that needs to be answered on that is to what degree the province is prepared to assist those communities in terms of subsidy because of loss of revenue by not having the VLTs. That is something the government has been very vague on in terms of answering. I think that many communities would like to have very clear direction, and maybe one of our ministers will make it very clear in terms, because you have to keep in mind the proximity of rural communities to other rural communities and the impact that it has on one deciding to have them removed.

With those few words, we are quite prepared to see the bill go to committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 44, The Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if I could ask if you could call for report stage, Bills 20, 21, 23, 28 and 30.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), that Bill 20, The Chiropodists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les chiropodistes, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), the honourable Minister of Labour, that Bill 21, The Ophthalmic Dispensers Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les opticiens d'ordonnance et modifications corrélatives, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 23, The Order of Manitoba Act; Loi sur l'Ordre du Manitoba, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), that Bill 28, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Bill 30–The Veterinary Medical Act

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 30, The Veterinary Medical Act; Loi sur la médecine vétérinaire, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, given that it is almost eleven o'clock, I would ask if we could call it 11 and allow the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to bring forward, with leave, the resolution that he has asked to propose. Should that resolution be concluded before the hour is up, I would ask if we could go to the next resolution on the Order Paper for private members' resolutions. I believe it is the resolution of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan).

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to commence private members' hour? [agreed] Is there leave of the House to proceed now with the private member's resolution of the honourable member for Inkster, Resolution 68? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: For the members' information, I believe the resolution has been distributed by way of the Order Paper, so although one may not have been distributed it does appear on the Order Paper.