Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Would you be so kind as to call the bills as listed on today's Order Paper with the following exception. We could begin with Bill 3, and then proceed to Bills numbered 15, 6, 17, 4, 10, and if there is time remaining, perhaps go through the list in order.
Bill 3--The Elections Finances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: Bill 3, The Election Finances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement des campagnes électorales et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill 3, which of course is The Elections Finances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. We know that this bill is a bill primarily prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer, an independent officer of this Legislature who is required by law to review the financial aspects of each election campaign and report back to this Legislature for consideration and action.
We would note that, by and large, the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer have been incorporated in the bill, and we think that that is very consistent with an independent process in dealing with the rules that guide us and govern us on our finances in elections. We believe that the clarification of duties of the official agents, the clarification of responsibilities of auditors and the relationship and reporting to the CEO is a good and positive step and very much consistent with the Chief Electoral Officer report.
We believe that the expansion of the definition of an election expense is positive and again consistent with the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. We think that the application of this expansion to expenses like child care are positive when you consider the pressures that families are under and probably leads to greater disclosure of something that probably takes place already during election campaigns, and therefore the transparency of this claim and its treatment under the act is a positive change. Hopefully, it will continue to allow more and more people that are underrepresented in this Legislature to be more represented in this Chamber as a positive change.
We would note that the ceiling for advertising purposes, the cap on advertising, has been changed in this act, which is not part of the Chief Electoral Officer's report. I suspect that the members opposite feel that this is dealing with an ambiguity that would allow for constituencies to contribute advertising money to a main campaign. Madam Speaker, obviously it is better to have the rules under which we are governed clear and up front rather than having ambiguities that arise and disputes that would take place on the act. Perhaps the Chief Electoral Officer, at the committee meeting, will help us understand this change, but of course it is one change that is not contained within the electoral officer's report.
However, the integrity of the act and the integrity of reporting and integrity of disclosure have been maintained in the act. We feel that the enhancements made for public disclosure in the act are positive. We feel that the campaign reporting is improved, and we believe that, as I say, well over 95 percent of the bill is consistent with the Chief Electoral Officer's report and, I believe, consistent therefore with the traditions of this Legislature that allow us to be governed by rules that are recommended to us by an independent body, rules that governments come and go, parties come and go, but the rules under which we are elected or defeated we believe should be developed by independent bodies.
* (1530)
Therefore, we, on examination of this bill, which is our responsibility--we cannot pass bills like this too quickly because it would be irresponsible of us. The duties still remain with the Legislature to pass these bills and to take our time. I note that the government did present this bill in December and we certainly feel today in April that we are able to pass this legislation with the comments that I have made and the comments that will be made by my colleague who will also be speaking on the bill, the member for Wellington. So thank you very much.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 3, which is before us. Before I speak about the principles of the legislation, I would like to comment briefly on the process. I am not familiar with the process that other provinces go through, nor am I familiar that much with the federal process, but I do know that The Elections Finances Act and The Elections Act itself process, I believe, in the province of Manitoba is an extremely effective one.
In an earlier incarnation I dealt with the Chief Electoral Officer for three general elections, as I was the chief administrator for The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act for the New Democratic Party, and I had the distinct pleasure of working with the former Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Willis, who unfortunately died very young a few years ago, and have since then, although not quite as closely, worked with a current Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Balasko, and have found the staff from the Chief Electoral Office on down to always be most helpful and most professional in their dealings with me and with other members of political parties and the Legislative Assembly.
I think that the electoral process is one of the most basic democratic processes that we have, and it is essential that we retain the openness, the accountability, and the transparency of that process. I think, through The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act, we here in Manitoba, not only as elected representatives and members of political parties but also as citizens of the province, have a great deal to be proud of in the way we conduct our elections and the way we proceed with the legislation under which we conduct our elections.
The Chief Electoral Officer reports every year to the Legislature and reports both on The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act. They are very interesting reports, and I suggest that all honourable members look at them. In particular, I spent a great deal of time in looking at the report that the Chief Electoral Officer sent to the government in October of 1996 reporting on the 1995 election and making recommendations for legislative changes and amendments to The Elections Finances Act.
The report is very enlightening as to what actually happened in the election and what some of the concerns are and what some of the recommendations were at that time for changes. The vast majority of the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer have been implemented in the bill that we are discussing in principle today.
I congratulate the government on its putting forth this piece of legislation. I am not a hundred percent sure that it is exactly what we would have done in every potential detail. Having gone through the recommendations, the act and the very extensive spreadsheets that were provided by Elections Manitoba, it is a very solid piece of legislation and one that reflects very admirably the vast majority of the recommendations that the people who know best about how elections are run and know best how to maintain the principles of accountability and transparency. These people's recommendations were followed to a great extent.
Madam Speaker, it is not just the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff that make these recommendations, although they come to the Legislature from the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba have, as well, an advisory committee that meets regularly to work with Elections Manitoba and the Chief Electoral Officer in making recommendations to have The Elections Finances Act be an even better piece of legislation.
The advisory committee members I know--at least for the one that I know of who represented the New Democratic Party--have been very positive about that process. A lot of time and energy that they have spent has shown itself in the legislation that we have before us today and in the report that the Chief Electoral Officer tables annually.
So I would like to say that I think the process that has led to this piece of legislation is an excellent process and one that shows that sometimes all of the partners in the political process actually can work together. In this situation, we have the staff of Elections Manitoba working with representatives of all of the registered political parties and also working with the members of the Legislature. As the Leader of the official opposition has said, we are prepared to pass this piece of legislation through. So I think that we can tell our constituents that the debate in the House is not always problematic and that sometimes we are able to work together.
So, with that summary, I would like to talk briefly about the legislation that is before us. I think a great deal of what it does is, as I have said earlier, it clarifies some of the problems that the advisory committee and the Chief Electoral Officer found after the 1995 election. I say problems, and I do not mean that to sound terribly negative, because by and large the elections that we run here in Manitoba are very good elections. They are elections that are open and accountable. The elections in Manitoba, and I think, by and large, throughout Canada, are based on the premise that it is a right of every citizen to vote, every eligible citizen to vote, and the process should be to enable and facilitate every eligible citizen's ability to vote. That will be particularly noted in the discussion in the other legislation that has come forward or will be coming forward in Bill 2, amendments to The Elections Act. But even the amendments to The Elections Finances Act help make that process more accessible and accountable, and particularly accountable.
I think when you are talking about election finances, we really, really need to focus on the accountability part of it, all of us. I know in this House sometimes we in the opposition talk about accountability in the context that we do not believe the government is as accountable as it should be in one particular area or another, so we use that word in that context.
In the context that I am using it here today in discussing the amendments to The Elections Finances Act, I am using that word for all of us in saying I think this bill and the amendments put forward do a great service towards recognizing some of the places where we can be more accountable. We can clarify things so that citizens know more effectively and more clearly what exactly is meant by and what responsibilities political parties and candidates have under The Elections Finances Act. So I think the clarification and the accountability aspects are very clear, if I can use that, in this legislation.
* (1540)
Again, in a general comment, I would like to say that another part of The Elections Finances Act that is a big part of Canadian elections and Manitoba elections that is not a part at all of the election process to the country south of us, the United States, is the concept of limits, spending limits. It is an idea that is really foreign to the American political process. I think we only need to recall what we have seen about the excesses that occur in the American electoral processes with a candidate for the United States Senate in California spending $200 million of his own money in order to--in a losing cause I might add. If you do not have a piece of legislation like The Elections Finances Act, it really is a case that you have to have money in order to run for public office, just like in the United States in many cases you have to have money in order to get health care.
Currently in Canada, at least in theory, that is not the case, although in some instances we may be working towards that, and I think we need to--[interjection] The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) rightly says it is not "we" may be working towards; the government may be working towards, but that is--before the Speaker calls me out of order for moving away from the discussion at hand, I will say that in the context of The Elections Finances Act and our debate around this piece of legislation and the history of it, we can say for sure that this is a principle that has been acknowledged in this legislation and continues to be acknowledged, that while there is a recognition that elections cost money for individual candidates and for political parties, there is also a recognition that they should not be open to a complete lack of a ceiling. So, again, each constituency and each party has a ceiling that has been maintained in The Elections Finances Act.
One of the elements in this legislation that I think is positive--it may be in The Elections Act, so perhaps I should not mention it. I am getting the two pieces of legislation confused, but I think the idea that reflecting the cost-of-living increases, there is a slight change in the formula in this piece of legislation that is very positive because it brings more up to date what the current--it reflects more accurately the current situation.
One of the elements, one of the major players in an election campaign, although you would not know it from walking into most committee rooms or anything in the media, is the official agent which is the chief financial officer of the local constituency, and there is also a chief financial officer of each registered party. One of the elements that is in this piece of legislation is a clarification of those duties and those roles and their responsibilities, which is also designed to make the process more accountable and transparent.
The definition of a campaign expense has been expanded, and I think quite admirably, to include child care. I think this recognizes the reality today which is that more and more candidates are people, still largely women, but there are some situations where men have major responsibility for child care, and the recognition that during a campaign period, where as a candidate you are on the hustings for at least 35 days and nights, you need to have some support there; many people do financially. So I think this definition of child care expenses as a campaign expense is a very valid and an excellent one.
The other elements of the bill increase the per-name amount for determining election expense ceilings and also the time at which the number of electors can be used to put into your ceiling. Before this piece of legislation, your ceiling was determined by the number of electors at the final revision which was several days before election day. In virtually every constituency in the province, people come and get onto the election rolls on election day, and that is anther wonderful thing about this system. There is virtually no excuse for not voting, and when we get to The Elections Act, that is made even clearer. There are some very good changes in that legislation that really open up the voting process.
In The Elections Finances Act, instead of that ceiling being determined by the number of electors on the rolls at final revision, it is now determined by the number of electors on the rolls at eight o'clock on election night. So it does provide for that additional flexibility, that additional potential amount of money, to the ceiling, that you can have, and it also recognizes the fact that voters do come onto the election rolls on election day and are sworn in.
There are other parts of the bill that enhance public disclosure and make campaign reporting more rigorous. Again, this is essential if we are going to have a truly democratic election system. We have to ensure that everybody has access to as much information about what candidates spent and what they were allowed to spend as possible and that it is as easy to understand as possible. Just as we need to ensure that campaigning candidates have access to the voters, and those are elements that are in The Elections Act, we also have to ensure that the citizens have an open window as to what money was spent by which candidate in which parties on what items. That is a hugely important accountability element to a truly democratic election process, and those things are enhanced in this piece of legislation.
So I think, Madam Speaker, with those few words, I will close my remarks on Bill 3 and say, again, congratulations most particularly to the Chief Electoral Officer, his staff and Elections Manitoba because they continue to do a remarkable job in ensuring that everyone who is involved in the election process has enough information that they can function within the legislation and that the legislation is open and accountable, so the citizens of the province of Manitoba have a large degree of confidence in the process that elects us. Whether they continue to have a degree of confidence in us after we have been elected is a matter for us to determine, but the process whereby we come into this Legislative Assembly is a very good one and has only been made better by this piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 3. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: Second reading, Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act (Loi sur la graphiose), to resume adjourned debate, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
The honourable member for Swan River--I am sorry, the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers).
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I want to first of all say that the people of Swan River are being very well served by the real member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk); but, knowing many of the people who are the member for Swan River's constituents, I know that they agree with me as well on that. I take only as flattery the mistake you made in referring to me as the member for Swan River.
* (1550)
Having said that, though, Madam Speaker, I very proudly represent the constituents of the fine constituency of Dauphin.
For one to understand the importance of Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act, one must only take a flight out of the city. As they are leaving or as they are entering the city of Winnipeg, they should take a good look out the window and see what a beautiful canopy we have in the city of Winnipeg, the beautiful trees, the coverage, the urban forest that is present in this community.
Madam Speaker, it is a shame that Dutch elm disease is amongst the forest, reducing that beauty. It is a shame. We in this Legislature need to take steps to prevent this beautiful forest from being reduced any more than what it is already. Having said that, as you fly out of the city and you are admiring the forest in Winnipeg, I would advise you that, when you land in your plane in the city of Dauphin, you take note again of the beautiful forest within the city limits of Dauphin where we, too, have a spectacular view upon landing close to the city of Dauphin. Giant old elm trees have been growing there for decades, providing shade and providing comfort for the people who live in our community of Dauphin.
The reason that I talk about the community of Dauphin is that it shows the extent to which, No. 1, this province has beautiful tree growth, but at the same time we too in Dauphin have problems with Dutch elm disease, as do many other communities throughout Manitoba. This again illustrates the importance of addressing this problem of Dutch elm disease.
Madam Speaker, the bill that is before the House does attempt to put forth some ideas, some measures by which we can control the spread of Dutch elm disease. It also puts forth some measures in which we can prevent Dutch elm disease from spreading in the first place.
I think that is key. We need to prevent the spread of this disease. We need to control the disease that is there already. The third part of this bill that I am particularly impressed with is what appears to be a commitment to the educational component, the part of this bill that deals with educating people as to the resource that we have in these elm trees and some of the things that we can do to protect these elm trees in the province of Manitoba.
So, Madam Speaker, from that perspective I believe that this bill is an important one for us to be considering here today in the Legislature.
We have been dealing with this problem since the disease spread to our part of the country in 1975. We have had a lot of different ideas, bounced around a lot of ideas from the City of Winnipeg, ideas from this side of the House, where the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has introduced an act that made some very good suggestions on how we can deal with a disease that is afflicting the elm trees in our city, here in Winnipeg and throughout the province. The member for Wolseley at the time talked about increasing penalties for individuals who do not do things that help the situation, penalties to discourage people from acting irresponsibly when it comes to the spread of Dutch elm disease.
The bill that we have here before us today enables the minister to order a person to take specific measures to prevent spread of disease on his or her property before a certain date. That is good, Madam Speaker. Setting a date and saying that you have to have this certain action taken by that date puts the onus on a property owner to clean up at least that part of the city, his own property, so that that does not become a problem for his neighbours and then spread through different parts of the city.
The minister may order persons to bear expenses of these measures, provide financial assistance for persons, exempt certain people from taking measures or take remedial action at the person's expense, again putting some ownership of the problem onto individual people who have these trees growing on their property.
This next section I think may be the most important part of the legislation before us. This section enables the minister to implement a wider array of preventative programs, programs such as applying insecticide, removing and pruning trees, establishing disposal sites, taking tree inventories, planting new trees, developing education on research programs.
Madam Speaker, particular in that is the idea of taking a tree inventory. One of the things that I am particularly concerned about in a general way in the area of natural resources is our database, our inventories. In order to make good, sound decisions dealing with resources in this province, we need to know what we have out there to begin with. We cannot be making decisions, for example, on giving out extra hunting licences if we do not know how many deer are out there in the wilderness. We cannot be making fishing regulations without having a good idea on how many fish there are in our lakes that are available for sport fishing or commercial fishing. We cannot be signing agreements if we do not know how many trees there are out there that we could cut down and use for producing goods within our province.
In the same way, if we are going to deal with this problem of Dutch elm disease, we have to know exactly what the data is. We have to know exactly how many trees are there, how many trees are afflicted, and then we can make some good, sound decisions based on good, sound data. So I applaud the section of this bill that deals with tree inventories.
The bill also gives greater power to inspectors. It enables them to inspect any land where elms are located. It authorizes inspectors to seize and detain elm wood which helps in controlling the spread of the disease. It enables officers to stop vehicles and search for wood. It also prohibits people from keeping or selling or transporting infected wood, except to dispose of it, and I think that is an awfully important component of this bill in preventing the spread of this disease from one neighbourhood to the next.
It also enables municipal councils to order the disposal of infected elms and to charge the expense of the disposal to the owner's property taxes. Again, this bill points to the landowner and says you have to take some responsibility here; you have to buy into this program; you have to take ownership for the diseased trees on your property. This gives the municipal level of government the authority to collect money from the taxpayer, the property owner in the disposal of afflicted elm trees.
* (1600)
Another good aspect of this bill, I believe, is that it enables the province to implement and to enter into cost-sharing programs for management and prevention with other levels of government like the City of Winnipeg, City of Dauphin, the municipal level. It could authorize or does authorize the provincial government to enter into an arrangement with the national government which, I would suspect, would be interested in this problem as well.
Further than that, Madam Speaker, it authorizes this government to look across the border to state governments and to the national federal government in the United States of America and enter into agreements with them as well, because after all the disease does not know there is a boundary there. The disease will travel. As a matter of fact, the disease came from the northeast United States in the first place. I would like to ship it all back to them maybe, but that just is not going to happen. What the bill does allow is for this provincial government to enter into agreements where they can co-operate with the U.S. government or the Canadian government or municipal governments and work together on a strategy to prevent this disease from spreading any further and to eventually getting control of this disease and saving the elm trees that we do have in our province.
The one thing that the bill really does get tough with is that it sets fines for individual lawbreakers up to $5,000 and for corporations up to $10,000. That is something that is an improvement over the old act. It used to be that the fines were set a maximum of $1,000. At the time we had judges commenting that they did not have the ability to go over a thousand dollars, that in some cases they would have gone over a thousand and sent a clear message about the importance of battling Dutch elm disease, but they could not do it. This bill does allow that to happen.
The other improvement, I believe, is that it sets out in Bill 15 more preventative measures that can be taken by the government to control this Dutch elm disease. I believe that there are a lot of different good reasons why we should be concerned about the elm trees that we have in the province. I think there are a lot of good reasons to move quickly on this bill, move it on to the next level. I especially look forward to seeing what many of the presenters have when they come forth and have public presentations on this bill. I look forward to hearing some of the reasons why members of the public regard this as an important issue.
There are many benefits to having a healthy and viable tree forest, tree coverage within the city of Winnipeg. I have mentioned before that a person should take a flight from Winnipeg to Dauphin and look at the fine examples that each city has to offer when it comes to tree coverage within their city limits. I think it would be very enlightening to a lot of people who have not seen from above the importance of having that kind of tree cover.
One of the areas of the city where you are going to see a lot of elm trees are in parks. I do not think I have to spend too much time with the audience that I have here today explaining the importance of parks in a healthy community. Every community across this province should be given credit for the work that they have done in setting aside land within their town jurisdictions to provide green space for families, for seniors, for the members of their community.
Elms play a big part of the beautification of our parks right across this province. I have always been impressed with the attempts in the inner city of Winnipeg to maintain the elm growth within their neighbourhoods in that part of the city.
The one thing that I would like to point out is that in some of the older areas of the city, in some of the older areas of some of our communities in other parts of Manitoba you can almost see a demarcation as you go from one area to the next. The newer parts of town, for example, in my community of Dauphin, you are not going to see huge, big elms providing shade for people in the neighbourhood. You are going to see smaller trees that have been planted, landscaping that has been much more 1990s. You can go to a few blocks over in Dauphin, as you can in Winnipeg, to another area and see grand, stately, huge elm trees, elm trees that could tell a real history if they could talk to us, a real history of the communities in which we live because they have been there for so long.
Madam Speaker, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that those elm trees stay there for a long time yet. I think we have a responsibility to the next generation to ensure that they too have that advantage, that benefit that we have enjoyed as citizens of the province of Manitoba.
The other day, Madam Speaker, we debated a resolution brought forward by the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan), where his hope was that we were to become the potato-growing capital of Manitoba. There is a connection here. In Fredericton, New Brunswick, they claim that they are the city of elms. The information that I have about Fredericton is that they have 12,000 elm trees growing in that city and that is pretty good, I think. But Manitoba, as the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) has just said, we have more than that.
Madam Speaker, the figures that we have been able to obtain says that we have 200,000 elm trees in the city of Winnipeg. Now, if that does not qualify us as the elm capital of Canada or the city of elms, then I do not know what does. I cannot think of another city that would have those kinds of statistics, impressive statistics.
This is something we should be talking about. This is something that we should be talking about when we go outside of our province, when we talk about inviting people to come and visit us here in Winnipeg and throughout the province of Manitoba. It is something we should use, I would say, in our tourist brochures. It is something we should be proud of, and it is something that we have to take measures to make sure that it is something that stays with us and something that we protect for not only those of us who live in this area but for others who come in from miles around.
So, just to wrap up, I would like to say that I support this bill. I would move it along to the public hearing stage, and I look forward to hearing from the people of Manitoba on whether there are some more ideas perhaps, some suggestions, on how we can fight these elm bark beetles and how we can protect our elm trees and not have them become afflicted with Dutch elm disease.
So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, I thank you and look forward to hearing more comments this afternoon.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
* (1610)
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to put some words on the record on Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act. I notice that the member for Dauphin spoke about his home in Dauphin in a canopy and everything; and, in speaking with other members of my caucus and the government benches, it is a funny thing, but we all seem to have recollections and memories from our childhood--or many of us do--about elms. I do not know what there is about elm trees that has this impact on us, but perhaps it is because--
An Honourable Member: The Wolseley elm.
Ms. Barrett: The Wolseley elm, yes. Perhaps it is because in this climate it is like the biggest tree we have, I think. I am not a natural resources person, but, in my experience in Manitoba, the elm tree is a signature tree, I think, for at least the southern part of Manitoba and around our rivers and around Winnipeg.
I, too, have memories of elm trees growing up. I come, as everyone here knows, not from Manitoba originally but from south of the border. Many of my growing-up years were spent in Iowa and Minnesota and South Dakota and Nebraska. I think I remember, as a small child, the elm trees that lined the residential districts in Des Moines, which I consider my home town. I do not know how many of you have ever been to Des Moines, Iowa, but it is a very nice community. It is not as large as Winnipeg, but it is a really nice, family-oriented community. It used to have elm trees as we have today here in Winnipeg, and they made the urban canopy. There are not any elm trees in Iowa. I do not think there are any elm trees in Minnesota or the Dakotas or Nebraska. [interjection]
The member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou) has just corrected me that in Osage, Iowa, there are still elm trees, and I stand corrected.
Elm trees, they are a very evocative tree. In the United States, in the Midwest and the upper Midwest, they are not necessarily the biggest tree because the Midwest also has a tree that I miss most particularly every fall, and that is the maple tree that we do not have, unfortunately, in this part of Canada that has a glorious fall foliage.
But, Madam Speaker, we are in danger here, in the province of Manitoba, of losing that natural resource. We are in danger of losing our canopy of elm trees. I think I have taken a picture of the two streets that I have lived on in Winnipeg since I came here in 1975 every fall and every winter. I do not know why I have to take the same picture every year, but I do. I get my camera out there and I take that picture, the long range picture with my telephoto lens, down the street with the elms arching overhead in the fall when they are gold and in the winter when they are covered with snow. There is always at least one snowfall where the trees are just covered before the wind comes, when they are just gorgeous.
I have a whole library of those pictures, and it says something to us all, I think, that we relate so positively to those elm trees. I think it is partly because I think Manitoba is kind of a desert in a way. I know we have the Carberry Desert, but we are a dry climate, and if you just drive down into northern Minnesota, you see a difference in the kind of foliage that there is. We are a harsher climate than even just two or three hours south. The natural trees and the natural foliage that grows here is precious, all the more precious because it is difficult and it needs nurturing.
The elm trees for the southern part of the province of Manitoba are one of our best natural resources. It is one of the things that people who come here from other parts of Canada and the United States and other parts of the world notice about Winnipeg, most particularly when they come in the summer, is how green and beautiful those trees are, and particularly in the older parts of Winnipeg. We need to protect and ensure that that natural resource is maintained and, if possible, enhanced.
I represent and I live in one of the older parts of the city of Winnipeg, and I drive down my constituency and drive down the even older parts as you get closer to the downtown, and I think how beautiful the trees make those streets, those streets that have many, many, many difficulties with housing. Many old parts of our community still have far too many houses that need to be repaired, and that is another issue that we can and will debate in this House. I think that of the people who live in those communities who do not have a lot of beauty in their physical world--their houses are old; in many cases they are decrepit; they are very hard to maintain--in many cases they are people who have virtually no money. They do not have the option of buying beautiful things, and one of the things that is there for them are those elm trees, and it does provide not only shade but just a sense of restfulness and beauty for people in the older parts of the city of Winnipeg.
On a personal note, I do not think I could ever live in a new community, in a new neighbourhood, because I need to have that stability and that solidity of full-grown trees and bushes and that kind of thing. Different people like to move into a new part of the community because then they can put their mark on their own home, but I think even people who live in new subdivisions in the city and outside the city appreciate the beauty of the elm trees that are in our community.
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) was talking about how when you fly into the city of Winnipeg, you fly into the airport, how you can see that carpet. Well, it looks like a carpet. It really is a canopy of green.
I just want another brief personal story about that. In 1975, before I moved here, I went to Calgary, a potential location to move to. Thank goodness, we did not move to Calgary but moved to Winnipeg instead. But flying into Calgary, and not knowing how large Calgary was or what it looked like or anything, we saw just this very small segment that was green, that looked like it had some age to it, very small, and then there was this huge expanse outside that circle. I remember it as a circle; I am sure it was not, but that older part, that was the Calgary of 1975. That was when the oil boom was happening, and Calgary was booming physically and in all ways.
* (1620)
I spent two or three days there, and I said I do not think I could live here because the part of Calgary that to me, to my eye, was livable was so small and there was virtually nothing that was affordable, at least for me at that time. I would have had to have moved into the new unfinished part of Calgary, and I hold that picture of seeing how small that green space was. Now today that would be much different because 23 years have passed, but there are potentially no elm trees growing up in that part of the world.
Again, the elm trees, not only on a personal level, are important to Winnipeg and to the province of Manitoba, but they are important economically. They are important socially as I have talked about in some of the older communities. They are important economically because, at least in the past, and it may still be the case, Winnipeg has the largest-known population of elms on the continent. That has had an impact on Winnipeg's ability to win, I think, twice the national Communities in Bloom competition, and one of the elements is the urban forest. Winnipeg is blessed with those two wonderful rivers--well, three, the Seine River--running through our community--
An Honourable Member: Do not forget, Sturgeon Creek.
Ms. Barrett: Rivers. I do not think Sturgeon Creek is classified as a river. Well, if we are going to talk creeks, we had better talk about Omand's Creek. We will talk about Omand's Creek as well.
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) makes a good point. We not only have two major rivers, the Red River, a huge river in the North American continent, but we have other streams that run through the city, like the Seine River, the La Salle River, Sturgeon Creek, Omand's Creek and I am sure I am missing--Bruce Creek, a number of streams running through our community. We need to protect those natural resources. We need to protect them.
Now, very briefly, I would like to speak more particularly to the piece of legislation that is before us, and I am not right now here making political points. I am actually asking questions of the Minister of Natural Resources, and maybe in committee I can ask him more directly, but in the legislation, as I go through it, many of the sections say, the minister may, the community may. I always have trouble with that because I think in many of these cases it should be "shall," that it should not be as much enabling, it should be more prescriptive.
I am not saying that all legislation should be prescriptive--I do not mean that at all. I am raising a concern with the minister, and I hope we have a chance in committee to discuss this because I am hoping he can allay my concerns. But, in cases where we are talking about a very fragile ecosystem here--elms may not look fragile, but they really are. They are in deep danger. I think we need to ensure to the best of our ability that the elements that are in this bill, which are good, are actually enforced. So I share that with the minister and say I will chat with him in the committee, and I just wanted to raise that. It may not be a concern at all, but, as I was reading the legislation, that sprang forward.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, we on this side of the House are prepared to pass Bill 15 through to committee.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I would just like to put a few words on the record. When it comes to the Dutch elm disease, Madam Speaker, in my community, the elm trees were not only a thing of the past, but we are hoping it is a thing of the future for us. I know, as growing up in St. Norbert, we used to have large umbrellas covering our streets and a lot of the areas that were undeveloped at that time.
Along the La Salle River, we have a number of areas with river bottom forest that we have some grave concerns about, that are still under certain private holdings. This legislation will give us a lot more flexibility and the ability to go in and take care of the problem before it affects other trees downstream. It is the rivers that have given a lot of the problem to the Dutch elm because it is allowing that disease to flow down and through.
What I am happy about, Madam Speaker, is that back in the '80s this legislation was developed under a Tory government, and now in 1998 it is a Tory government again, bringing forward the amendments that are going to improve this legislation. This is the only province in Canada that has this legislation. I know Saskatchewan is looking at it to introduce it in 1998, but we had the foresight in 1980 to bring forward legislation that would start to protect the system. There have been new improvements in correcting the problem with the trees, and I think this legislation will help us to work more with the fungicides and the preventative treatments that are available for the trees that are still existing.
So, Madam Speaker, I could go on about why I think it is important that we have this legislation, but I am just happy that this government recognized it. I would like to thank our minister for bringing forward this type of legislation, and I would like to thank the opposition for supporting this type of legislation because this will protect these trees for the future of our children so that not only can we remember them from our past, but our children will be able to remember them from their past.
Madam Speaker, I will be supporting this bill wholeheartedly.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources, to close debate.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, very briefly, I just want to thank the opposition for their comments. They are useful, and we can have further discussion and illumination of some of the reasons behind this act as we move it through committee. I would only add for the record that the battle against Dutch elm disease is a most difficult one to deal with because of the enormous cost implications if it is to be taken on by all municipal and provincial jurisdictions in the province, but, at the same time, we have to recognize the enormous value of the mature elm forest that we have. I look forward to further discussion in committee on this act, and I therefore would move that Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act, be moved to committee.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 15, The Dutch Elm Disease Act (Loi sur la graphiose). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 6, The Animal Liability and Consequential Amendments Act ( Loi sur la responsabilité des propriétaires d'animaux et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to say a few words about The Animal Liability and Consequential Amendments Act, a bill that places the responsibility of liability on the owners of livestock or pets for damages that these animals cause to people or property while running at large.
We have had several changes to The Animal Husbandry Act and various acts that deal with how livestock is managed in the province. As I can see it, this is an amendment that was overlooked when the original bill was being brought in and one that has to be addressed.
The bill, as I said, deals specifically with animals that get onto other people's property or animals that might get onto public roads and cause accidents and putting the responsibility on the animal owner. It also allows for action to be brought against the owner of livestock or pets that have caused damage, and the onus is on the owner to prove that he or she has followed generally accepted agriculture practices or that the animals were at large due to an act of God or default on someone else's part and exempting him from responsibility.
In rural Manitoba these can be serious situations when livestock gets out of the fences that they should be in. Just recently in my constituency, just this last fall, a herd of horses got out of their pens and got onto a highway on a very foggy night and, being in the middle of the road when a car was coming, caused an accident. Fortunately the accident did not result in very serious injuries. It did result in the death of a horse. But when we looked back at why the animals had gotten out, it had been as a result of a heavy wind knocking down some trees on a fence, and that was the reason the animals got out. It was not because of neglect on the part of the owner of the animals, so in that case I do not believe that this act would apply to this individual, that he would be held liable, because it was an act of God that resulted in these animals escaping.
* (1630)
Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
Having raised some livestock on our farm, I am well aware of what can happen when animals start to think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, particularly late in the year when pastures are getting a little thin and those crops on the other side of the fence start to look very attractive. Animals have their own mind and can break out of their pastures and into the neighbour's crop and cause a lot of hardship.
Individuals should carry their own insurance to ensure that these kinds of damages are covered by insurance, but these kinds of incidents can cause a lot of hard feelings many times between neighbours, one neighbour feeling that the animals escape not because of his negligence, the other neighbour feeling that his livelihood has been damaged or a crop has been damaged because cattle have gotten into his crop.
So I think this is good legislation. We have to be able to designate who is responsible for livestock and make them accountable for their actions, but we also have to recognize that sometimes an act of God can cause difficulties to arise. The bill also ensures that animals are not allowed to run at large except in accordance with the municipal by-law. As I read this legislation, Mr. Acting Speaker, I wonder whether it might require an amendment because it says the municipalities or LGDs are not liable by reason and most LGDs have been eliminated, so that may be a redundant clause but that is something that we can address in committee.
One of the reasons this bill has also had to be brought into effect is to deal with wild boar and wild pigs that have been running at large and causing a lot of damage. Wild boar are one of the species that farmers have started to raise, looking at ways to diversify, and wild boar is an example of one of those species that farmers thought that they could make a lot of money at and would be a low cost raising these animals, but did not think about the nature of the animal. The nature of this animal is to roam, and they can roam to fairly far distances and they are very hard to contain in any particular area.
Again, I share with you an example of a problem in my area, in the area of Camperville, which is a small community on the edge of Lake Winnipegosis where there happens to be some wild boar that just got loose and were ending up roaming around in the town. They can be quite a fierce animal and they were terrorizing children and nobody was taking responsibility for them. Nobody knew whose animals they were and in the end, because nobody would take responsibility for them, these animals had to be destroyed.
But this legislation now allows or protects people who destroy animals who are running at large and causing injury or killing other animals to be destroyed, and it also allows for application orders for destruction of animals that are causing such kinds of concerns. But again I refer to wild boar and I think that we have to be very careful, farmers and all of us have to be very careful when we look at ways--some of these things that look to be a very good idea. Some people have done very well with wild boar and there are new products on the market, but in other areas where they have not been managed properly they have caused some serious concern.
So, with those few comments, I want to say that I think that we do not have major concerns with this bill. However there are other of my colleagues that will want to make comments on it as well. But really the bill is putting the onus on the people who own animals to tend to them. Now, this can also apply to urban centres as well, not only farm animals. The legislation also can apply to dogs in a city where a person is not taking the responsibility of managing their dogs as they should; the legislation can also apply to dogs in the rural area that might be harassing or chasing, harming other animals.
This has happened on many occasions on the farm where a neighbour's dog can get a little aggressive and get into a herd of cattle and cause serious problems. There are instances where this can happen. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) comes from a farming area and is well aware that sometimes, you know, as friendly as that neighbour's dog might be, during the spring months when there are some young calves out there or some young sheep that look that they are very playful, some dogs can get into them and, indeed, without realizing what is happening, can cause some serious damage to the income of the other individual. As I said earlier, this can cause a hardship between neighbours when one person's revenue is being destroyed by another person's pets. The same thing with livestock when livestock gets into a grain field, there are serious problems that can arise.
It appears to us at this point that this is not major legislation. It is legislation that is amending a previous act, a legislation that will put the onus on the person who owns the animal, making them responsible for the activities of their livestock and their pets and other animals in their possession, but also gives them the protection should it be the acts of God that allow for animals escape.
The fines of noncompliance with the act can range from $5,000 in the first offence to $10,000 in subsequent offences. So there are consequences for your animals escaping, and so there should be. There should be consequences if it is that a person who owns animals is not taking full responsibility.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, as I said, this is legislation that we can support, but I know that there are others of my colleagues who will also want to make comments on the legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Is the Assembly ready for the question?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
* (1640)
Motion agreed to.
Is it agreed that it remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk?
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Acting Speaker, Bill 17 is a very straightforward piece of legislation that deals with the consequences of some changes that were made to the rules last session. Basically, it just brings The Legislative Assembly Act in line with the changes in the rules which would set up a third Estimates committee, a requirement that we establish a chair, an additional chair for that committee, and--[interjection] I have been urged on by my colleagues here to speak at some greater length, and the rules of the Legislative Assembly are certainly something that I could speak at for quite some time. I regret now that I had not been offered unlimited time to speak on this.
An Honourable Member: We could talk about the Estimates process.
Mr. Ashton: We could talk about the Estimates committees, indeed, and the rather new situation we find by having three separate committees running, which is part of the changes to the rules.
I want to suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, since this does deal with some of the consequences of the changes in rules, that we are essentially dealing with a work in progress in terms of the rules of this Legislature. We had some significant changes that we spent five years negotiating, and I want to indicate that we put those in place in terms of the provisional rules. They were in place in 1996. Without revisiting 1996, there were obviously problems that were experienced with the rules, particularly the fixed session end date.
It is somewhat unfortunate in a way, but I think we have learned from experience, and, you know, I think it is a tribute to the Legislature, though, Mr. Acting Speaker, that what we did following that is instead of saying everything did not work, we sat down and objectively looked at the situation. I know I had many discussions with the government House leader. We had discussions with the Liberal members, involved all the caucuses, and we understood that some of the changes that we had brought into place made sense.
I must say, every time I sit here and I see, for example, some of the more creative members' statements, I appreciate that. It is a new opportunity, and I use "creative" in the generous sense here, and I mean it, though, because it is particularly an opportunity for private members to raise issues. Having been there, having been a private member on the government side, I can say that one thing I often found that was missing is, if I had a concern in my constituency or a community event, I only had the opportunity really if it was a nonpolitical event to raise it.
By having members' statements, we have had some fairly interesting discussions back and forth. In fact, some of them have become mini-debates. Some of them may have been better--I think it is interesting, some of those two-minute members' statements are probably sort of the Reader's Digest versions of some of our 40-minute speeches, probably more listenable, maybe more productive, although there is room for longer speeches. As I have been just advised by my colleagues, sometimes longer speeches are preferable because you get a chance to offer examples of positive change.
I want to suggest, though, that the job of reforming our rules is far from over. I want to suggest, in particular, that we consider some further changes to what we have been dealing with. Public Accounts--and I say this because there are discussions underway on improving Public Accounts, and I say that, because we have some of the least effective Public Accounts procedures in the country now. We have fallen behind. It is interesting, we had a recent delegation here yesterday that was looking at our Public Accounts system. The unfortunate fact is I would have liked to have been able to say we are leaders in Canada in Public Accounts, but we are not. Once again, we need to look at those kinds of rule changes.
I have a few more--[interjection] I am being encouraged again by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to finish off my remarks on a couple of other areas, because I want to put out just one other area where I think we have to reform ourselves. I think it is appropriate because this bill deals with establishing an additional committee chair. I think we have to look very seriously at our committee process, and I am not just talking here about Estimates. I am talking about our standing committees when they deal both with legislation and when they deal also with reports of Crown corporations.
I think there is an opportunity for all members of the Legislature to learn from the reforms that took place before, Mr. Acting Speaker, in the House of Commons. If you have more independent committees, you end up with the situation where you have the opportunity for all members of the House I think to take more of a role in not only questioning our Crown corporations but to take more of an initiative on establishing policy.
The House of Commons has had several very important committee reports. The House of Commons right now, for example, will be considering fairly soon the issue of the megabanks, the banks which are going to be proposing that they be allowed to merge. They have undertaken other initiatives, and I say to members in this House, I think there are some areas we could look at for an enhanced committee role. For example--and it is appropriate that our Lotteries critic is here--I know one area that could deal I think with detailed scrutiny by a committee of this Legislature would be the whole issue of lotteries.
You know, we have never really had a debate on lotteries in this House. We have raised questions. We have never debated the issue of the degree to which we have VLTs, for example. Why would we not? We are now spending $55 million on casino expansions. It is interesting because I recently surveyed my constituents, and I have yet to find one that agrees that we should be spending $55 million on casinos. If you ask the people of Manitoba, they can think of a thousand and one different uses for that $55 million, but you know that is an issue that is never debated in this House other than by the once-a-year opportunity that our Lotteries critic has to cross-examine and question the Lotteries Corporation when they are brought before the committee.
Why not have a legislative committee that looks at all Lotteries issues, whether it be VLTs and casinos? Why not try and get an all-party approach on this particular issue? Why not try--and recognizing again that the government has been hiding behind reports and then now recently the Gaming Commission, and the minister, of course, you know, is into the see no evil, hear no evil when it comes to the Gaming Commission, an independent group that just happened to be politically connected with the government. In fact, I think, one of the major contributors to his campaign is part of this independent commission.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
We see this, that the government has done it on other issues such as Autopac. You know, it appointed one of its biggest contributors, who switched his allegiance to the Conservative Party, was rewarded with this independent review. Madam Speaker, if you want independence, I would suggest you start by an all-party approach and then bring the people of Manitoba into the equation.
I could think of a lot of other issues, but by way of precedence in this province, let us deal with the liquor policies. We have liquor policies that were adopted on an nonpartisan basis. I think they cross party lines. Much of the legislation that has been adopted reflects that. I say to members opposite, I make an appeal particularly to the private members on that side, I think they would have far more impact on government and legislation if we had a strengthened committee system. That is what happens in Ottawa. The people that are very active in that process are government backbenchers, government private members along with opposition members.
An Honourable Member: I will support that.
Mr. Ashton: The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) says he would support that, and I would not doubt that because I believe on that side of the House the member for Lakeside has a true sense of the parliamentary system, something he has not wavered in even when there have been--by the way, it is suggested that that is one of the reasons he has been here as long as he has. I think it is because he understands the parliamentary system and is committed to it, and I say on the record, unfortunately, there are various fads sweeping this country and North America at times that would rather see us with a different style of government. I think that is wrong. I think the parliamentary system, as it can be reformed, can make a difference. I look to the member opposite because I know he has an independent mind and has exercised that on many occasions on public issues in this House.
With those few remarks, I just want to conclude by saying this bill adds on to what we have done in rules reform. It brings our Legislative Assembly management act in line with that. It is a fairly straightforward amendment, but the job of reforming our rules is not over; it is a work in progress. I urge all members of the House to build on some of the things we have accomplished with the changes, to bring in some further changes to our rules, and really bring us into the forefront of parliamentary reform in this province.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 17, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
* (1650)
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 4--The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has 36 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [agreed]
Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona, as well? Leave? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and put a few words on the record on Bill 4. The Child and Family Services Amendment Act has some very interesting things in it. Again, I would like to--I spoke earlier today about Bill 3, the amendments to The Elections Finances Act, and about the positive process that The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act undergo in this legislation, in this province, and one of the elements of that is an all-party advisory committee.
That committee meets for both The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act; it meets regularly with the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff to go over issues of concern and make recommendations. I am saying that that process that is undertaken in the election process is the same kind of process that was kind of followed in the lead-up to Bill 4, where there was, for one of the very few times outside of The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act, for one of the very few times in the Legislature of Manitoba--where there was an all-party committee that met and actually went outside the city of Winnipeg, went outside the Legislative Building to hear representations from people across the province.
Now the process did not end up in a unanimous report from the committee. Now someone, particularly on the government side, may say: Well, that is not the kind of process we want; we would like a unanimous report. I think, frankly, that shows the viability of that kind of an all-party process. I am not for a moment suggesting that all legislation be structured in that way, but I do think that issues such as the Children's Advocate need to have that kind of more thorough look at the legislation, and particularly since it was a new piece of legislation and was being reviewed by the government. So I would say that the process, while not perfect, was better than if the government had just had the public hearings held in the Legislative Building as we do with virtually all other pieces of legislation. So I think the process was a better one to follow. I would urge the government to look at that possible process in the context of some others of its pieces of legislation.
Most particularly--and I will raise this issue once again when the amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act come forward--I have asked the minister and have been turned down, requesting the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to hold these kinds of public hearings prior to the legislation being tabled. That is not going to happen, but that is another case where it could have happened and should have happened. I am glad to see that it did happen in the Children's Advocate legislation.
I am glad to see that the Children's Advocate does now become an officer of the Legislature, tabling an annual report to the Assembly similar to the Ombudsman and the Provincial Auditor, and as well the Chief Electoral Officer tables an annual report to the Legislature. So I think it is essential. It is something that we have been asking for and demanding, I might say, since the original piece of legislation was put into place.
As the critic for Family Services stated in his earlier speech, the current Children's Advocate has not been afraid or has not been shy about making public his concerns, but the issue is not whether--it should not be the responsibility of whichever person holds that office to make those things public. Reporting directly to the minister did not allow, did not require the degree of openness that having the Children's Advocate report directly to the Legislature will now require, so I think that is very positive.
The term of office that is going to be under this legislation is three years with a cap on the terms at two. It is a term limit, to use an American expression. I am not sure on a personal level how I feel about that. I think in the Legislature as a whole I am not in favour of term limits. I think that we have sitting with us today, on both sides of the House, two representatives who have been in the Legislature for 30 years and more, and while their political views differ greatly, I think we in the Legislature in the Province of Manitoba would have been far poorer had we not had the advantage and access to the experience in the legislative process and in the issues facing the people of Manitoba of the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), which term limits would have not allowed us to have.
I am a bit concerned about the imposition of term limits on the Children's Advocate, and I think in the committee hearing process I will ask the minister more about the rationale behind that decision. However, our minority report I believe stated that we, given the term limit, would have preferred a term limit of five years, two five-year terms, rather than two three-year terms, I think probably because that would allow for the understanding that the Children's Advocate position is a very difficult one. Even under the fairly narrow definitions of this legislation, the Children's Advocate has an enormous learning curve. It is the kind of position, like becoming an MLA, for which your whole life trains you in one sense but nothing trains you.
There is virtually nothing that you could have done prior to becoming a member of the Legislative Assembly that gives you a true understanding of what the role is. It is something you learn on the job by definition. [interjection] The member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) says except being a lawyer. I think we could all make arguments about our own backgrounds providing us with good tools to learn how to deal with the Legislature and being an MLA. I could make a very good argument for the profession of social work, educators, farmers, small business people, but no matter how broad our background, when we come into the Legislature, we have a huge learning curve.
The Children's Advocate has the same kind of thing, because I do not think there is any job or any profession that can train a Children's Advocate. You have to have a range of experiences, some of which you are going to learn on the job. Six years is probably not long enough to be able to grow in the job. Ten years allows you to grow in the job while not getting you too stale in the job. So that is one area where we would like to see some changes made.
Another area is we think it is important that the Children's Advocate have a broader area to address. Children's needs--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) will have 31 minutes remaining.