Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of D. Bate, D. Klein, H. Kullman and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Education to reverse the decision to split the Transcona-Springfield School Division and allow it to remain as a whole or to consider immediately convening the Board of Reference to decide the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth

THAT on November 8, 2001, the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) announced a split in the Transcona-Springfield School Division but despite repeated requests has been unable to identify any benefits of this decision to the students and taxpayers of said school division; and

THAT this decision was not preceded by adequate public consultation as outlined in section 7 of The Public Schools Act; and

THAT this decision would result in significant hardships for the students in both Transcona and Springfield that would affect the quality of their education; and

THAT the proposal by the Minister of Education on February 12, 2002, neither alleviates nor remedies these hardships; and

THAT this decision results in an increased financial burden on the taxpayers of both the Transcona-Springfield School Division and the province of Manitoba; and

THAT on March 13, 2002, the number of resident electors required by The Public Schools Act requested the Minister of Education to convene a Board of Reference to decide the matter.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education to reverse the decision to split the Transcona-Springfield School Division and allow it to remain as a whole or to consider immediately convening the Board of Reference to decide the matter.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Industrial Relations.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member will need to seek leave to present that report.

Does the honourable member have leave to present that report? [Agreed]

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Industrial Relations presents the following as its Second Report.

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense

Your committee met on Tuesday, July 2, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Mr. Reid: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that the report of the committee be received.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to follow the names and everything else when there is so much talking going on in the Chamber. It is hard to hear the movers and seconders. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

* (13:35)

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its First Report.

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Your committee met on the following occasions:

Ms. Korzeniowski: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that the report of the committee be received.

Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism (Mr. Lemieux), that leave be given to introduce Bill 43, The Polar Bear Protection Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, this bill is being introduced today to highlight the seriousness Manitoba places on matters respecting the disposition and use of live polar bears.

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us Alexandra Smith, the daughter and guest of the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith).

Seated right behind the Speaker's Gallery we have from Victoria, British Columbia, Florence Gervais and daughter, Dayle Gervais, and from Winnipeg, Joan Gervais and Linda Gervais, who are the guests of the honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are beginning to see a trend with the Doer government. The Doer government has clearly shown–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Doer government has clearly shown the inability to manage Manitoba Crown corporations. We already know the Doer government is raiding a million dollars a day out of Manitoba Hydro. For the first time in over a decade the Workers Compensation Board is running an operating deficit at the same time as raising rates. Now, for the first time in six years, Autopac is operating at a deficit.

Can the Premier explain how his Government could have so badly mismanaged Autopac that they have a deficit of some $16 million from last year?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the honourable Official Opposition Leader would like to hear an answer. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

* (13:40)

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe it has been the last three or four years that there has been a rate freeze at the Public Insurance Corporation. There has been a rate freeze generally. There have been decreases for some categories. There have been increases in other areas, but the overall freeze of rates is at least four years old.

The Public Insurance Corporation provides insurance to Manitobans. It provides it at a rate that is the lowest, if not in North America, in Canada. The PUB made decisions on the rates to allow that the accumulated amount of money of two years ago flow through to the drivers of Manitoba, to the consumers of Manitoba. I believe the rate freeze has been unprecedented in terms of insurance companies for Canadians.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable when you look at the state of the Crown corporations that his Government was fortunate to inherit. In just two short years WCB has gone from running a surplus of $51.5 million–or $8.5 million, a surplus of $8.5 million, to running a deficit of almost $2.5 million. In just two short years the Doer government has increased the amount of money coming out of Manitoba Hydro so that a million dollars a day flows to this Government. In two short years Autopac has gone from a surplus of $51.5 million to running a deficit of over $16 million.

How does the Premier explain the fact that in just two short years the Manitoba Crowns have gone from making money to losing money?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the amount of accumulated surplus, or the reserve account, was at such a level that the PUB instructed the Public Insurance Corporation to keep its rates frozen in such a way–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Previously we made a premium rebate. Part of it was a debatable issue, but two thirds of that was non-debated by the public and eventually that money flowed to the consumers.

Manitoba Public Insurance has the lowest rates in Canada. Since we have been in office the rates have not increased one iota. We have not interfered with the Public Utilities Board–[interjection]

Well, we now note that the Conservatives are going to sell the Public Insurance Corporation, according to the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, just like the Conservatives are selling Manitoba Telephone System. There is nothing that is not sacred under the Conservatives. They will sell it out from underneath your feet. Now we know the Conservative agenda.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the union boss is certainly showing today.

Problems with Autopac are not new to the NDP government. I do not think I have to remind Manitobans of what the NDP did to Autopac rates the last time they were in government. In fact, the Doer government tried to raid $30 million out of Autopac, and then they flip-flopped when Manitobans told them they were wrong to do it. Now, due to the Doer government's mismanagement, Autopac is running a deficit.

* (13:45)

I would like to ask the Premier: What impact on Autopac will a $16-million deficit have?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, now the champion of privatizing Crown corporations with his Tory caucus, the friends, the politician of the year for the brokers of Manitoba–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have not interfered, intervened at all in the rate setting that is established–[interjection]

You know, if you want to ask a question, get up and ask one. Let somebody answer the question.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. The guests in the gallery, the viewing public, they would like to be able to hear the questions and to hear the answers. It is very, very difficult to hear.

Also, as the Speaker, you rise on points of order, you want me to make a ruling and you expect me to make a ruling. I expect that as part of my duty, but I cannot fulfil that responsibility if I cannot hear the words that are being spoken, whether they are questions or answers, so I kindly ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Public Insurance Corporation has not only provided the lowest rates in Canada consistently throughout its history, including the last four years, it has also invested over $1.4 billion in schools, in hospitals, in other municipal projects here in Manitoba. In other words, it is capital that used to leave the province and now is retained in the province for economic activity and the quality of life.

* (13:50)

I think it is interesting today when we look at a deregulated environment that has been brought in, in Ontario with, by the way, a $750-million item in the budget as a revenue item for selling 49 percent of Ontario Hydro, that under the deregulated environment of the Conservative philosophy, 46 cents is being charged for electricity under a deregulated environment in Ontario compared to 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Insurance Corporation goes before the PUB. We have kept the rates frozen. We think it is a very, very positive Crown corporation for all Manitobans.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, the Premier just said the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation has always managed its affairs in terms of making sure rates to Manitoba drivers were as low as possible. That is true. But when government interferes and causes the entire situation to be disrupted we have losses as we see before us today.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister: Why has the minister allowed $80 million to be refunded to vehicle drivers when a simple two-year forecast would have told this minister Autopac would be in trouble? Today we see a loss of $16.1 million as a result of this mismanaged directive from the Government of Manitoba.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans should be very, very proud of their public auto insurer, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. It is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year after the fifth straight year of rate stability, and that compares to what has been a very difficult year for the auto insurance industry across this country, if not across this continent.

For example, in Ontario, Kingsway General told the Financial Services Commission of Ontario that it is going to stop underwriting private passenger insurance unless it got a 15% increase in rates immediately. In Manitoba, we enjoy rate stability because of our public insurer.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this: Can the minister explain to Manitobans why this year, under its watch, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation is now facing a deficit of $16.1 million, with retained earnings dropping down to the $50 million–basic rate stabilization fund dropping down to less than $60 million, when in fact last year it was at $147 million? Can he explain to Manitobans why the situation is as it is today?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the initial question from the member opposite should be saved, I think, by all members in this House and Manitobans because he has been urging, as a result of his question, this Government to interfere in the PUB process and start to move away from PUB setting MPI rates. That is the position of the Opposition. The position of this Government is to ensure the proper policy framework is there for a strong public auto insurer, which we have.

I will conclude this, Mr. Speaker. The members will know from the annual report of MPI, which shows a very healthy public corporation, that investments have been down significantly, particularly around September 11, but not solely. This was a difficult year in investments. That is being recognized all across the business community but not on the other side of this House.

* (13:55)

As well, MPI had to recognize the significant increase in claims, particularly around the hail storm last year. There is $50 million in the rate stabilization fund.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not, for the public of Manitoba at least, come clean and indicate that it was a result of their trying to raid the Manitoba Public Insurance fund of $30 million last year to put into the universities and then consequently being caught in a box to refund ratepayers that has caused this enormous deficit in Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of MPI is obviously affected by the experience during that fiscal year, and what was that experience? It was an increase of 17 percent in claims costs; it was a decrease in investment receipts, but the insurer has not increased rates since 1999. What other auto insurer in this country can say it has reduced auto rates twice and provided vehicle owners with an $81-million dividend over that same period of time? That is why there is a rate stabilization reserve. The reserve is $50 million; the corporation is healthy.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, not only has the Government forced Manitoba Hydro to go out and borrow $288 million to fund their dividend, but they have undermined the authority of the Public Utilities Board by decreeing from the Cabinet table that Manitoba Hydro will not be allowed to increase rates.

I would like to table some testimony given under oath at the Public Utility Board's hearing on May 27. Under questioning from Ms. Kalinowsky, the lawyer from the Public Utilities Board, a question to Ms. Wray was: Ms. Wray, you have a swing of not only $288 million which is coming out in terms of the special export profit payment, but almost equivalent amounts to finance it, so you are looking at a change in circumstances of approximately $550 million over the life of the internal financial forecast. Is that correct?

Answer from Ms. Wray: Yes.

Question: And with a swing of $550 million, Manitoba Hydro still does not think it needs to revise its rate increases or decreases?

Answer, under oath, from Ms. Carolyn Wray: It was a policy decision by the Government and announced as such that there would be no changes to rates as a result of the special payments.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister responsible for Hydro admit today there is nothing in Bill 41 that prevents Manitoba Hydro from raising rates and, in fact, the only thing preventing Manitoba Hydro from raising rates before the next election is his edict?

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate the Member for Fort Whyte has put a number of inaccurate statements and misleading statements on the record. What I would like to do is I would like to just reiterate some of the mistakes he made.

First, he started off by saying we had tabled the quarterly report in April when in fact we had circulated it in February. He was wrong then, he is wrong now.

Secondly, he came forward and he said the–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a point of order.

Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne rule 417: Answers to questions should be brief, direct and not provoke debate.

* (14:00)

The minister knows full well, and Hansard will show, that they tabled the third quarter financial statement of Manitoba Hydro with this House in April.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, on the same point of order.

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Member for Fort Whyte is disputing the facts, as is so often done as they abuse questions of points of order.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte, it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, to conclude your answer.

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to reiterate the number of errors that have been made by the member opposite in his accusations. He does not ask questions seeking information. He uses questions as a way of attacking people with misinformation, misleading information which misrepresents the facts. That has clearly been the pattern here over the last several weeks.

I indicated, first of all, he made a mistake on when the quarterly report was released. Secondly, he indicated the latest report from DBRS; he failed to mention that our rating had increased from stable to positive. Thirdly, he indicated we had received the annual report of Hydro. The record clearly shows that only comes at the end of July, and I will continue later.

Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he was disputing the testimony given under oath at the Public Utilities Board by Ms. Carolyn Wray, and I will quote, under questioning: That belief predated the special payment to the Province, and the conviction of your belief has not changed one iota as a result of the special payment to the Province.

Answer by Ms. Carolyn Wray, under oath: I think, if anything, my belief that we would be going for a rate increase might be slightly weakened by the fact that money has been taken by the Province, just because of perceptions.

Will the minister clearly indicate to Manitobans the only reason Manitoba Hydro rates will not be increased prior to the next election is because he has issued a Cabinet edict that they must be frozen?

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, another error the Member for Fort Whyte has put on the record is he indicated that somehow we had special information not reported in the Legislature. We have reported clearly at the time of the Budget there would be a $209-million operating profit from Manitoba Hydro. That number is clearly in the ballpark of what they will earn this year.

Mr. Speaker, all the testimony at the Public Utilities Board has clearly indicated from interveners, as well as from Manitoba Hydro, that they do not believe this special payment will result in a rate increase. They have very prudent assumptions on rate increases tied to inflation. The intention is to keep rate increases at inflation or below. Those projections have not changed before or after the special payment.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: Will he ask Mr. Bob Brennan to come down before the committee of this House, under oath, to give testimony on the financial condition of Manitoba Hydro as of March 31, given that he is sitting on the March 31 financial statements of Manitoba Hydro and was refusing to release those statements until after the committee hearing next Monday? Will he bring Mr. Brennan down here to testify under oath?

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): This Member for Fort Whyte continues to put misinformation on the record. He misleads the House. He misrepresents the facts.

Mr. Speaker, the record clearly shows the annual report from Manitoba Hydro is conveyed to the Minister of Finance on July 31. It has been that way for the last six years.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, on the same point of order.

Mr. Selinger: Simply attempting to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable ministers, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should not provoke debate. I would ask the honourable Minister of Finance to conclude his comment.

Mr. Selinger: I read in the House last week the last six years that the annual report was conveyed on July 31. That is the long-standing practice. The member knows that. He continues to mislead the House. I say shame on him.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, a news report today–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If members wish to have a conversation, we have two loges here, lots of room in the hallway. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. The honourable Member for Charleswood has the floor.

Mrs. Driedger: A news report today quotes the Minister of Health as saying he will not spend $1 million to build a sandwich factory in St. B. and that he will actually tender it. Can the minister guarantee today he will tender the sandwich contract?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba in the nineties was the only jurisdiction in Canada that tried to centralize all food services in one spot. Manitoba in the nineties was the only jurisdiction in the country that wanted to outsource 100% frozen food for the contracts. Manitoba was the only jurisdiction that closed hospital kitchens at Misericordia, at Grace, at Victoria and Seven Oaks. They closed the kitchens.

We stopped the frozen food expansion at HSC. We stopped the frozen food expansion at the St. Boniface Hospital, and I have dealt with that question in the House on previous occasions, Mr. Speaker.

An Honourable Member: What a bunch of baloney.

Mrs. Driedger: That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he will guarantee today that he will not spend one cent of taxpayers' money to build a new factory in St. Boniface or to retrofit the kitchen at Deer Lodge hospital for a sandwich factory. Either way, it is a sandwich factory. Is he going to spend taxpayers' money on a sandwich factory?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, what I promise we will not do is what members opposite did, close kitchens and stop providing home cooking to people across the system. I will not subject the veterans at Deer Lodge to what members opposite did.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. We would like to help keep the minister's blood pressure down.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What I was outlining for the members was that we would not repeat the same mistakes they did during the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he has a point of order. Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should deal with the matter that is raised.

Mr. Chomiak: As I indicated in the House on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, we inherited the situation. The members opposite closed the kitchen and put in place a tender process. They stopped making sandwiches in the hospitals and tendered out. We continued that process. The Manitoba company went out of business; the next company on the tender was the Alberta company. It had been a process put in place by members opposite, a tendering process put in place by members opposite. Let me just repeat once more, a tendering process put in place by members opposite.

Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered any of the questions. All we are asking him to do is come clean, be transparent on this issue and tell us: Is he going to build a sandwich factory, or is he going to contract out the sandwich contract? What is it going to be? It is a simple question.

* (14:10)

Mr. Chomiak: I think the newspaper article generally accurately reflected the situation with respect to that issue, but let me point out what happened in this jurisdiction, the only place in Canada that centralized all food services, closed kitchens and brought in frozen food from all around North America. We stopped that process. We turned it around. We are changing it. We are not going to do to veterans what members opposite forced onto the plates of veterans at Deer Lodge hospital.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I direct the question to the Minister of Conservation. Next Monday, the Clearwater Lake Cottage Owners Association will be holding their annual meeting. No doubt, among the items of discussion will be the Province's decision to carve some 2437 acres out of that beautiful provincial park. We asked the minister about this before. He indicated at that time he was having a report done and he would deal specifically with the request whether or not there would be further public hearings the group can talk about. Has that report come in?

Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): I thank the member for the question. Yes, the report has been completed. It was delivered to my office. This week I have written letters to all of those people who have written in with respect to Clearwater Lake TLE, and I have decided to extend the public process till the end of December of this year, giving those people who have requested more time an opportunity to further discuss the issue amongst each other.

Mr. Enns: I want to acknowledge and thank the minister for his statement. I am sure that for the large number of cottage owners at Clearwater Lake they will appreciate that response and the time they will have for the discussion.

A final supplementary question to the minister: Have final developmental plans been arrived at with respect to the land in question?

Mr. Lathlin: There has been no final decision made on anything. Since I have been minister I have been following the process that was set up by the member's government when they were in power. As far as I understand today, the OCN chief and council, their entities and their representatives will be meeting with the concerned cottagers from Clearwater Lake through this public process.

I understand also that OCN will be updating their land use plan with a view to making the cottagers understand what their plans are all about with respect to their community development. I think the two communities are getting together and, hopefully by December, they will iron everything out.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education seems to be going out of his way to blame others for delays in school division amalgamation. The reality is, however, that the judicial ruling in the case of the appeal from Transcona-Springfield parents has confirmed a legal basis for the minister to finalize the details of mergers independent of Bill 14, as indeed the Manitoba Association of School Trustees argued carefully in its presentation at committee stage of Bill 14.

So I ask the minister today why he does not proceed to finalize the school division amalgamations under the present legislation.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Mr. Speaker, there is indeed one person to blame for this delay. As Manitobans are becoming more and more aware, it is the Member for River Heights.

I would have expected, after this bill being in the House for over two months, the Member for River Heights would have read the bill and understood the administrative cost caps are integral to this bill so that taxpayers in this province are protected and educational dollars in this province are dedicated to educational purposes.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, maybe someday I will get a coherent answer.

My supplementary question, I ask: Is the minister not finalizing the amalgamations under the present legislation because he is concerned that under present legislation his decisions might be appealed, whereas he is hoping that with Bill 14 he would be able to cut off any legitimate appeal for his arbitrary decisions?

Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, the reason for amalgamations in this province is to free up resources for the classroom to benefit students. Central to that is a provision for administrative cost caps so that taxpayers' dollars go to classrooms and not boardrooms.

The fact the Member for River Heights is holding up this legislation is costing taxpayers throughout the province. It is costing administrators and trustees undue stress, undue work, work that would not be necessary and dollars spent that would not be necessary if the Member for River Heights would move this piece along.

Mr. Gerrard: I think the people in this province would like answers, not accusations.

I ask the minister in my second supplementary: Why is the minister so determined to eliminate any substantive appeal to his arbitrary decision to slice and dice Transcona-Springfield School Division under the efforts he is trying to do to rearrange school division boundaries?

Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter from the Birdtail River School Division. I note the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) is in his seat chirping, and I will table the letter from the Birdtail River School Division that I received today that says the Birdtail River School Division and Pelly Trail School Division have been successful in meeting the time lines–

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before recognizing the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to, once again, remind all honourable members when the Speaker rises all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. Once the minister has tabled the letter, I do not think it is necessary for him to read it on the record. It is not relevant to the answer.

* (14:20)

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Minister of Education, Training and Youth, on the same point of order.

Mr. Caldwell: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was tabling the letter for the information of the House and was quoting from one sentence in response to the question raised by the Member for River Heights.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to, once again, remind all honourable members, all honourable ministers, answers to questions, 417, should deal with the matter that is raised and to not provoke debate. I would ask the honourable Minister of Education, Training and Youth to conclude his answer.

Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, as I suggested, the school divisions are working hard and additional costs for the division are going to be realized as a result of the obstruction practices by the Member for River Heights.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): My question is for the Minister of Education, Training and Youth. It involves the unnecessary delay in the passage of the school modernization act. All members of this House have been contacted by amalgamating school divisions indicating significant costs incurred by local taxpayers as a result of the delay of this Bill 14. Trustees, teachers, parents and others in school divisions have worked diligently during this transition and report that the transition to new divisions has been smooth except for this unnecessary delay.

Can the minister indicate to this House any further hardship that will be incurred by local taxpayers and divisions as a result of this unnecessary delay?

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): My office has been on the receiving end of a number of calls and inquiries about this issue. Divisions now are incurring costs associated with auditing, associated with staffing, associated with insurance. The bill before us here deals with cost caps as well as other issues. The Member for River Heights not only does not seem to care about administrative cost caps on school boards but his continual delays are costing taxpayers throughout the province dollars as we sit here today.

Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am really wondering if today is a Wednesday. Could I have the co-operation of all honourable members, please. We are going to be moving on to members' statements and we need to be able to hear the statements that members are making. If any member wishes to have a conversation, please go in the loge or in the hallway.

We will now go to members' statements.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a private member's statement with regard to a little school in the Pelly Trail School Division, and that is precisely the Oakburn School.

On July 2 my colleague the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) rose in the House to bid farewell to the school located in his constituency and today I do the same in my constituency.

On June 26, students and staff members of the Oakburn community gathered to reminisce and say their goodbyes to the Oakburn Consolidated School. The Oakburn School District has existed in the province since 1886, with the Oakburn Consolidated School being formed in 1958, when other schools in the area closed.

Mr. Speaker, the school has earned a reputation in the community for its outstanding academic achievements, its outstanding concerts and closely knit staff and students. A word of thanks goes out to Audrey Clempson, the school's current principal and the only teacher, for her commitment to the school and community, given the uncertainty of the school's future in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, the closure of Oakburn Consolidated School will impact many lives. My heart goes out to Nellie Bartko who has lived next door to the school since 1963 and whose late husband Leonard Bartko served as principal of that school until his retirement in 1990.

I commend all the parents who were relentless in their fight to keep the school open. It is unfortunate that, when petitioned by the community to revisit the closure guidelines, the minister would not even give the community the time of day.

Mr. Speaker, they have given their children a valuable lesson in perseverance and the importance of community. Finally, I wish Oakburn's final class, composed of 17 Grades 1 to 4 students, the best of luck as they continue their studies in Shoal Lake and Rossburn next year. Thank you.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to celebrate Canada Day at two locations this year, in Cranberry Portage and Flin Flon. Cranberry Portage is much smaller than Flin Flon, but its citizens still managed to put on a very impressive celebration, which included events for young people, a beer garden and fireworks.

Flin Flon culminated its month-long fishing derby, known far and wide as the Flin Flon Trout Festival, by accelerating the pace at which entertainment was provided. After all, the kids were out of school. Many people were on holidays, and it was perfect weather to celebrate Canada's 135th birthday. The Trout Festival weekend, from June 28 to July 1 inclusive, was fully loaded with fun events, ranging from games, bingo, slide shows, live entertainment, a family dance and free pancake breakfasts.

The popular annual fish fry was sold out as 1200 people enjoyed this event. The festival also included many rides for the whole family. The local junior hockey team, the Flin Flon Bombers, hosted a very successful beer garden. It was northern hospitality and friendliness at its best.

I want to congratulate the organizing committee for the Trout Festival. This small group of extremely dedicated volunteers deserve praise. I would also like to thank all the Flin Flon Queen Mermaid contestants for all their effort and hard work. Special congratulations to Christy Bryson who was crowned Flin Flon's 2002 Queen Mermaid and to Lacey Jovorsky who was crowned the First Princess.

Finally, it is appropriate to thank all volunteers, not only in Cranberry Portage and Flin Flon, but in all villages, towns and cities across Manitoba and Canada because it is the effort of their citizens that make events such as the Trout Festival and Canada Day celebrations so successful. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): It was just a few weeks ago that I rose in this House to congratulate Dr. Don Klassen of Winkler for receiving a rural service award. Today, I congratulate him once again, this time for being appointed as medical director of the new provincial Office of Rural and Northern Health scheduled to open in Dauphin later this year.

As medical director of this office, Doctor Klassen will apply his many years of expertise to aid in the development of programs to encourage students in rural and northern communities to study medicine. He believes that students who grow up in such communities are more likely to want to return to them when they begin their own practices. He will also focus on programs to lure physicians to rural and northern areas to permanently settle.

Once the programs designed specifically for physicians are in place, the Office of Rural and Northern Health, under Doctor Klassen's leadership, will most likely expand into other areas of the medical field, including nursing, therapeutic and technical operations.

Most of Doctor Klassen's work will be done via computer and Internet. This will allow him to remain close to his family and friends and continue working shifts at the Urgent Care Centre in Winkler and at the Boundary Trails Health Centre.

Sadly, after serving the Winkler community for over 20 years as family physician, he will bid farewell to his clinical practice. I am sure I speak for all those in the Winkler area when I say he will be sadly missed. Doctor Klassen advises that Canada is currently in need of 1500 rural doctors. I would like to commend him on the time he will continue to take and the energy he will continue to expend to help rectify this situation. Mr. Speaker, here we have an example of how one person can and will make a difference.

As a representative of the area and a citizen of Winkler, I would like to express my gratitude to Doctor Klassen for his many years of exceptional service to the people of this community and wish him the best of luck as he prepares to take on these new challenges.

* (14:30)

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): At Assiniboine Park on July 1, Canada Day, I brought greetings from the Province to a crowd staunchly gathered in sun showers and threatening clouds waiting for the festivities to begin. I spoke about living in Canada, a land of freedom where we value our differences as much as our similarities and take pride in our cultural roots. I spoke about Canada as a microcosm of the world and that our peaceful lives and diverse nation provides an example to all others. I spoke of the responsibilities of citizenship to protect our rights and guard our freedom.

Shortly after bringing greetings I was walking across an open space when I was approached by a freckled-faced young man who, I guessed, was about 10 or 12 years old. He stopped in front of me and looked me in the eyes and said, I liked your speech. I thanked him and asked his name. His one comment touched me deeply.

I wondered how many children I know who actually would listen, understand and appreciate such a speech. Perhaps more than I think. This young man put the happy in my Canada Day. He renewed my faith in our youth and the patriotism of our next generation. I left feeling confident that our country will always be in good hands to guard and cherish our freedom. Canada's 135th anniversary will always be a special one for me. Thank you, Justin.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) seems intent on blaming others for delays in passage of Bill 14. A considered analysis suggests that the minister is the author of his own problem.

The minister and his NDP government started the year's legislative session April 22, more than six weeks after the average first sitting day of the year when one looks back over the last 30 years and excludes the last three years of this rather slow NDP government. There was plenty of time if the NDP had started on time to have this legislation passed by July 30, and the NDP really should not be concerned or complain when it is their own fault.

The Minister of Education has argued that he needs passage of Bill 14 in order to finalize school division amalgamations. However, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees presented the case at committee stage of Bill 14 that the Minister of Education has the authority to finalize school division amalgamations under the present Public Schools Act. Indeed the legal ruling in mid-June in the case of the matter raised by Transcona-Springfield parents appears to confirm the position of MAST that the minister has the authority he needs to finalize school division amalgamations.

No, perhaps the real reason is that the minister is trying to avoid any legitimate appeal to his arbitrary decisions.

Bill 14 appears specifically designed to take away any substantive right to challenge or appeal ministerial decisions. In a democracy it is important to have a system to provide good and adequate checks and balances. There needs to be some checks and balances to the authority exercised by the Minister of Education. Should the minister be allowed to slice and dice school divisions at will? I say no. There needs to be some substantive mechanism for appeal.

This brings me back to the original point and that is the NDP could have called the Legislature earlier. The Minister of Education could have chosen to use the existing Public Schools Act. Instead–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, first would you canvass the House to see if there is leave to deal with report stage on Bill 14 this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to deal with report stage on Bill 14 this afternoon? Is there agreement?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants time, would you please canvass the House to determine if there is leave to sit this evening at 6:30 to deal with report stage on Bill 14?

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to sit at 6:30 tonight to deal with Bill 14, report stage? Agreed?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you please call bills in the following order: First, motions for second reading, Bills 46, 38, 44, 51.

Then would you canvass the House to determine if there is leave to deal with report stage and third readings, if that is available, on Bills 29 and 30.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to deal with report stage and third reading on Bills 29 and 30? [Agreed]

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you please then call report stage on Bills 29 and 30, followed by third reading, if that is available. Then would you please call debate on second reading on Bill 23.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable minister will have to seek leave to do third reading. You did not ask for leave for it.

Mr. Speaker: Second readings. Would the members wish to have their conversations in the loge, please. We are moving into second reading.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 46, The Elections Finances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement des campagnes électorales, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of the House.

* (14:40)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I know members opposite will want to support the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, who, in 1995-96, recommended that rules of leadership races for recognized political parties be in a law.

We thought, and I think I mentioned to the Legislature in the debate in the year 2000, that it would be inappropriate for the government of the day to bring in rules and laws while a leadership race was in existence at that point. In that leadership race, which was very competitive, I might say, it would have been very, very unfair to change the proverbial goal posts in midstream, although the former Member for Lac du Bonnet was urging us on with the support of the elder, the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). That would have been very inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations are contained within the bill. Because it is in the public interest that leaders' rules of a recognized party be in legislation, we are bringing forward the requirement for full disclosure for any donation to political parties, the requirement that there be a chief financial officer who would normally report to the public through the Chief Electoral Officer, that there be a period of time for these donations.

Thirdly, we have proposed that the donations to leadership candidates for a recognized political party only come from individuals limited to $3,000 and only come from individuals limited to $3,000 in the province where the leadership race is in existence. Surely to goodness, this Manitoba Legislature would not want to have cash from offshore coming in to determine the leadership candidate who would be supported, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is completely within the public interest. We shall rise up against our partisan past and vote for a future clear of fear and favour and vote for this legislation.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 38, The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé publique, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the abuse of intoxicating substances such as gasoline, glue, paint, paint thinner and other products, more commonly called sniff, has devastating health effects on the people who abuse them and on the communities they live in.

Mr. Speaker, we know from RCMP reports of close to 1500 incidents where abuse of solvents and non-potable alcohol was a factor. Bill 38 is designed to limit the availability of these products to the victims of this addiction.

To accomplish this goal, the bill will permit a public health inspector or peace officer to seize an intoxicating substance from a person where the inspector or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the substance has been repackaged for the purpose of facilitating its use as an inhalant, a person has provided a substance to another person where there was a reasonable basis to believe that the other person would use it as an inhalant, or a person is in possession of a substance for the purpose of using it as an inhalant or providing it to another person for use as an inhalant. The bill also enables officials to seize any paraphernalia that may enable an intoxicating substance to be used as an inhalant and any other intoxicating substances that the person may posses.

In order to facilitate the effective use of the seizure powers in relation to individuals providing intoxicating substances on the street, the bill will enable officials to search a person's personal effects or any receptacle, container or motor vehicle in the possession of the person where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is in possession of an intoxicating substance or paraphernalia. Once the seizure is made, Bill 38 will require that there be a show cause hearing before a justice to determine if the seized substances and paraphernalia should be ordered forfeited. The bill also introduces consequential amendments to The Retail Sales Tax Act, The Gasoline Tax Act and The Motive Fuel Tax Act to enable the minister to suspend and potentially cancel the licence or permit issued to a person who is in possession of intoxicating substances or paraphernalia at the time it was seized if there had been an order forfeiting the intoxicating substance or paraphernalia. I look forward to the support and advice from all members of this House with respect to this very significant issue.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Sale), that Bill 44, The Provincial Police Amendment (Aboriginal Policing) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Sûreté du Manitoba (services de police autochtones), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends The Provincial Police Act to provide a clear legislative framework that allows First Nations police forces to be created and to provide police services to First Nations communities.

It was way back in 1991 that the report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry made recommendations with respect to First Nations policing and recommended clarification in the laws of Manitoba about the ability of First Nations to organize and put in place First Nations policing. Then again last year, the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission created by the Government tabled its recommendations which reflected that original concern of the AJI.

The amendments being introduced today is a step in responding to the commission's report. Specifically, the amendments speak to the core principles identified by the implementation commission focussing on the development of professional, fully trained, regional Aboriginal police forces reporting to and serving Aboriginal communities with a broad mandate for law enforcement and crime prevention.

These amendments will clearly and legally allow for the development of Aboriginal police commissions, Mr. Speaker, to support the recruitment, training and effective support for Aboriginal police forces. In essence, this amendment creates a consistent standard for all policing in Manitoba, placing First Nations police services on an equal footing with other police in Manitoba insofar as the creation of police forces is concerned and as their legal foundation is concerned.

* (14:50)

It would appear that First Nations policing right now would have a legal foundation if one were to successfully make the argument in a legal challenge that First Nations policing was equivalent to municipal policing. It has to be said unequivocally that in no way should First Nations be compared to municipalities. They are very different. I think the fact that it took so long to introduce these changes is regrettable, but we have to look forward and move forward. What this does is it removes any of the ambiguities in the legislation and provides, as well, I think, a recognition and a respect for the role of First Nations policing in Manitoba.

I just want to add, Mr. Speaker, that this Government fully supports the expansion of First Nations policing, whether it is by regional agencies like the Dakota Ojibway Police Service or whether by RCMP First Nations policing. It is very important that Aboriginal communities in Manitoba have the ability to determine the kind of policing that best meets their needs. It is also important to recognize that the perception of the imposition of a foreign and remote police force in First Nations communities is not in the best interests of public safety.

So, while this legislation is provincial in scope, the creation of First Nations police services is in fact a partnership between Manitoba, Canada and First Nations communities. Mr. Speaker, I hope for the full endorsement of this legislation by all members of the House.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Smith), that Bill 51, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2002, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us primarily is for the purpose of correcting minor errors in statutes. Honourable members will note that Part 1 of the bill corrects typographical, numbering and other drafting errors in the English and French versions of acts. There are, however, some substantive matters included in Part 1 of the bill which I would like to briefly address.

The Financial Administration Act is being amended in order to respond to new business practices. The act currently requires the Province to invest only in corporate securities that have received high ratings from two security rating institutions. However, most corporations now obtain only a rating from one institution. The existing language of the act has restricted the ability of the Province to invest in corporate securities. The amendment contained in this act would allow the Province to invest in corporate securities that have a high rating from a recognized securities rating institution.

The amendments are also being made to The Sheriff's Act and to The Uniform Law Conference Commissioners Act to allow appointments to be made by the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General rather than by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Part 2 of the bill makes a series of amendments that are required because of changes to The Federal Bank Act which allow authorized foreign banks to operate in Canada. This requires an amendment to The Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act is also amended to repeal the definition of chartered bank because this term is no longer used. As a result, a variety of statutes need to be amended to remove references to chartered banks and update or repeal definitions dealing with banks.

I believe that concludes my remarks on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly be pleased to answer any questions or address any other aspects of this bill at committee.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 29, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, be concurred in.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services that Bill 30, The Architects Amendment Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, be concurred in.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services, by leave, that Bill 29, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, that Bill 29, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed. Agreed? [interjection] Order.

The honourable Member for River Heights has some comments to make on third reading on Bill 29.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to put on the record that I support Bill 29, the engineers and geoscientist act and that this bill, which has all-party support, I think is a positive step. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Speaker: The question for the House is Bill 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 30, The Architects Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my support for this legislation. The legislation provides an update in the framework of legislation dealing with architects in this province and is an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third reading of Bill 30, The Architects Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

An Honourable Member: Make it unanimous, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous? Unanimous. [interjection] No, not unanimous.

* (15:00)

Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading Bill 23, The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act. I think this act is an attempt by government to give some consolation to those people who are concerned about the livestock industry and how the fertilizer that has generated on these farms is used. The fertilizer produced on farms today is, in my view, still one of the most environmentally accepted product and friendly product to Mother Nature and the earth that we have ever seen produced in this province and anywhere else in the world. I believe natural products are and should be accepted as natural products and should be couched in the environmental way in which the good Lord intended plant food to be manufactured.

That does not take away from the commercial aspects of nutrient development, which is, in large part, either mined out of the ground, which is a natural product, or developed out of the air, such as nitrates and water and many other products that are used. However, for some reason, in this province, we have allowed the special interest groups, such as the animal rights people, to try and convince the general public that the most natural products, fertilization products, are to be feared.

I always look at the debate. I listen very carefully when we talk about Walkerton, Ontario, and the difficulty Walkerton had with their water supply. All of us are in agreement that, when you have treatment facilities and water that you use in your communities that needs to be treated, when it is drawn from such areas as we do in the Red River Valley from the Red River, that you must ensure, that governments must ensure that societies are protected, and so it is that we see before this House today a bill that many have called the manure bill. I talk about the attempt by this Government to try and allay the fears that many have developed because of the debate and discussion around Walkerton.

I think it is unfortunate that we try and attempt to paint our farmers in a manner that I believe this bill does, that we try and paint them into a box that would appear to be environmentally unfriendly, that we try and constantly identify farmers as being irresponsible. The connotations of this bill clearly lead one to believe that this Government is guilty of that.

I, for one, happen to believe that our farmers are the most environmentally friendly group of people in this province. These people not only depend on Mother Nature, these people depend on clean water supplies. These people depend on a natural earth. These people depend on sunshine and rain at the right time. In other words, they depend on the Lord's good action to be able to allow them to continue in their profession, and yet we, as a government, continually cast shadow of doubt on these people that are the food producers of the world.

Why is that? Why do we do that? Why do we want to draft legislation that not only confirms that shadow of a doubt but actually perpetrates it? Why do we do this?

When you look at the word as prescribed in this act, and I am going to spend a bit of time on this act, it is called The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act. This bill has nothing to do with pesticides, does it? This amendment has nothing to do with pesticides. It deals strictly with manure. This is all about animal waste.

It starts off with saying that P40 is amended, The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act, in section 1. It deals with the definitions, and it deals with "commercial manure applicator."

Can anyone in this Chamber identify for me or stand up and tell me what his or her version might be of a manure applicator? What is it? [interjection] I know the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) says Jack Penner, but–

An Honourable Member: No, I did not.

Mr. Jack Penner: Oh, maybe it was his partner right next door that I heard. But I would suspect that maybe they are too involved in the actual meaning of the word "manure." But the commercial applicator as far as this act determines what the definition might be, it means a person who transports manure or applies it to land for a fee, charge or other valuable consideration. Then the definition of "manure" is, it "means feces and urine from livestock and includes associated bedding, unconsumed feed and wastewater."

Then it talks about the definition of the "manure management plan." Well, "manure management plan," it says, "means a manure management plan within the meaning of the regulation under The Environment Act." Can anybody tell me what the definition is under The Environment Act? Well, we will have to look, will we not, because it appears to me that this Government in drafting this bill really wanted to identify what we were dealing with.

Manure management planner: What is the definition of a "manure management planner"? It "means a person who designs manure management plans for a fee, charge or other valuable consideration." That is a manure management planner. "'Off-farm manure applicator' means a person whose livestock production operation produces more than a prescribed amount of a prescribed kind of manure." What is a prescribed amount? Can anyone of you answer that? What is a prescribed kind of a manure? What is it? I know there are some members in here who say, well, it has to do with the fork. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the fork; it is what you put on the fork.

I would suspect that it is "a group of persons (i) whose livestock production operations combined produced more than a prescribed amount of a prescribed kind of a manure, and (ii) who in partnership or some other combination, intend to apply any of the manure to land that they do not own or lease, without using a commercial manure applicator to apply it." In other words, this bill almost sounds like you are going to force all the little guys who are into livestock production who do not own enough land to hire a commercial applicator and to force him into the cost of hiring a manure planner.

* (15:10)

Now, why are we doing this? Are we now afraid? Have we ever said to farmers before that before you apply commercial fertilizer to your farm, you are going to have to hire a commercial planner? Is that what we have said before? Never. Never in the history of this province have we said to farmers you are going to have to hire a commercial fertilizer planner for your farm. But here we are forcing farmers to hire a commercial planner, a manure planner. I find it hard to believe that this Government would try and foist additional costs on the small livestock operators of this province.

Then the definition of a person. Do you know that "'a person' means an individual, corporation, cooperative and partnership"? That is the definition of a person under this act. I have never thought that we would have a co-operative designated as a person or defined as a person, but it does under this act.

The following then is added after subsection 2(2): The commercial manure applicator to obtain a licence. Now I think we are getting to the real part of this bill. This is a money grab. This is a money grab by the Province. This Premier (Mr. Doer) needs more money to balance his books. So he is going after now the farmer, going after the farmer to get them to buy a licence. This part of the act says: "No person shall act as a commercial manure applicator unless he or she obtains a licence from the minister for that purpose." So that means my neighbour, who owns 80 acres of land and a barn and buys a manure applicator, cannot now go and spread manure for his neighbour, cannot do that any more unless he obtains a licence.

Now, why must he obtain a licence? Is it because we are concerned that he will damage the environment? I do not think so. This act does not say that. This act talks about the need for the Government to have money. They need more money, so where do they go? Then we sell licences. A nice way to grab some more money, to license all the manure applicators, the manure spreaders in this province.

Then it says: "No off-farm manure applicator shall apply manure to land that he or she does not own or lease." So that means that if you have a manure applicator and your neighbour comes along and says, would you come spread my manure for me so I can fertilize my field with natural fertilizers, you cannot do it. This says no off-farm manure applicator shall apply manure to land that he or she does not own or cause manure to be applied unless the person applying the manure holds an off-farm manure applicator's licence. Again, there is the money grab.

We are now going to license my little guy down the street, who has made a living up till now from a bit of custom work that they do, as we do with swathers. If a neighbour owns a good swather, he goes and helps his neighbour, charges a small fee for it and earns a bit of off-farm income to support his family. Are we next going to license all the swathers? It appears that way to me. It appears that we are going to put licences on every cultivator, on every mower, on every sickle, on every seeder, on every manure applicator in this province. That is what is coming.

The little farmers better be ready because this Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), our Minister of Agriculture, has indicated very clearly that her Government's policy is to support and encourage the little farmer to seek off-farm employment and income to supplement his or her income that they can actually survive and raise a family in this province, but this Government says, ho, we want in on the action too, we want a little piece of the pie. We want a licence fee. So we want a little piece of the pie, Mr. Speaker, just a little bit, because this NDP government does not believe that anybody in this province should be able to make any kind of money off the farm without the Government at least getting a portion for a licence.

Now, then, they amend this fertilizer and pesticides management act by saying a manure management planner must be qualified. What are the qualifications of a manure management planner? First of all, we have never seen or heard of a manure management planner before, but now we are going to be required to hire these people. Now what are the educational requirements for a manure management planner?

An Honourable Member: He would have to have a BS.

Mr. Jack Penner: The honourable Minister for Family Services (Mr. Sale) said he has to have a BS. Well, I do not know whether the honourable minister is actually suggesting that that BS should be interpreted as stuff that falls out of the back of a bull or not, but if he is, then I think he has just demonstrated the frivolousness with which this bill was drafted. I think this is an indication clearly that this Government has really not paid much attention, and it has really nothing to do with protecting the environment or protecting people from livestock production, but it has everything to do with making sure that this Government is exercising its control of the agricultural industry and the agricultural sector and indeed the livestock industry in this province. I think that is what this bill is really all about. It is control. This is a control bill. It says here: "No person shall act as a manure management planner unless he or she has the qualifications prescribed by the regulations" under this act.

Now I have asked the minister whether this means that the manure planner must have a university degree in manure management, and I do not know whether there is such a degree, but maybe they will invent one. I think they were probably in the stages of development on inventing a manure management planning degree.

An Honourable Member: They might drop basket weaving.

Mr. Jack Penner: They might drop, as the honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has just said, basket weaving as a criterion.

But I would suspect that the real reason is this Government is out of money and they are not going to be able to take more than $300 million or $400 million out of Hydro because the general public will revolt. They have tried taking money out of Autopac and the people revolted. They have tried taking money out of Workers Comp to build hockey arenas. I think the people will revolt when they see the 13% increase in fees that they are foisting upon the employees and the employers of this province on Workers Comp. For 10 years the Workers Comp fees have come down. This year, the second year after a socialist government, all the fees are going up. I believe that this is clearly a demonstration of the depth of mismanagement that we have seen in this past two years of a socialist government and how socialists love to spend money.

* (15:20)

This is without question an attempt to deal with the most environmentally friendly material that we can produce on the farm to supplement the nutrient values in our soil and produce crops where you really use the whole cyclical wheel to generate incomes and to produce food. Can you imagine a fruit producer not having to go to the store to buy fertilizer, but to have a little barn on his farm on every quarter section that would raise enough natural fertilizer to spread on his land? Can you look at the environment and how kindly we would be treating the environment? Look at how kindly we would be treating the soil, returning everything to Mother Nature that came out of the soil. That is what we are doing. That is what farmers do when they put their manure back on their land.

This bill identifies what manure really means. This bill has a section in it that prescribes manure, and it talks about manure, and the actual pesticides act describes what is contained under this bill. I find it interesting that this bill is even necessary, except for the money grab, because, under the fertilizer and pesticides management act, it clearly describes fertilizer as nitrates, phosphates, potassium and other nutrient products contained in product applied to the soil. Well, how better would you describe manure? It is made of nitrates, of phosphates, of potassium, of irons and zincs and all those kind of minor nutrients that are virtually a total fertilizer for the soil, and yet this Government wants to make it appear as if we are dealing with a dangerous, dangerous product when it is one of the most environmentally friendly products that we could use to raise crops in this province.

I also want to deal with section 2.1, where it says a manure management planner must be qualified: "No person shall act as a manure management planner unless he or she has the qualifications prescribed by the regulations," as I said. Then it goes on to say, under section (a) of 2.1: "at any reasonable time and without warrant, enter any business premises, or any premises where the inspector has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the business records are kept, and examine and make copies of such of the following as the inspector reasonably requires to determine the compliance of this Act or the regulations."

Now, this part of the act allows, without warrant, the inspector to enter a place of residence or business to inspect the books, the records, registers or documents concerning the supply, sale, distribution or use of pesticides or fertilizers, books, records, registers or documents concerning the supply, sale or transportation of manure or its application to the land. This simply means that the manure that these people have been dealing with for many years is now going to be designated as commodities that are going to be applicable to the laws of the land as far as transportation is concerned and licensing requirements, and that this will now be deemed a dangerous product because, under the fertilizers and pesticides management act, fertilizers such as ammonia or chemicals are deemed dangerous products. So now we are bringing this product under that similar act.

The following is added after clause 4: the inspector can "stop and inspect any vehicle or enter and inspect any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is pesticide, fertilizer, manure or another thing in respect of which this Act applies." Drivers in vehicles must stop, it says, "when an inspector signals or requests a person driving a vehicle to stop, and the person shall immediately bring the vehicle to a stop and shall not proceed until permitted to do so by the inspector." Here is where the authority of big government, which this NDP government really loves, this is where the authority of the big arm, the heavy hand of government comes into play. When an inspector signals, the person driving a vehicle must come to a stop and the person shall immediately bring the vehicle to a stop and shall not proceed until permitted to do so by the inspector. I think it is worth repeating.

Then clause 5(4) deals with pesticides or fertilizers and substituting pesticides and fertilizers and adding manure. Then pesticides or fertilizers or contained a residue of pesticides or fertilizers and substituting that, and again adding manure.

I think where we need to pay some close attention to is section 6 of this bill and clause 5, and it talks about permits. Here now we have licences and permits are next. "In special circumstances, the minister may issue an unlicenced person a permit." In other words, it appears that every farmer in Manitoba now that has livestock, every small little farmer will have to go to the minister and ask for permission, because that is what a permit really is. It is asking for permission, can I or can I not, and again, the heavy hand of government. The heavy hand of socialistic direction and dictation is coming down in this bill on our farmers.

Now section 8 is amended "by striking out everything after this Act" and is replacing the clause, and it says respecting the issue of licences, the term of licences and the suspension or cancellation of the licensing and "providing for (i) the form of application for licences including the information to be contained in documentation required to accompany applications." That means that every farmer will now have to develop a manure management plan and provide all the documentation to the minister. Every year the farmer will have to apply and make sure that he identifies exactly what he is spreading.

I know the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) always likes to talk about the spreading of manure, and he is certainly not licensed to do that. Yet he continually tries to apply those principles in this House without licence. I know the Speaker many times must warn him that he is without licence, trying to exercise his rights in this House. I think we should make very sure that there is not an inordinate amount of substance applied in this House that need not be here.

I would suggest that, in respect of the licensing, "the form of application for licences including the information to be contained in the documentation required to accompany applications" and to "qualifications that a person must have to obtain and maintain a licence." Now what does this mean to the little farmer? What does this mean to the farmer that has traditionally had a manure spreader, spread manure for his neighbours? Would you deem him qualified or would you not, or does this mean that he has to now attend a place of higher learning such as maybe a university to obtain a manure-spreading degree, or what does this really mean?

* (15:30)

Because prescribing the qualifications that are required of manure management planners, I mean, just listen to this. Prescribing the qualifications. That is what this–[interjection] Oh, and the minister of highways says I think it stinks. He is not the only one that thinks this. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, many of the farmers in this province are applying the same principles that they think the smell coming out of this bill is relatively high, and I believe that the minister of highways is correct in saying that the degree of the absence of good perfume in this bill is sincerely lacking. I would suspect–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I did say from my seat that it stinks, but I was actually referring to the member's speech, not the bill.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Jack Penner: There is one thing I can take as being rather lighthearted in this Chamber. I do not think any one of our members ever has indicated to any member of government or member opposite that their speeches stink. I think it is unfortunate. I think it is unfortunate that the minister of highways would use that kind of language in this House to describe a presentation made by one of his colleagues.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I had caused such great offence. My comments were actually made, it was the member who was quoting me, from my seat in regard to the bill. First of all, I was not saying that the bill stank, and if the member takes great offence to this, I will apologize and withdraw that comment.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that withdrawal.

Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much. I respect the honourable minister for standing and withdrawing that statement, because, in this Chamber, I believe everybody has the right to describe or to use language that is acceptable to everybody else in this House. So I accept the terms that the minister has used.

I want to read out of the bill, chapter P40, The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Act. I want to read the definition of fertilizer. "'Fertilizer' means any substance, or mixture or substances containing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, or other plant food, manufactured, sold or represented for use as a plant nutrient."

I think therein lies our whole problem with this bill. Manure is the natural component of the proscriptive language used in describing under Definitions of the act that this Act is going to amend, that 23 is going to amend, what manure really is. It is a fertilizer. It is a substance containing nitrogen, containing phosphorus and potassium and other plant food in its totality. I think you would be hard pressed to find a better nutrient for plants than manure.

So I make the case, were it not for the licensing provision, were it not for the money grab of the licensing provision, were it not for the authoritative approach that the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his ministers are using to define a manure spreader, a manure applicator or a manure planner and applying the licence fee to them, this bill is not necessary, because all of the proscriptive requirements that the Government needs to devise regulation are already contained in The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Act without amending it. It is all there.

So this is either nothing more than a money grab or it is a frivolous attempt to exercise and bring into being the force of the heavy hand of government. I suggest to this Government, if they use these kinds of tactics and these kinds of actions too often, you will create an uncompetitive environment in this province, in this province's agricultural community, the likes of which we have not seen before. We are already seeing this happen.

I found it very interesting when the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) came back from Halifax and said she would not support the farm program that had been discussed in Halifax. That is entirely up to her. I mean, that will relegate, Mr. Speaker, our farmers in this province as 60% farmers. The Premier of this province has called our Prime Minister a 60% Prime Minister. I say to this province, to this Premier that he is relegating our farmers to 60% farmers.

The other aspect of the program as to what is being proposed by Ottawa is a simple attempt to foist significant costs, further costs in the long term by including the environmental requirements, the environmental planning, the management training and the management requirements under the new farm plan. The long-term effects of that agricultural plan will hit the pocketbooks of the farmers of Manitoba in a hard way, because this is only a two-year attempt, some of it five-year attempt, to bring some compensation, but many parts of this new bill are designed to foist new costs on the farm community.

I say to every member in this House that the end result will be higher costs and without question a higher degree of expenditures incurred. If we do not bring our farmers in line with the cost of production that other provinces have, we will be non-competitive in this field.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the time that you have allotted to me to make some comments on The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act. I truly respect the fact that we do have a chance as legislators to speak about these things and put our thoughts on the record, because this, again, is a bill that will add more costs to the production of food in this province. I believe that this Government at some time must realize that the farmers have only so much ability to pay.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should say I am pleased to stand up to speak to this bill or whether I am almost embarrassed to speak to it because of the nature of this piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I think it is important on behalf of the constituents that I represent and the many rural people in Manitoba that I need to put some comments on the record as they relate to this particular piece of legislation.

* (15:40)

Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that a government would come in with legislation for people who spread manure on land. We have some custom manure spreaders there because we do raise a lot of livestock in my constituency. When I told them about this piece of legislation, they would not believe me. They said there cannot be such a thing. I said, well, there is, and now you are going to have to apply for a licence in order for you to be able to haul the manure out of my cattle shelters onto my land.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I mean, I think we have much more important things to do as relates to representing our constituents here in the Legislature than to deal with issues like the application of manure onto the fields of farmers on behalf of farmers.

If every farmer were to buy a manure-spreading outfit, that means that they would be able to go out and spread the manure without a licence. But because we hire somebody who has made a business, who is contributing to the economy of rural Manitoba, who is raising his family on the money that he is earning from this business, we are now saying to this individual you are really not qualified until you have a licence. What is this licence going to do for this individual? I would imagine that he will have to put on his resume when he applies for application of manure of a farmer that he is a licensed manure applicator.

How trivial are we going to become in the province of Manitoba? If I presented this to any other jurisdiction in Canada, they would say what is this all about. But here in Manitoba, we think that an important way for us to try to control the activities of rural Manitobans is to force them into licensing of every activity of their lives. This is not about development. This is not about economic development in the province of Manitoba, in rural Manitoba. This is about control. This is about regulation. This is about regulating and controlling the people who try to make an honest living in the province of Manitoba. I wonder what the agenda of this Government is all about. Who does this appeal to?

The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) talks about the environment. If they were really serious about the environment, then why on earth did they do away with the Round Table for Sustainable Development? Why on earth did they do away with the round table that had representation from every group in society? Every group in society was represented on the round table for environment and sustainable development. They are the people who reached out to ordinary Manitobans and came back to the round table with their ideas. They are the people who came back with ideas about the guidelines that we put in place for livestock management in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, the guidelines are still the best in Canada and, I would venture to say, almost in North America. We have never found guidelines that are better. They were not done by government. They were not done by some bureaucrat sitting in an office or by a minister with his staff in an office who decided that this is what we will do for the province of Manitoba.

It was done by ordinary people who came from all walks of life, who got together around a table and who brought their ideas forward. From that emerged a set of guidelines that are still unsurpassed in Canada.

So what does this Government do? It abolishes the Round Table for Sustainable Development and the environment. This was an advisory body to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of Conservation, to the minister of economic development, to the Minister of Education–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker, this province stood very tall in the eyes of the world when it came to the way it addressed environment issues.

What is this Government's response to that? It is to abolish that process. It is to abolish that input that was received by government from ordinary Manitobans from all walks of life, experts in various fields. Those were not politically chosen people. You look at the round table, and I would daresay that there were as many people who had NDP memberships as there were that had Conservative memberships. There were also people on that round table who did not have a political membership, who were only interested in the well-being of our province. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government did away with it.

Now the Minister of Agriculture, in her wisdom, comes forward with a bill that is going to license manure spreaders. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is going to benefit by this? Does the farmer benefit by this, and if he does, will the minister stand up in her place and say how the farmer will benefit by this? Will the residents in an area benefit by it, and, if they will, will the minister stand in her place and tell us how members of society will benefit by this bill?

The only people who will benefit by this is a greedy government that wants to have its hands in the pockets of every person in the province. Those are the only people who will benefit by it. Because of their insatiable spending appetite, these people want to have a piece of revenue out of every possible sector that they can. That just demonstrates their lust for money because they cannot control their spending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have definitions here. We have a definition for a manure management plan. Well, that definition came from the guidelines that were established by our Government. They came from the round table. They came from people who advised us what a manure management plan should be. Then they have a definition for a manure management planner. This is an interesting definition, and I want to read it into the record because it means a person who designs manure management plans for a fee, charge or other valuable consideration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we have now is we are going to appoint a bureaucrat who is going to run around the province, another planner. You know, I remember the days when I took over the Department of Rural Development. We had more planners in that department than I think any other jurisdiction in Canada, and they were planning for the sake of planning. There was no development. It was all for the sake of planning. So we had to revamp the department to bring in some development. Now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen) brings back another group of planners, and now we have another level of planners who are going to tell farmers how to manage manure. Now, I daresay that none of these people will have had any experience in manure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you imagine? Here I am a livestock producer. I have been dealing with manure on my farm since I have had livestock, and I think we try to deal with it on an annual basis. We spread it on the land because it is good fertilizer. Why do we spread it on the land? We spread it on the land because it is good fertilizer. It is organic. Well, now I am going to have a manure management planner, and he is going to come to my farm and he is going to tell me how to plan my manure distribution on my farm. I hope he brings a shovel with him.

Can you see what we have degenerated to in this House? We are now going to hire people who are going to tell us how to spread our manure. Well, that is going to be interesting. I am going to wait for the response that we get from our farm community out there who have for years, by their experience, gained in expertise on how much manure to put on their fields so that they get the utmost benefit out of it.

* (15:50)

Nobody puts manure on their land to hurt their land or to hurt the water in their area. I mean, we all use water. On my farm, we depend very heavily on clean water for our livestock. We depend very heavily on ensuring that the fertilizer from the manure is used in the most efficient way, so that it does the best for growing forages or growing crops. I do not need a bureaucrat coming out to my farm to tell me how I should spread my manure.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us just wait. I hear the banter going here. We have the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale), the expert. He has never lived on a farm, but he is going to tell us who live on a farm how we should spread our manure. He is going to tell us on the farm how we are polluting the water table. Well, if he is going to talk about water pollution, all he has to do is stick his head in that pipe that comes out of the city of Winnipeg into the Red River, and he is going to see what pollution is all about.

An Honourable Member: You have got it. Dumping it right in the river.

Mr. Derkach: But that is a fact of life. We have urban centres that produce high quantities of effluent that they have to discharge somewhere. So there is a reason for us to have some control over the effluent that goes into our water streams. We want to have our water streams as pure as possible, yet we allow our cities to dump raw sewage into their water streams.

But on the other hand, how many farmers do we have in Manitoba?

An Honourable Member: Twenty thousand.

Mr. Derkach: Twenty thousand farmers. Well, we are now going to tell them from the city of Winnipeg and from the seats of the ministers of this province how they should spread the manure on their land because we think they are going to pollute the water. On the other hand, it does not matter what we dump into the Red River right here. We are not going to look after that because, after all, that is right in our backyard.

We have degenerated our debate in this House and our issues in this House to a level that I think we should all be embarrassed about. If we really wanted to be effective in the way in which manure is applied to our lands, let us bring in the people who understand how to distribute this manure on the land. Let us bring in the farm groups. What consultation was there with the farm groups on this bill? I have asked. Nobody seems to know anything about it. Nobody was ever consulted on it. Where did this come from? So who was consulted on this legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Then we go into the licensing. The guy or gal who is going to come out and spread the manure on the land now has to go to the municipal office or some jurisdiction, I am not sure, probably another bureaucrat, and is going to have to acquire a licence. Now what is this licence going to do for that individual? It is going to say that now you have the authority to go and spread manure.

An Honourable Member: Right. How much and where?

Mr. Derkach: And how much and where, he says. Now here is a real intelligent person from the city of Winnipeg. He says how much and where? Well, we are not going to spread it on the road allowance. We are not going to spread it in a slough.

An Honourable Member: Different types of soil–

Mr. Derkach: Oh, different types of soil, he says. He is getting more intelligent all the time. Now he is going to tell us what type of soil. If I asked him the types of soil in this province, he would not know. I will tell you who does know. It is the farmer who owns the land. He knows what type of soil he is living on. He knows that the soil is too porous to spread manure because he does not want his slough polluted. He does not want his well polluted. But oh, no. We in government are going to tell you where you should do it.

An Honourable Member: That is right.

Mr. Derkach: That is right, he says, because we know best. This is again the attitude of this Government. I think the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau) is displaying very well the attitude of this Government just like the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell), who says I know best, school divisions know nothing. Just like the minister responsible for Hydro, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) who says we know better than you at Manitoba Hydro. We will take $288 million to spend, but you have to pay not the $288 million but also the interest on it as well.

It just shows the heavy-handed approach that this Government is taking to dealing with issues in Manitoba. And this is not the Manitoba way. The Premier (Mr. Doer) was right when he said that school boundaries should not be amalgamated by force because that is not the Manitoba way. But then his words were lost on the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell).

Now we have a member who says how does this relate to the manure management bill. Well, I will tell you how it relates. It relates in this way. It is the heavy hand of government in every sector of our society in every way that people are involved.

Then I look at the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), the minister who loves gambling. Here is the minister who is in love with gambling. She is so in love with gambling that she promotes it through all kinds of advertisements. Although her own guidelines say that she will not advertise gambling, she does it. Then, when she is caught, she says, well, we will chalk it up to experience. She is a bad experience, all right.

It is just a typical example of how this Government conducts itself. This Government does not care about the people of our province because, if it did, it would not be coming up with ridiculous legislation like this. It would be working with the groups that are involved in the various sectors of our society. It would be asking them for advice. It would be asking their input into bringing forward legislation.

Who had input into this piece of legislation? I do not know if it is unparliamentary, but I would call this a piece of crap. If it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This piece of legislation does not do anything to improve the conditions of how we conduct our activities in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, a licence will do nothing for ensuring that the applicator of manure does it in an appropriate way. Do you know who will ensure that it is done in the most appropriate way? The person who owns the land. The person who conducts his activities in an appropriate way on the land. Whether it is a man or a woman, the owner of the land will ensure that land is treated with kindness, treated gently and treated appropriately so that the value of that land is enhanced and not diminished because that land is our investment. We want to be able to pass it on to future generations, whether they live in the cities or whether they live in the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not cease to amaze me that, every time we have bureaucrats coming out to our rural areas to tell rural people how to live, they leave the place in a worse condition than it was before they came.

Rural people understand the land. There are a lot of urban people who understand the land, and their input needs to be valued. Whether they come from the consumer groups, whether they come from the environmental groups, whether they come from other groups that have an interest in preserving the quality of our land, we should be listening to them, and that is why we had the Round Table for Sustainable Development and the environment. It was to bring people together.

It was also to educate our young people so that, when they become stewards of the land, of this beautiful province that we have, they will treat the land with respect as our forefathers did and our fathers did and as we do. So the educational component of the Round Table on environment and Sustainable Development was extremely important. We work with children in the schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can take you to projects out in rural Manitoba where young children involved in the enhancement of the environment should be applauded for what they have done, whether it is in their schoolyards, whether it is along riverbanks or whether it is in pastures or just in the Crown lands of our province.

There are examples where we could be proud of what young people have done, and they have done it because of the educational processes that we had in place through the Round Table on environment and Sustainable Development, so why did this Government do away with it? If it wanted to do something meaningful, rather than come in with legislation like this, which is really meaningless, they could have preserved that round table, yes, change the membership if you like, but my goodness' sake, leave it in place because that is the input that is so valuable to us as a province.

* (16:00)

Manitobans are not going to forgive this Government for taking that regressive step, and I think that will show in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I talk about stewards of the land, all of us as farmers, and I am a farmer, but those of us who have any ownership of land protect that piece of land that we have. I do not care whether it is a vast piece of land or whether it is a small piece of land. I look at, even in the city of Winnipeg, people who own a piece of land. Whether it is their front lawn or their backyard, they protect it. They protect it from trespassers. They protect it from being harmed because that is their piece of land. They are proud of it. They want to enhance it. They love it. They want their children to protect it as well.

When I look at this type of legislation, it does not really do anything for enhancing the quality of life in the province of Manitoba. All it does is provide more regulation by government on people who are trying to make an honest living in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are ordinary people who are struggling to make a living. They do not need to be saddled with another cost by government because they need a licence. That licence, although it is paid by the applicator, that cost is going to be passed on to whom? It is going to be passed on to the agricultural producer. That agricultural producer today is having enough difficulty surviving. There is enough difficulty in getting that cash flow so that that family can afford to put groceries on the table every month and they can afford to pay their bills every month.

Now they are being saddled with yet another cost, a cost forced onto them by a piece of legislation that is not necessary, because there are other ways. If there are issues here that have to be addressed, they can be addressed in other ways.

We, in our guidelines, put in place a system where people who had a number of livestock on their premises, and I think the number was 400–I have the former Minister of Agriculture beside me here, and he confirms that it is 400. If you had 400 animal units on your premises, you had to provide a manure management plan. So you had to provide a plan on how you were going to distribute this, not that anybody was going to come out and tell you how to do it. We assumed that the farmers of the land were intelligent enough that they could provide a manure management plan and then they followed it.

Now, if you want to have an inspector to go out there, if that is your desire, to see that the manure management plan is followed from time to time, do that. Work with the people in a co-operative way. If they are not following it, perhaps they need a little education; perhaps they need a little bit of guidance in how they could it better.

Use the people who are out there to help you carry out these initiatives rather than forcing them into a process that is not appreciated by anybody. This legislation will not be appreciated by anyone out in rural Manitoba. I can tell you that. All it is is another cumbersome piece of regulation that individuals have to be saddled with.

It is another cost of doing business. Business is tough enough in Manitoba, especially in rural Manitoba. We are seeing our small communities diminish. We are seeing populations in rural Manitoba go down. Why? Because it is harder and harder to make a living. This once again puts another unnecessary burden on people who are involved in the agricultural industry.

Whether we like it or not, the agriculture industry in our province is still a very fundamental and important industry. It is the foundation of this province.

An Honourable Member: So is water.

Mr. Derkach: Well, here we go again. Here is that farmer from Assiniboia who is going to tell us so is water. Well, does he think that a farmer does not respect the importance of clean water? I mean, the farmer, we use water more than for flushing. We do not buy bottled water off the shelf in rural Manitoba in most cases. Our wells are pure enough that we can drink the water out of our wells. As a farmer, I am not going to pollute that water that I am going to be drinking. [interjection]

Oh, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now here is the intelligence coming forth again. He says, well, how would you know? Well, because we get our water tested. The University of Manitoba provides us with little bottles that we send away to them, they test our water, and they tell us whether or not it is good for our babies, whether it is good for us to drink, whether it is good for our livestock. I mean, this is a no-brainer. Who wants to drink water that is polluted? Do you not think I would test the water that I drink? I mean, let us not be foolish about this.

An Honourable Member: What about Walkerton?

Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Walkerton water was managed by a community, by experts. It was not farm water. It was managed by a planner. A manure management plan and a manure spreading licence will not protect Walkerton. How could it?

Now, here is the member from Rossmere. We have the intelligence of Assiniboia. Now we have the intelligence of Rossmere. The intelligence of Rossmere tells me, what about Walkerton? Well, let me talk to you about Walkerton.

My farm has nothing to do with a community well. My farm has a well for the people who live on that farm. [interjection] I am getting so much chatter from over there, I am having difficulty concentrating. But, I can tell you that the water on a farmer's property is probably the most valuable resource that that farmer has because that water supplies water for the family, water for the livestock, water for washing. It is an important–

An Honourable Member: Sometimes irrigation.

Mr. Derkach: Irrigation, that is right, sometimes irrigation. It is a very valuable resource.

But what happens is members like the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau) and others over there do not understand that. They do not have any concept of that. Why? Because they have never had to pay for a well. They have never had to pay for a water system on a farm. Their water system comes from the city of Winnipeg, so they pay a bill every three months for water, which is cheaper than anything I have seen, but they want to tell farmers how to deal with their water situation, farmers who depend on it and pay for it, because if I polluted my well, I know the cost that it would be. It is not a cost of $500 or $600. The cost of $10,000 for a well is probably what the average cost is of making sure that you have a clean water supply, and my colleague probably could tell us better.

So we are treating people out in rural Manitoba, this Government is treating people out in rural Manitoba as though they are second-class citizens who do not know anything, who do not know anything about pollution, who do not know anything about preserving the environment, and they are going to tell rural people how it should be done, the Member for Assiniboia, the Member for Rossmere.

I am hoping and I am confident that the Member for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers) knows better. I think he knows better, and I do not know how he can sit in his place and accept this kind of legislation. But he does not have a lot of input because he is sitting up in the third row. Maybe someday he will get down to the front bench, but we are not sure about that.

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker–[interjection] Here we go, the bungler. Here is the bungler talking again. She knows it all. I mean, she not only bungled MPI and the Workers Compensation Board and Labour, and now her legislation is having an impact on what is going on in Gimli. That is the approach that she takes to rural people. She knows it all.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I smart? No, but I know enough that when you empower people, ordinary people, ordinary Manitobans, they will make the decisions. They will make the right decisions. It is not legislation like this that is going to make our province a better place to live in. This is not legislation that is going to enhance the quality of life out in rural Manitoba. [interjection]

The Member for Dauphin says it sure is. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the Member for Dauphin how it is that he thought the round table on environment and sustainable development was a detriment to this province and why his Government chose to do away with it, because this was a round table that had input from every sector of our society. It was a round table that had influence on people whom it touched. It had influence on government, and when we came out with decisions based on the round table discussions, they were good decisions. They were sound. They were accepted by people in Manitoba. They were what people in Manitoba wanted.

* (16:10)

The problem with this Government is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they do not know what Manitobans want. They are out of touch with what rural people and Manitobans want, and they do things that they want to do. They think they have the answers. Well, I have news for them. They do not have the answers. You do not know what Manitobans want. This is not what Manitobans want. The piecemeal approach to amalgamation is not what Manitobans want. The trustees have spoken. They said this is not the legislation we need.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not just this piece of legislation, but other pieces of legislation that we are seeing before this House today are a reflection of this Government's heavy-handed approach to the sectors within our society. It shows this Government's lack of attention to people who live in this province, because it feels it has all the answers. It feels it knows better than people in this province.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having said those few things about this piece of legislation, if the minister is listening, I am hoping that she will think once again about what she has brought forward, and that she will, with some intelligence, at least pull this bill and table it for another time and revisit the whole initiative by going out and consulting with groups, whether it is with KAP, whether it is with Farmers' Union, whether it is with producer groups such as the Canola producers, the livestock producers, the cattleman's association, the hog producers, the chicken producers, the turkey producers. By consulting with those people, she will find that this is not the kind of legislation that is going to enhance the quality of life in this province.

So I cannot help but say that this is simply a piece of trash, and it should find its way into the trash can, because that is the most appropriate place for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): I am deeply troubled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I listened to my good colleagues who have just made excellent speeches on this matter, and they are not to be faulted. They are not to be faulted for not understanding the legislation. They believe, like most honourable members, certainly on this side, believe that, when a government brings in a piece of legislation, it has specific aims and goals that it wishes to achieve. It wants to reach out to a particular community and accomplish something.

I want to tell you that, as I have been listening to this, and I have been reading the bill, this bill has nothing to do with farmers, has nothing to do with agriculture. This is the cynical attempt by this Government to know exactly what they are doing. They are talking to the eco-terrorists, to the Hog Watch people, to, regrettably, the majority of people, that, quite frankly, as we know, and some of us in rural Manitoba know, may seriously impact on the coming municipal elections this fall, for much the same reason. This bill is designed simply to meet the fear that the fearmongers have spread with respect to the hog industry because, as has been pointed out by my colleague from Emerson, my colleague from Russell, and I, as the last Minister of Agriculture in place, who knows, and I had the assistance of colleagues to draw up these guidelines, these legislations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is not a hog barn that gets off the drawing board without satisfying the government-appointed–what did we call them?–the technical review committee that consists of experts from the agriculture, has water people on it, has planning people on it, that does not have to have, as my colleague just pointed out, a whole farm manure management plan that spells out exactly how this manure is going to be spread over, and that person has to have sufficient acreage, if the barn is for a certain size, for a certain number of hogs, have certain acreage.

What is so absolutely silly about the bill? I mean, they talk about establishing manure management planners. Nobody, other than the farmer, who knows what the seeding intentions are going to be, can determine what manure is going to be applied in a responsible way. Nobody can, no bureaucrat, and to have to pay somebody a fee for that, because that will change from year to year, from crop to crop. Different crops require different nutrients.

Responsible farmers, part of the farm management plan is it starts early on. It starts with taking soil samples to determine what nutrients you have in your soil. Then you determine, okay, what am I going to plant in that quarter section. This, you are going to teach? This, you are going to teach to a farm manure management planner? C'est impossible. It is so patently different that it draws to one conclusion. They are not concerned about that. The fact that they caused some additional costs to the farmers, they are not concerned about that. None of this, none of this is directed at the problem of manure disposal, manure distribution. This is all being directed so they have that feel good, comfy feeling to those who are concerned about the growing livestock industry's problems, but this Government is looking after it.

Regrettably, it is much like our federal government's efforts. It has support and it has divided the people of Canada, quite frankly, as Bill C-68, the gun control bill. The gun control bill that we have passed that is now costing us close to a billion dollars, close to a billion dollars, has only 2 million of the 16 million firearms registered as yet. Think about that for a moment.

It does not impact for a moment on the criminal that is going to use a gun for violent purposes. Certainly, Winnipeg, still holding the record as the murder capital of the nation, we have small comfort. Nobody in their right mind, and I look at all the members, knows that Bill C-68, in any way, has anything to do with reducing violence by guns. It is catering to the good politics, the smart little spin doctors waved around and said: Hey, this will go well in Montreal, this will go well in Vancouver and in Winnipeg and Toronto. It has nothing to do with crime control. It has nothing to do with reducing violence by guns, but it makes for good politics.

That is what this Bill 23 is. It has nothing to do with agriculture, nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with politics. It is a shame to do something for a problem that in fact does not exist. When I say it does not exist, it really does not exist.

Members will recall that on several occasions, and certainly during the course of the examination of the Estimates of the Minister of Conversation (Mr. Lathlin), I made a point. I, in fact, had research, asked for and was provided by the department for, for instance, all the water problems that we had that occurred in Manitoba in the last year. There were at the last count, over the last 12 months, some 36. Surprisingly, I had about 8 or 9 of them in my constituency.

There were schools. There were towns. Right now we have a boil advisory in the Birds Hill area. We have a boil advisory in the East St. Paul area, I believe. I made a specific point of asking the minister and asking officials. In any one of these instances where we have had a water polluting problem in Manitoba, has there been an incident that could be traced to agricultural production? The answer is, not one. I want to repeat that. Not one, not once.

The pollution has in the main been caused, regrettably to say, by domestic problems. Too many septic tanks in a smaller-town community where they begin to have problems; other things, like wildlife. In the Birds Hill situation, it was just too many Canada geese; the Whitewater Lake, my colleague from Turtle Mountain reminds me, and we have these situations.

* (16:20)

I have had, as much as they are admired for a period of time, well up to a hundred Canada geese on my front lawn; but I must tell you after a while, and particularly when you realize that you are going to be the one that is going to be cutting a lawn mower behind them, you wish that great Canadian emblem would waft its way upwards north to Churchill, and we will welcome them back in the fall.

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point that I am making is, and that, again, shows the cynicism of this bill. I never was a stickler for detail, but then some of my colleagues are. They noticed I was holding up a Hansard instead of the bill. I go for the effect, you see.

If, in fact, out of those 36-40 situations where in Manitoba manure was specifically responsible for serious ground water pollution, if we had even now this year with the serious flooding that we have in the southeast part of Manitoba, where, I might remind you, you recall, a great number, upwards to 70 percent of the province's livestock is raised, all forms of livestock, from dairy to poultry to hogs and cattle, again, even with the flooding that we have had, flash flooding that we have had, the torrential rains that we have had, certainly people are well advised to check their water supplies and no doubt they will be doing it. There will be a lot of testing going on in that area.

But agricultural contamination is not the problem. Agricultural contamination of our water supplies is not the problem throughout Manitoba,. So where does the urgency come from this bill? That of course explains another reason. This bill was not born out of consultations with farm organizations, with different commodity organizations involved. There is none of that.

In fact, all of them expressed, my colleague and deskmate says, you know, total surprise, in fact unbelief that this kind of legislation was coming forward, but I know why it is coming forward. It is cynicism at its height. It has nothing to do with protection of the environment, absolutely nothing. That is the trouble. That is where he does not stand.

Just as Bill C-68 has nothing to do with crime control, it plays well if you want to fearmonger and if you want to point fingers at an industry that needs a lot of help and does not need this kind of action from any government.

This is the kind of legislation that another government will repeal as soon as they get into office. I can guarantee you that. I plan on being there to help them make sure that happens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member for Virden–[interjection]–Arthur-Virden.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Yes, I am from Arthur-Virden. I would have to rise today to speak and put a few words on this Bill 23 that has come before the Legislature. One could say that it has something to do with The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act, the title of this bill that has come forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), but I do not even think she has any feeling or understanding that she actually brought this bill forward to try to deal with those topics.

It is certainly not to help agriculture or diversify rural Manitoba or, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen) would say, to encourage rural development. This kind of a bill does not do any of that. It has been pointed out very clearly. The Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has just pointed out that this bill has nothing to do with agriculture and everything to do with placating the government of the day's support in some of the areas that they feel are being neglected.

I would even go so far as to say that I have heard the members opposite today, the government members, say that this bill would have something to do with Walkerton. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that licencing manure spreaders is going to do very much to prevent happenings like Walkerton. In fact, it will do nothing to prevent those kinds of things from happening.

Those kinds of happenings occurred mainly because proper procedures were not followed in the kinds of enforcement and administration in regard to the water control in those areas. If I could say one thing about my colleagues, the farmers of Manitoba, and, indeed, the farmers of all of Canada and the world, they are stewards of the water and the land that they farm. They have to be. That has been pointed out by some of our members and colleagues here today as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, why would a farmer do anything in his operation to jeopardize his family or his existence in a farming operation by not doing the proper thing with water? If the members had lived in a rural community for any more than a day, they would understand that.

Let us go back to biblical times. Basically water is the staff of life. All people in rural areas understand that water is the most important issue and most important life item on their operations, not for their own families, but also for the livestock that they raise.

I would daresay that the members across the floor in the Government today could debate the issue of the importance of water. The purity of that water has been raised in this House a number of times. I would say that if the Minister of Agriculture was really concerned about these kinds of issues that she would have already found some definition in regard to the kinds of issues that they are talking about in the agricultural policy framework in Ottawa and actually put some teeth to things like environmental management and the biodiversity and the food safety issues as far as those three pillars that she is talking about in the agricultural policy framework instead of bringing forth a bill like this that puts more costs on farmers.

I mean, let us face it, this is a hidden tax. It is part of the hidden agenda of this Government. You know, on one hand, they say they have reduced taxes, but, on the other hand, they have taken in more rate increases and fee increases and hidden taxes than they have saved from any of the small areas of tax reductions that they think they have brought forward.

I have to go back for a moment and just say that if government members knew anything about agriculture they would say that clearly farm families need to make sure that they have purification of their water supplies and that they would be the stewards of sound manure management practices in this kind of a bill. It is not just about children and family members or about being able to utilize water for some of the other purposes that they would have in their households but also for the livestock that they produce. If they really wanted to get technical about it, why would this Government not talk about the importance of water for rate of gain in our livestock today?

I daresay many of the members in the House today on the government side would not know the difference if I mentioned that the rate of gain for an average steer was one pound or five pounds. I do not think it really is very significant to most members of the Government today in Manitoba.

If you were looking at an average rate of gain of a steer as being somewhere in the 2.5 pounds a day rate of gain and you were able to increase that to 2.7, that would be a 10% increase. Any time you can get a 10% increase in productivity in your livestock operation you would be there with bells on to try and capture that advantage in livestock development in the province today.

* (16:30)

Now, that can be achieved. Those kinds of rates of gain can be achieved just because you are utilizing a pure water system or a clean water system in your livestock operations today as opposed to, say, allowing cattle to drink out of sloughs or ponds that might be stagnant from sitting out in the open for days and weeks on end in hot weather where they go stagnant. Of course, these are concerns of all of these people in rural areas today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to referring to this bill and say, you know, I was traveling around my constituency over the long weekend, Canada Day celebrations throughout the area, and you have absolutely got a problem when you go to a baseball tournament on the 1st of July and somebody starts talking to you about a fertilizer management bill. I would use those terminologies because that is not what is being used in the country to refer to this bill. It purely is a four-letter word that the producers and citizens of rural Manitoba are using in regard to this bill, and they see this as total nonsense, as total restriction on their ability to make a living and their ability to have a viable future. I have stated very, very clearly many times in this House, not just today, but in other presentations, that they are the stewards of their operations and want to make sure that any kinds of processes that they use on their operations are done correctly and are done properly the first time around, because they are the ones that are impacted directly if these kinds of processes are not followed. It is common-sense guidelines that people would use in regard to the distribution of manure in their management of their operations.

However, I do want to say, I just want to put it on the record as well, that this bill, as was mentioned by the member from Emerson, is not needed at all in the Legislature of Manitoba for the Minister of Agriculture to do what she is attempting to do with this particular bill. She does not need to bring in this kind of a bill and specify manure as a participant under pesticides and fertilizers in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that is already what that product is. It is fertilizer, and it can be utilized without bringing this kind of a bill forward.

Rural communities and rural citizens are looking at this bill and saying why would we have to pay a fee to spread manure on our neighbour's land. Why would you want to take a custom applicator and charge them a fee for spreading manure on a neighbouring field that is a neighbour of the actual farmer that you are buying the manure from or spreading the manure for, I should say, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is seen as a restriction. Certainly no farmer is going to double and triple or quadruple the amount of fertilizer or the product that they need on that soil. Depending on the type of manure, it can actually become a problem in tillage management on an operation if it is put on too thick, never mind the fact that it would be a product that would allow for forced crops to lodge if put on in too heavily a manner.

I guess I would also look at this bill, and I would say I know there is some differentiation in the size of operations that are out there today that would be impacted by this and that the minister is trying to reduce the impact of this bill by saying that it is only those persons who apply manure from a large livestock operation to land not owned or leased by the livestock. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not so much the definition of a large livestock operator, but what is the definition of a little livestock producer? I know that there is an animal unit guideline that we go by in the province of Manitoba that was established by the former Minister of Agriculture and that the Livestock Stewardship Initiative has brought some further recommendations forward to that, that this Government has never acted upon.

I would like to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put it on the record that, regardless of whether you have 100 tonnes of fertilizer, of manure, if you will put it that way, from a small operator or 100 tonnes from a large operator, it is still 100 tonnes of manure. So if the nutrients are the same and there is no doubt that they would be, what difference does it make what kind of an operation it comes from? It comes from proper application. In farming operations today, that comes from common sense and understanding of many years of farming and being able to manage your soil and manage your resources on your farming operation. No one wants to overapply because, of course, that is a waste of valuable fertilizer dollars, as well. Of course, the farmers do not provide this particular product on their soils if they are growing crops or raising alfalfa for hay and forage. Then they will have to go and supplement it with processed and manufactured fertilizer sources today, as has been done for many decades in western Canada. I would say that provinces with large livestock numbers in their provinces, not necessarily operations, but a lot of livestock in their provinces, have an advantage in regard to the grain production because, of course, they have more of that, let us quote it as, natural fertilizer-based product that can be used to facilitate the growth of crops in their region and be a more integrated operation in their own concerns. In fact, I think that many of our holistic management groups out there today that operate in Manitoba and around Canada today, and all over the world, would certainly say that they would be the first as a group to say that this source of material is very, very valuable in the rotation and process that they go through in their operations.

So this is not about safety. This bill is not about safety. This bill is about more restriction. It is about more restriction on farmers. This is the heavy hand of the NDP bringing down more regulation about rural Manitoba on a topic that they know nothing about. Let us face it, anyone with common sense would have brought this forward, could have done these procedures without bringing a bill to the House. So this was done to placate some of their supporters.

In particular, let us use an example that might be Hog Watch. That could be one that comes to mind, that government-funded operation that wants to limit the size and determination of any of our livestock operations in Manitoba, whether it is hogs, or sheep, or cattle or whatever. These are, bless them, people in Manitoba who feel that perhaps something like this is necessary but have no understanding of what it is like to be out there on the soil trying to make a living and providing for their families in our rural society today.

It is pretty easy, I guess, if you are not involved in the daily distribution of these kinds of sources of energy in our rural communities, to sit back and say well, you know, we really should regulate those people so that we can tell them how to do it right. Well, I do not think that there is much compliance for that kind of activity in rural Manitoba, and those are the procedures that, when members talk about urban-rural relationships, these are the kinds of bills that split urban-rural relationships terribly.

I personally have spent a lifetime involved in volunteer organizations, involved in agricultural organizations, involved in, even now put on the record the Government talks about the nutraceutical association, a facility that is trying to be built in Manitoba today. You know, they go on and on at great lengths how they have been the perceivers of developing a relationship between agricultural products and nutraceutical health products for our Manitoba citizens and the nutraceutical development. I guess I only had the opportunity of being involved with the ARDI group and the ag research diversification development initiative in Manitoba that was formed by a former Minister of Agriculture, and I had the opportunity of being a part of that. I believe if we go back and look at the records, that it was not the NDP that put that forward. [interjection] Absolutely, I seconded the development of that motion to begin that nutraceutical foundation and research.

So I think that when the Government talks about how they began that process, they should go back and look at the record and find out from where it began. We did acknowledge $3 million out of those funds to be matched by private funds, particularly in the area of research and agriculture and health, to begin to develop that whole process. It is becoming very well known. It can be a very good process.

* (16:40)

Anyway, I think that this Government is trying to micromanage some of these kinds of processes under the auspices of stewardship and under the auspices of rural development, and this bill has nothing to do with either. It is very restrictive in its requirements as I have said, and I think that we need to go back and look at some of the guidelines and issues that our former government put in place in Manitoba.

I know that they have mentioned a bit by the member from Lakeside, but I was just making some notes this afternoon in regards to this topic. I guess I would go back and say a lot of things that are being asked to be done under guidelines are the common sense thing that our farmers are doing out there today, regardless of what kind of livestock and animal activity they are undertaking in the province.

An Honourable Member: Is that water you are drinking?

Mr. Maguire: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Manitoba we have guidelines. That is pure water, pure river water, clear as a bell.

In Manitoba you cannot spread manure between certain dates in November and certain dates in April. Throughout our winter climate when our ground is frozen, you cannot go out and spread manure wherever you want or however you want in Manitoba. This is a restriction that has been put in place in order to make sure that our rivers and streams and land are protected, so that it does not run off. Now, this product can be stockpiled, and in many cases that stockpiling leads to composting. Our city friends who do not understand where that comes from, that is just a very clear pile of manure.

Many of our urbanites will buy that product to put on their gardens, will buy that product to put in flower beds. I do not where they think good soil comes from with the nutrients and tilth that it provides. From time to time in our own garden on the farm, we add a manure spreader full of three- or four-year-old manure to the source just to mix it in and make sure that you have got tilth in that small particle of soil or area of soil to grow a garden on.

You can absolutely feel convinced that when this kind of a product is spread across hundreds of acres, that you have the same impact and the same kind of opportunity to grow very good crops, wheat, alfalfa. I am not going to get into the various crops that can be impacted by this type of application, but composting is seen as a good, environmentally safe, sound practice by everyone in society today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would say that this kind of composting that the former Minister of Agriculture, the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), brought in in guidelines in Manitoba is and continues to be a very sound source of stewardship in Manitoba livestock operations.

Now, the other processes that you have to go through, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are that you have to test the manure. You have to get a lab test on it to determine what kind of nutrients are involved and what level of nutrients are involved in that kind of product, whether it is a slurry or whether it is a straw-based material. You also have to test the soil, and the requirements cannot be exceeded of those soil tests.

Now, whether or not the person distributing the manure from a commercial operation on your neighbour's field can actually read the soil test might be a concern to some citizens, but let me tell you that today I would say 99 percent, 99.9 percent if I could, 99.9 percent of the farmers out there today not only know how to read those soil tests and interpret them, but they follow them religiously because putting on too much fertilizer is just a waste of money.

Farming is not about wasting money, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Farming is about saving every nickel you can on a farming operation to turn a profit in a very tough industry at the best of times. So I would say that the costs that farmers go through for those tests are borne by them already, so therefore they are not going to frivolously go through this procedure if they are not going to follow it in the first place.

There are also guidelines that have been brought in under the same manure management program in regard to the building of facilities within certain distances of neighbours and existing buildings in Manitoba. This is also seen as a requirement that has to be met in order to get a permit to build any kind of a livestock operation new today in any kind of area of the technical review commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that this clearly points out that if we want to be stewards of these products and stewards of the land in Manitoba, there are mechanisms already in place that negate the requirement of having Bill 23 brought forward in the form that the minister has brought it forward in and, in fact, like some other bills that this Government has brought in, is not needed at all.

One that I would just mention is Bill 14 in regard to amalgamation. I do not think this minister brought Bill 14 in to amalgamate school divisions. He brought it in for the heavy hand of government to deal with school divisions and their budgets. I think it is the tip of the iceberg in relation to what we are going to see in regard to how this Government manages schools, school divisions and the education of our children down the road. Of course, that does worry me greatly, without the kind of input our citizens should have, particularly the fine work done by our school trustees in the province of Manitoba as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I guess I would just have to say this kind of a bill comes forward to placate, as I said, a number of the, if we will, persons who would be pressing the Government to be more responsible in some of their activities around–how would I put it properly–more openly publicizing the fact they would appear to be doing something when in fact there are things they could really do if they were serious about trying to improve Manitoba's situation for clean environment and were really concerned about our environment. Their record does not say they are willing to do that.

We just had a question today about Clearwater Lake and the expropriation of land there for other purposes in a provincial park. The first thing they did when I was environment critic was, I was aghast, they cancelled the Round Table for Sustainable Development in Manitoba at the beginning of their Government as they came in, as well. They have lost face with many of the wildlife associations in Manitoba who have given them a much lower mark than the former Filmon government had in regard to environmental activity in Manitoba, in regard to the establishment of provincial parks.

I think this is just another bill they have done that they are trying to improve their public image. That is why they brought this forward. They just think they are trying to improve their public image by being able to go out and tell some people: Well, you know, we are forcing those farmers to do things right. We are forcing them to pay a fee to get a licence to spread manure, or we are restricting them to spreading it on their own land without having to go through these hoops. It is certainly seen as a restrictive process in rural Manitoba.

I guess when I talk about rural development and the lack of rural development going forward from this Government in these areas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is just a squelching of some of the PC initiatives that were ongoing in the province of Manitoba. I would say with the guidelines that were brought in, the government of the day, the previous Conservative government, were hoping they could negate some of the problems that were taking place in places like the Netherlands, Asia, India and maybe some of the other high-moisture areas around the world in the development of livestock and just making sure, as we develop an industry, we do it right from the base up.

* (16:50)

I have mentioned some of this was done to reinforce some of their critics' ideas of what they are doing publicly in agriculture today, but I think it was also done just out of socialist dogma. They are rushing out to put these restrictions on, to put their hidden agenda forward. I think it appears really the only people they have satisfied in this whole process would be some of the union bosses that might be out there today in regard to bringing this kind of a bill forward. These are the people who are putting the pressure on them to do these things in rural Manitoba. It is certainly not the farmers. The farmers did not ask for this.

I do not know where they were when they were listening to the policy frameworks that have been going on. I do not know how the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) could go to the agricultural policy framework nationally and come home with this kind of a bill before the Legislature in Manitoba. It is certainly an impedance to the kind of processes that are needed to develop the strongest industry we have in our agriculture sector today, the livestock sector, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly one that is well over 50 percent of the income in our rural agriculture today in this province.

I have espoused here on the stewardship of farmers and the responsibility that they take in their own farming operations. I would be proud, and I would like to go on record here as saying that I call farmers fine people. But with this bill the NDP is trying to fine farmers. It is akin to not signing the federal agricultural policy framework that the minister agreed to but now says she will not participate in because the federal government pulled a fast one on her. They have put this money out there today for all the provinces in Canada, but they did not tell the ministers of Agriculture that it was not going to be for trade injury compensation.

So, now they are saying, well, we will not participate in this program even though, as I pointed out earlier, the minister does not even know what the rules are going to be around the five pillars that the federal government is working on. So really where would farmers take any solace from this Minister of Agriculture or this Government when she says that we need more information when they have not even asked.

I would daresay if she had any idea of what kind of hoops farmers were going to have to go through to get any of the $3.4 billion that would be coming out of those five pillars and splitting that up into the $720 million in each department or in each area, roughly $700 million, divide that by five years that each of those programs would exist. If they were done evenly it would be $140 million per department or per pillar per year. The bureaucracy to go around that is what farmers are most concerned about today. Are they going to even be eligible for any of those kinds of dollars?

Is this just a foregoing of things to come in Bill 23, that they are going to have to address more red tape and paper in order to get any kind of support in those areas, unlike the American farm bill, where a lot of dollars have been put into environmental set-aside programs and environmental assessment programs to actually do the things that the consumers of North America or the consumers in the U.S. at least have wanted.

I would go on record as saying that if there are going to be any kinds of dollars coming forward that they would actually be put up I guess in a forum that would help all of the workings of our consumers today and the kinds of things they are asking the farmers to do. If they actually want to come forward and put programs in place that will cause our farmers to do things at their own expense, as is being done with this bill and as has been done to date in agriculture in Canada, then I go on record as saying that the concerned citizens of Canada should not mind putting up, consumers of this fine country should not mind putting up some dollars to purchase the cleanest, the safest and the cheapest food anywhere in the world.

I guess having come from a farm and being in a rural community all of my life, we know the importance of cleanliness in our food. As government, we want to make sure that all of our citizens in this country have access to food, but I do not necessarily believe that it has to be as cheap as it is in regard to the consumer out there today in the kind of system that we are running.

I know it has been mentioned in this House many times that Manitoba is well down the list in regard to, that we are the highest taxed west of Québec and that we are near to the first of July every year before we finish paying all of the taxes that are required of individuals in this country, in Manitoba particularly, before they have any disposable income of their own. Of course, out of that second half of the year has to come their food supply.

Unless the consumer is willing to pay more for food, then I do not have any problem with the consumer who is asking for some of these credits that farmers are already doing in their own management. Maybe there are a few things that a carrot could be used for as opposed to the stick, but if you are going to use a stick to force farmers into maybe trying to do some of the things that consumers want them to do, for perception purposes, then, I think, we have to look very clearly at where those dollars are going to come from. If it is not out of increased food supply, then I certainly do not have any problem with requesting Ottawa to become more involved in those kinds of processes. This bill, like the initiative that our provincial minister is involved in at the present time, does very little to encourage the agriculture development in either of those ways.

If this Government was really concerned with the kind of environmental issues that they come forward with, they would have spent a little bit more time this winter being involved with things like netting of fish out of our rivers and lakes in Manitoba. Here they are quite willing to allow open netting of fishing to go on and occur at what most people in rural Manitoba would say was at far greater numbers than could ever be consumed by any particular sector of our society on a daily basis. I think that, if the Government really, really had a concern for the environment and a concern for agriculture or fishing in this province, they could have stepped in and done some things. They could have not funded organizations like Hog Watch as they do, which is very well known. I mean, the first thing they have on their Web site is a 10-point process on how not to get into the industry that is helping save some of our rural communities and develop jobs in those communities. I would be the first, as I have said many times, to say that has to be done in a responsible manner. Farmers, in doing that, have the opportunity to continue to be stewards of the land and in relationship to the kinds of activities that they are doing on their daily operations.

Any opportunities that I have ever had to be involved with national forums on agricultural development or transportation or initiatives in regard to farming development have always led to the fact that we have to look at how our agriculture is done from the base line and making sure that it is developed in a proper manner. It is not something that is narrowly focussed to Manitoba. It is something that we have to look at across the country, and I think that bills like Bill 23 do–

Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have five minutes remaining.

The hour being 5 p.m., we will now move on to private members' hour.

* (17:00)

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might seek leave to call second reading on public bills.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to call second reading on public bills? [Agreed]

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), that Bill 202, the Electoral Divisions Amendment Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Helwer: The reason for the bill and for the change in the name–[interjection] Now that I have the floor, I can put my remarks on the record.

The reason for the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to change the name from Gimli to Gimli-St. Andrews. Some of the reasons behind that are the changes that took place in the alignment of the boundaries prior to the 1999 election. At that time they did give consideration to changing the name, but it was too late when it was brought to the attention of the Electoral Officer.

One of the reasons is because of the Rural Municipality of St. Andrews, which is a very prominent and important municipality in Manitoba. It has grown to such an extent in the last number of years that my constituency is made up of basically the Rural Municipality of St. Andrews, which has about 10 700 people; the town of Gimli, which has about 1700; the Rural Municipality of Gimli which has about 3500; the Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, which has grown considerably in the last number of years, also with 4100 people; then there is Winnipeg Beach with 800; and, of course, the village of Dunnottar with 400 people.

Now, just a little bit about those two municipalities: the village of Dunnottar and the town of Winnipeg Beach, and also the town of Gimli and the R.M. of Gimli. They are all basically tourist areas where there are a lot of cottages located in the village of Dunnottar and the town of Winnipeg Beach. So the population there increases probably six- or sevenfold in the summer, maybe even more with the number of cottages that are there.

Of course, we want to keep the name Gimli and include it in the name of Gimli-St. Andrews, because Gimli is a very significant name and has been the name of a constituency for many, many years. There certainly is some history that goes with the Gimli constituency, of course. It was represented by some very prominent people in the past such as the late honourable Dr. George Johnson, who was the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education in the Duff Roblin government and certainly served the people very well.

Also, the name St. Andrews, because St. Andrews was originally settled by the Earl of Selkirk and the Selkirk settlers which originally came to the St. Andrews and the Selkirk area. This area certainly has a lot of prominence. The name St. Andrews itself, which was originally brought from Scotland, has significant importance to the area. There are many events, many things, many names that keep the name St. Andrews in the area such as St. Andrews on the Red. There is the Larters at St. Andrews golf course, and there are many names that are very historic with the name St. Andrews because of the fact that it came from Scotland with the Earl of Selkirk in about the 1800s, at some time.

Also, some very important and significant names have represented the St. Andrews area over the years such as Premier Norquay. Thomas Hillhouse was a member of the Liberal Party and was a very prominent MLA from that area. There was also a Premier Boyd that was the MLA at one time for the St. Andrews area and the constituency at that time was St. Andrews.

Even when we talk about some of the important Scottish names that are associated with St. Andrews, even the name of Dewar, such as the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) which is a very prominent name in the Selkirk-St. Andrews area. As a matter of fact, the Dewar family that have settled there, I think, were some of the original settlers in the Selkirk-St. Andrews area.

As a matter of fact, just last week Mrs. Hazel McRae who passed away–she was 96 years old–her maiden name was Dewar. She was 96 years old and still alive and well. Unfortunately, she passed away last week. So that name is very significant also with the area of St. Andrews.

But, when you look at how the boundaries are situated with the municipalities of West St. Paul and the south, which comes right inside the Perimeter Highway in Winnipeg, then they have St. Andrews and then the Rural Municipality of Gimli, with the towns of Winnipeg Beach and Gimli in between, they are all very significant and areas that are very significant to the Gimli constituency and certainly an important part of the whole Gimli constituency.

So it is only fair, I think, that we recognize the St. Andrews and West St. Paul area. With the name Gimli-St. Andrews, it certainly would be easier for the people of south St. Andrews, especially, to associate themselves with the Gimli-St. Andrews constituency, and they would feel better being a part of the constituency.

I failed to mention in my remarks up to now that basically the Rural Municipality of St. Andrews runs along the Red River and Lake Winnipeg and takes in the area of Lower Fort Garry, of course, which is also a very historical site and very popular with tourists in the summer. So the whole area along the Red River there of St. Andrews, where St. Andrews is located, and also right at Winnipeg Beach, Gimli, is also a very large tourist area, including the Petersfield, Clandeboye area. So it is very important.

Something else of a very significant historical nature is the Lockport area which is in St. Andrews and, of course, Skinner's hot dogs, which are very popular and a very important part of the Lockport area, a very popular place on the weekend during the summer. Skinner's has two locations, one along Highway 44 and the other on the River Road. They are very popular and very significant businesspeople who have been there for many, many years. It was started by one of the original Skinners, and both restaurants are run by the Skinner family. They also have a location at The Forks here in Winnipeg.

So many historic, significant events have taken place in the Rural Municipality of St. Andrews and West St. Paul. Therefore, I think it is important that we do change this name and recognize the importance of the south end of my constituency. As I said, it is important to maintain the Gimli portion of it, but I think the name change to Gimli-St. Andrews is of significant importance to me, and it would be of significant importance to my constituency.

So, with that, I hope that we can pass this on to committee as soon as possible and hope that this name change will be approved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that debate be adjourned.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a matter of House business, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet on Wednesday, July 10, at 6:30, to deal with Bill 9, The Canadian Forces Personnel (Amendments Relating to Voting Rights and Driving Privileges) Act.

Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet on Wednesday, July 10, at 6:30 p.m., to deal with Bill 9, The Canadian Forces Personnel (Amendments Relating to Voting Rights and Driving Privileges) Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [Agreed]

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning (Thursday).