ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business, I would like to announce that the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources meeting on Thursday, October 26, at 10 a.m., will be moved from Room 254 to Room 255.

The Committee on Economic Development meeting on Thursday, October 26, at 9 a.m., will be moved to Room 255.

I would also like to call, Madam Speaker, the Committee on Law Amendments for Monday--no, I had better wait for that. Disregard the above.

Would you please call Bills 14, 13, and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 14--The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 14 (The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines et les minéraux), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. James.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I am going to continue my remarks that I began last night and remind the members of the House that we are talking about Bill 14, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act.

I am pleased to see that some of the ministers here have had an opportunity to work with the department and are familiar with this legislation. For those who may not be, it has been described by the present minister as a housekeeping bill, Madam Speaker, indeed, a housekeeping bill that must be cleaning up a house that is particularly dirty--77 amendments and eight more substantial amendments in this so-called minor bill.

* (1440)

We on this side, having reviewed the amendments, have some serious concerns about several of the areas and also the lack of planning and consideration for our local prospectors, who have this past year been unable to complete some of their work requirements on claims in areas that have been devastated by fires. There has been no understanding, no provision given by that side of the House, by this government that claims to be there for exploration, there for prospectors--hardly.

Madam Speaker, this government has been negligent in terms of introducing this bill without the proper amendment to provide that room for maneuverability, room for consideration for those prospectors who are not able to complete work, but is there that amendment? No. No, we do not see anything for the people who were seriously affected in a fire this year. Before us we see already amendments that are dealing with something that is truly--well, it requires rethinking.

Some of the amendments before us we can see are clearly an attempt to what I would interpret is a closed-door policy and under the guise of making the act more expedient, more efficient and more consistent. One of their amendments is to move the date of publication of the annual report from June to December. As I mentioned last night, it goes along with the rule, let us defer anything we can to just before Christmas when nobody will notice and we will not have a meaningful debate on this annual report.

The fact is that there is no reason why this government, if they wish to be consistent, cannot make reports more timely, Madam Speaker, something that we would applaud and attempt to assist the government in doing. Rather than delaying and postponing publications which are ready, why not move publication dates earlier so that the public and members of this House have an opportunity to review figures which are meaningful and current?

Under the clause where there is a change in wording, where a charge is being laid for noncompliance, our side does concur with that section.

Moving on to the other major amendment, it is hardly an amendment, Madam Speaker. If members will recall, we are talking about the complete deletion of a whole section of the act, a section which was put to protect the public interest of Manitobans, a section which all Manitobans should be concerned with and I raise here in the House. This act actually calls for the total deletion of the conflict-of-interest provision in The Mines Act, a statement that I think not only raises concerns but, I hope, will be reviewed in the light of the morning as a wrong step in taking out the conflict-of-interest measures of the act.

There are many people--and some of the questions that we have concerning the conflict of interest--the argument is that it is in fact, if I may read from the spreadsheet, that the conflict-of-interest provision is being deleted because it is felt that they were too sweeping and all-encompassing and that it is considered the provisions dealing with this topic will fall under the Manitoba government conflict-of-interest policies and are sufficient.

Madam Speaker, I think that the people of Manitoba and certainly this side of the House need to be assured that all members that are privy to classified information, perhaps members that are working for the minister as an assistant, are they indeed considered to be a civil servant? Will they be under the provisions of the government's conflict-of-interest policy? Hardly.

There are numerous questions about, are there going to be exceptions? Are there people going to be in the minister's office who have access to information which is, let us say can be used to their advantage for various investments because of their knowledge of various projects that may be occurring or other decisions in the mining community which may have a fairly drastic effect in terms of the market?

For these reasons it is important to have a very clear and strong conflict-of-interest provision in The Mines Act. I believe that is exactly what we had in the past. I wish that the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) could be here because one of the things that we will be asking in committee is, what is the problem with conflict-of-interest provisions? What is the particular problem in terms of having a legislated conflict-of-interest provision?

It hardly seems reasonable to expect us to go down to the lowest common denominator. When we have good legislation in front of us, the flags are raised when the government in fact wishes to delete the whole clause. If there is a specific area of concern, whether the summary conviction component of it, does the government feel that that is too severe? Then why do they not let that be known? Are there certain individuals? Do they believe that individuals that are privy to information should be available to invest and have holdings perhaps in companies involved in mining?

These are all questions that we will be asking in regard to this. Hopefully, we will look at strengthening not weakening and in fact deleting the whole section of the conflict of interest. The purpose is, of course, to protect the public interest.

Continuing on in the so-called housekeeping bill where there are minor amendments, come to a clause where there is a section that deals with persons staking a claim on top of a former mineral lease. This, indeed, is not a problem for this side of the House. Anyone who is familiar with the geological setting will understand it is indeed possible to have a metallic mineral occurring in the Pre-Cambrian component and then perhaps have another mineral deposit which is a much later occurrence and during the Pleistocene or glacial period. So you could have indeed a quarry lease where you could extract sand and gravel. I could even argue that you could have a triple lease or a triple situation, where the sand and gravel would be removed for construction, the Paleozoic materials, the limestone, would be blasted and crushed for road base or other materials, and then, ultimately, an open-pit mine or some other form of access into the metallic minerals, Madam Speaker.

We do not have a problem with this. It, in fact, was possible under the old Mines Act, and it is unfortunate, during the major rewrite, that such an omission should have happened.

* (1450)

I would ask, during the writing of the new Mines Act, and it was proclaimed in 1992, if we had a broad-based consultation process which included those very people who issue the mining leases and mineral depositions, were the clerical people in the Mines Branch, for example, sitting on the rewrite, or was it basically done at an administrative level, at a theoretical level? Were people with hands-on experience there at the table saying, we need a mines act that is workable, that is not going to hold back exploration, is not going to stifle the development of our mineral resources? In this case, it has for the past three years in terms of the provision which did not allow for a quarry lease and a mineral lease to occur on the same property, an oversight that perhaps caused complications and limited extraction.

In terms of the amendment that is presented in the act which is basically deleting the requirement for an Order-in-Council on monies used from the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account, we have serious concerns about this. At the present time, it is our only access. It is the public venue to ensure that monies are provided in an expedient and an efficient way in terms of this fund.

Flags are raised, Madam Speaker, because it is this department which was reviewed through another incentive program, the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program, reviewed by the Auditor just the past year and received scathing comments in terms of its accountability, in terms of its management of a fund to actually spur on exploration. We want to commend the government for having incentives, but, along with that, comes the responsibility to ensure that public monies are expended in a useful, practical and meaningful way.

I am not sure that in the government's haste to make Manitoba a more saleable commodity they looked at the regulation component in sufficient degree. In fact, the Provincial Auditor has raised several very serious concerns about the department's ability to regulate these types of funds, and it is for this reason that flags are raised in terms of the Quarry Rehabilitation fund, a good program. It is a program where money is collected from the sale of materials, a small amount is put into a reserve fund, that fund is then used to rehabilitate areas that were used for the mining of sand and gravel, rehabilitated and put back into a usable condition.

There is no one on this side that is going to argue. That is a good program; we want to see that. There are hundreds of depleted deposits in Manitoba, eyesores that we wish to clean up. Had extractors been, I think, more responsible in terms of sustainable management, they would have taken on that responsibility a long time ago. Manitoba is scarred by the many operators going in, taking what they want and just leaving their waste, and not taking the responsibility to clean it up.

So we do agree that we need a rehabilitation program. This is a venue that can work. The concerns are raised with--given that this is a new program, and we are dealing with a considerable amount of money, $2 million to $3 million is involved in the reserve fund--do we have additional inspectors to ensure that the programs are working? Do we know that the money that is being allocated for a particular project is going to that particular spot? Do we have the proper inspectors? Do we have the documentation? Has this department increased its regulation control of the money that they are giving out?

Madam Speaker, my knowledge of Energy and Mines and of the regulation component has actually been decreased. Regulation in terms of the Mines department has been lessened, and we have seen this with the Auditor's comments, and they looked at one program--one program, Madam Speaker--a program which encouraged exploration programs. The Auditor's report cites its concerns over the lack of accountability; it is citing that junior exploration corporations did not comply in all cases with regulation, and that the ministry did not fully enforce that part of its regulation.

Madam Speaker, is it not the government's responsibility to ensure that its own laws are in fact enforced? It seems to me to be not only their responsibility to make laws, but it would also be, in fact, their responsibility to enforce them. That side of this plan to market Manitoba has been put to the wayside. It is put to the wayside to the detriment of accountability, and that is not something that the people of Manitoba can tolerate.

The Auditor's report goes on to say that they were unable to verify the completeness and accuracy of all the incentive payments, basically saying that monies went out without necessarily knowing what the project was about or being able to verify the complete allocation. It also cites that there are other loopholes in the program, with no regulations, does not impose time limits for the start and completion of exploration plans, leading to questionable decisions and a great deal of unknowns as to is the company's starting date going to be in this fiscal year? Is it going to be in the next fiscal year?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) understands that what we are talking about here is a large amount of money, investment money involving the private sector and involving us, as we are partners in these incentive programs, questions that I think Manitobans want to know. Is the money going to valuable projects? Are we sure the money is being spent on projects in Manitoba? The Auditor raises these questions, Madam Speaker.

The Auditor has actually said that the ministry, that is the Ministry of Energy and Mines, should improve its policies and procedures in assessing the reasonableness of incentive payments. That must be a concern to all of us. Madam Speaker, these are serious concerns.

The Minister of Mines (Mr. Praznik) seems like a very nice man, but his record, Madam Speaker, it is incredible. We are not talking about a personality. We are talking about the real important issues of accountability and verifying the payments of incentive programs to individuals to do exploration work in Manitoba.

Now, the Auditor has also said that half of the payments that were made to exploration corporations were made without, Madam Speaker, audited financial information. The ministry indicated that they did not enforce the requirement for the audited financial information.

Questions are going to be asked, why. Why did the ministry decide not to enforce its own legislation, its own laws and ensure that the people of Manitoba were protected? Why did the ministry decide to do that?

In addition, there is an assessment committee for these applications, Madam Speaker.

* (1500)

An Honourable Member: Who is on the committee?

Ms. Mihychuk: Well, that is a good question. My colleague says, who is on the committee? The Auditor wanted to know that, as well, Madam Speaker.

We are not sure who is on the committee, Madam Speaker. There is no documentation on how the committee determines the technical merits or the cost reasonableness of the project. In fact, there is very limited evidence of clearly defined roles and responsibility of the committee or its members. In fact, there were some instances where the Auditor could not identify the members who went to those committee hearings.

The questions are, who sits on the committee? Are there people from the department? Do you have the technical expertise on that committee to be able to assess the projects that are coming before you? Who are the appointments? Who has this government appointed to the committee to review these applications? Where are the minutes of the meetings? What is reviewed in an application during the review process?

We would like to see the committee discussions and their rationale for support or denial, and I do not believe there have been any denials. Clearly, this is a lack of definition. It is a lack of defined policies and procedures which could lead and probably has led to inconsistent decisions.

Madam Speaker, the Auditor also cites in this program that in terms of inspections--and Manitobans are offering financial incentives to exploration companies in millions of dollars. Were there inspections conducted of the projects?

There are numerous questions about the whole area of regulation and accountability. Those are questions we will be asking, and we are going to be pressing the government to be responsible to the exploration companies of Manitoba, which were not able to access their claims this summer, and this government has refused to make provisions for those individuals who were out there ready to do the work but could not. The regulations now require it to be done, and that is a shame as we look to being more co-operative, not less.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you call the question on the motion, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): En français?

Madam Speaker, after listening to a very substantive speech from the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), and speaking like an expert, we were going to support this bill, but I think now after listening to her we will have to not support it.

Madam Speaker, I know the government has said that it is a housekeeping bill; but, going over the bill, you find out that there are eight substantive amendments designed to improve the administrative efficiency. When they say it is a housekeeping bill, you get very suspicious when there are these eight amendments.

An Honourable Member: Some housekeeping.

Mr. Gaudry: Some housekeeping. I think there is a lot more housekeeping that they should do before they bring these eight substantive amendments to the bill. [interjection] I am always nice.

As I said, after listening to this member for St. James, but we would like to see it go to committee--[interjection] Exactly, but make sure that we have the committee and the people are notified that this bill will be coming to committee.

An Honourable Member: That could be trouble . . . .

Mr. Gaudry: I know the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), the Minister of Natural Resources, says that could be dangerous about having a committee and people coming forward. Yes, I guess with this kind of a bill.

I think, Madam Speaker, without any further delay, we would like to see the bill go to committee and give a chance to the public to express their views on this bill. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 14, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines et les minéraux. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No. All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please--

An Honourable Member: On division.

Madam Speaker: On division.

House Business

Mr. Ernst: On a matter of House business, Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House that the Committee on Law Amendments will sit at 10 a.m. Tuesday, October 31, to consider Bills 8, 16 and 31. Bill 14, just passed, will be referred to the Committee on Economic Development on Thursday, October 26, at 9 a.m.

Bill 13--The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 13 (The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'accord de règlement de la première nation crie de Split Lake relatif à l'application de la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain, modifiant la Loi sur l'énergie hydraulique et apportant des modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add a few brief comments on Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

This is an important piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, for the people of Split Lake. There are, of course, many issues that are surrounding this, and I had the opportunity when I was critic for Highways and Transportation to travel to Split Lake. Just--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Reid: As I was saying, I had the opportunity when I was critic for Highways and Transportation to accompany the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and, I believe, the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) through the various northern communities which included Split Lake and York Landing.

During that time, Madam Speaker, we had the opportunity when on our way to Split Lake, of course, to travel down the much talked about and so-called Highway 391 and had the opportunity to look very closely at the condition of that highway en route to Split Lake.

We also had the opportunity--I think it is road 280 which leads into Split Lake, Madam Speaker. We had the opportunity to travel on that road and look at the condition of that road, as well, and I must say that there were spots on both of those roads that are definitely in need of work. I know the member for Thompson has raised the issue in this House on several occasions. Of course, I do not believe that there has been any serious attempt by the government to correct the situation that is occurring with those roads.

An Honourable Member: What happened to the former Minister of Highways?

Mr. Reid: Well, the former Minister of Highways, for the information of the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), I believe, did travel down some of those roads himself and, of course, found the condition was very much in a deplorable state, and while he may not have had the opportunity to rectify at that time since it was just shortly thereafter that he was moved from that department, I hope he has passed on his recommendations to the succeeding Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to allow some change or some improvement in those road conditions.

While travelling to Split Lake, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet the people in Split Lake and to actually participate by way of watching the people of the community as they came together through their winter carnival activities. Of course, we had a chance to sample the traditional food that was available at the carnival, and we also had a chance to look at the skills that were displayed through contests that were put on by the Split Lake community, dealing with trapper skills, races, et cetera. I found it to be a very tight-knit community.

Obviously, this agreement is very important. Bill 13 is very important to the community of Split Lake in that it deals with the flooding that has taken place as a result of hydroelectric development by the Province of Manitoba. I believe that the Split Lake community was the first community to negotiate a final settlement on the Northern Flood Agreement and that the agreement was signed in 1977 to deal with the extensive damage that had taken place as a result of that hydro development.

* (1510)

Now, I had the opportunity, along with my colleagues whom I spoke about a moment ago in our travels to those communities, to see first-hand some of the difficulties that were encountered by those communities as a result of the flooding or the changes in the water levels, and I had a chance to travel on the winter roads that now are being utilized to service those communities.

I must say for the record once again, as I have before, those winter roads are in a deplorable condition. Madam Speaker, if I was to give an analogy of the condition of those winter roads, the winter road between Split Lake and York Landing, I have to say that if the people at the Ex, which comes to Winnipeg every summer, every June, wanted to get a better ride, they could go to the winter roads serviced between Split Lake and York Landing, because it was comparable to that type of ride.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I wonder if the member would submit to a question.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism have leave to ask a question?

Mr. Reid: If it is a serious question that the minister is prepared to ask about my experiences in northern Manitoba and what I have seen and witnessed first-hand, I am prepared to entertain a question at the end of my comments here. I hope that the minister will be serious and that he is not doing this just purely for political purposes. I hope he is serious, Madam Speaker, when he suggested he is prepared to ask a question. If he does it in a serious manner, I will attempt in a best effort to respond to his question.

We were travelling, as I indicated, between Split Lake and York Landing on the winter road, which we found in a deplorable condition, and I know the Highways department people were out looking at the highway condition, and I have raised it with the former Minister of Transport and the current Minister of Transport to try and make some changes there, because I think that the communities of Split Lake and York Landing are being disadvantaged still in that the water regulation that takes place on that lake is affecting those communities in that they cannot use what had been traditionally a route of travel along the lake.

The ice surface becomes unstable due to that changing water condition, that changing water level, forcing the people to use what I consider to be a substandard trail in the true sense of the word. I do not know how any truck traffic that is servicing those communities in the wintertime can travel those roads and not come out of there with some serious damage to their vehicles. I know the vehicle that we took, which was a small vehicle, I am sure, had some undercarriage damage as a result of the travel on that winter road.

This agreement, Madam Speaker, while it does address some of the issues relating to the extensive flood damage that occurred to those communities, there are obviously some other issues that have yet to be dealt with.

I had asked the current Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to have his department look at ways where we could rectify the situation with that winter road servicing Split Lake and York Landing, but, to this point in time, I do not believe anything has been done to rectify that road condition.

This legislation, Madam Speaker, Bill 13, I believe, has to be agreed to by both levels of government, both federal and provincial. This legislation has already been passed, I believe, by the House of Commons, and it only requires that the Manitoba Legislature take the final steps to initiate this agreement or this process, and Bill 13 is that step.

We know that the people of Split Lake have made serious efforts to negotiate this agreement, having been involved with this for a number of years, and we are quite prepared to have this legislation go to committee to have perhaps the people of Split Lake, if that is their will, come forward in committee to tell us their thoughts on this legislation and the Flood Agreement itself and any other comments that they might wish to make, Madam Speaker.

So we are prepared to listen to the members of the public coming forward on Bill 13 and their comments, and we look forward to the committee hearings. Thank you.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, in regard to Bill 13, we are prepared to let it go to committee, also to listen to the people of Manitoba. The effect of this legislation is to prevent any claims for compensation against Manitoba from being brought forward by individuals from Split Lake under the terms of the Northern Flood Agreement. This legislation deals with the claims of the citizens of that community on the comprehensive basis.

Under the terms of this legislation, Manitoba is released from any future obligation under the Northern Flood Agreement. Any claim or matter under dispute shall be settled in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement between the federal government, provincial government and Manitoba Hydro Electric Board and the Split Lake Cree First Nation signed on the 24th of June, 1992.

We will support this legislation to go to committee to listen, but I know it will cause some rhetoric to arise as it brings closure to an agonizingly long process of settlement under the Northern Flood Agreement. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I am pleased to speak on second reading on this particular bill. I want to say that I have had the opportunity as a member of the Legislature for the Thompson constituency to work very closely with the people in Split Lake, the Split Lake Cree First Nation. I value the contact. I really feel that I have been honoured to be able to work with and in some small way even become part of the community in dealing with many of the concerns of the residents of Split Lake.

I wanted to outline today just some of the perspective that has been expressed to me by the people of Split Lake about what has happened with the flooding that they faced, with many of the changes that have taken place in their community through the flooding, and other changes that have occurred in recent years and their perspective on this particular bill.

I only wish to do this in a very preliminary way because I know Chief Norman Flett has indicated that he wishes to make a presentation to this committee, and I want to thank the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) for indicating his willingness to accommodate this very reasonable request that we have the committee hearings later this week.

But I want to begin by perhaps ironically commenting on an event I had the opportunity to attend on Friday. It was a retirement party for Joe Morris who has been very involved in the community in Split Lake, the council. He served 23 years on behalf of his community. What struck me as I joined with other people who paid tribute--the chief of The Pas Reserve was there; there were people from Norway House and of course many people from Split Lake itself--was the fact that Mr. Morris and the other people who had been involved in the council over this period were involved in discussions right at Northern Flood Agreement throughout much of this period.

In fact, Northern Flood Agreement was signed in 1977. If you look at that, that is a total of 18 out of those 23 years in which the Northern Flood Agreement was in place. That does not include the work that went into negotiating the Northern Flood Agreement itself which goes back to the mid-1970s.

I say to you that the feeling in Split Lake is that there were some very difficult decisions that had to be made. Initially, negotiations were undertaken by the Northern Flood Committee, and Split Lake was essentially the first community to choose the route of direct negotiations.

I must say that there was some considerable discussion at the time, but as is the case in Split Lake, it was essentially a community decision that was adopted. Those negotiations proceeded. A referendum was held in the community, and the overwhelming percentage of people who voted in the referendum were in support of the actions of the chief and council, the negotiators, and, indeed, they signed the current agreement that we are dealing with here.

I want to indicate that this is essentially one of the formalities to putting that agreement in place. The House of Commons has, indeed, already dealt with this matter, and it is important for this matter to proceed that the Manitoba Legislature also deals with it.

But, Madam Speaker, I also want to put on the record some frustration, some concern, that has been expressed about the agreement that has been put in place. This is not only a concern that has been expressed by the people of the Split Lake Cree First Nation but also other Northern Flood communities.

* (1520)

I want to indicate, Madam Speaker, that I raised this issue in a question to the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) when the minister brought this bill in in the spring sitting of the House, and that was the question of whether the government acknowledges that the Northern Flood Agreement is, in many ways, a modern treaty.

This is a concept that received some support in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. It is a question that was raised, I know, by many people, many Northern Flood communities, and I want to indicate my concern, Madam Speaker, that the minister indicated that it is the government's position that the Northern Flood Agreement is simply an agreement.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I feel that the concerns expressed by people in the communities is something that should be listened to by the government. The former Minister of Northern Affairs may have a different view on this, but this was the response that was received from the current Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), when he said it was an agreement.

I think he and other members of this House will have to understand the frustration of many First Nations people about even the treaty process. Many treaties have still not been fully recognized in terms of their full import. We see even today the federal government denying the fundamental treaty right, as many people see it, of its role and obligation in providing health care to First Nations residents.

I raise this, and I raise it on the record, because even in passing this particular bill, I think it is important to note that the people of Split Lake and the people of other communities affected by the flooding, Madam Speaker, are not in any way, shape or form giving up the concept that there has to be some additional weight that goes beyond simply the recognition of this as an agreement and simply a negotiated settlement.

I think that is important because I believe that the history of Manitoba and the history of Canada has unfortunately been in many cases characterized by a betrayal of the trust that First Nations people have exhibited time after time in dealings with other levels of government.

Madam Speaker, I look only, even in recent months, to the issue of the provincial parks, which was brought in with very limited, if any, consultation, without the agreement of First Nations in areas which are supposed to be subject to co-management, and, in fact, affect, amongst other communities, the community of Split Lake. There is a great deal of frustration about the continued lack of respect, I believe, not only for the traditional rights of First Nations but of the very fundamental concept of the inherent right of self-government.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that if we are to progress in this province, the province that has the highest percentage of residents who are of First Nations background, that we must be the lead province in recognizing the inherent right of self-government.

I also believe we must be the lead province in recognizing the full import of treaties, and I say that in the sense that I believe that there must be generous spirit shown on each and every one of the many issues that are involved, Madam Speaker.

The record should be clear that nothing, with the passage of this bill, changes the feeling, the very strong sense that has been expressed by people such as Joe Morris, that I mentioned earlier, by Chief Flett, other members of the council, that the long-term obligations still remain in place. I say that because I do know the impact that the flooding has had on the Northern Flood communities, and it continues to happen. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) referenced very, I think, accurately the situation in Split Lake, because the flooding affects the ability to use the winter road, the ice surface.

I also want to look at the other side, because I think one of the unfortunate facts is that in Northern Flood communities, there continue to be many people without sewer and water, there continue to be people without adequate housing. The bottom line is if you do not have such basic provisions as a sewer system and such basic provisions as adequate housing, it really does make mockery of some of the statements that appear even in the Northern Flood Agreement itself about providing those kinds of services.

I look at roads, Madam Speaker. Split Lake is served by Highway 280. It is not in as bad a shape as Highway 391, but it does have problems. The community has made repeated requests, for example, for brush clearing to make it more safe. The community has made repeated requests to deal with some of the corners that have led to tragic incidents, tragic deaths. That continues as a legacy in northern Manitoba. I want to say that the sense of the community, as has been expressed to me both publicly and privately, is that people in the community felt it was important to move on. That was one of the underlying bases for the negotiation of this agreement: the need to move on. It is not that they fully agreed with everything that is in the settlement, and I think that is to be understood. In any negotiations, one gives up certain things that one would like to see take place.

I do want to acknowledge, too, and this is something that the community has been fairly clear on, that it is ironic that in many cases throughout the years of negotiations, it was the federal government, which supposedly has the trustee relationship with First Nations, that has in many cases been the level of government that has delayed the negotiations. That applies both in terms of previous negotiations under various governments, the three governments that have been in place in that time. I say that because I want to say very clearly that, throughout the process of negotiation, including leading up to the negotiation of this final settlement, in many cases it was the federal government that was delaying the final signing. It was the federal government in the case of Nelson House that delayed. I am not even stating that it was the federal government as in the political party, the political entity, but certainly federal officials were not only not supportive in the negotiations but in many cases created new difficulties.

I want to acknowledge that because I feel that the province, regardless of disagreements on the question of modern day treaty status, I think the province, generally throughout the negotiations played a constructive role.

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

I want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no joy in the community of Split Lake over the signing of this agreement. There is a sense that it is time to move on. There is a sense of respect for the people who were involved in the negotiations. There is a sense that many people in the community worked very hard to achieve the goal of having the final settlement agreed. But there has also been a very consistent sense throughout, and it is something I have respected as a member of the Legislature as well. The people of Split Lake have made it very clear that they have never viewed this as a political issue to be raised one way or the other by any political party. It is an issue between the Split Lake First Nation and the other levels of government.

I know the former Minister of Northern Affairs is here, and he will, I am sure, note the fact that throughout the period of time that there were some very sensitive negotiations, we respected the sensitivity of the negotiations. I know, on a number of occasions, there was information I was made aware of by the community to keep me up to date in terms of negotiations that we respected not bringing to this political forum. I say that the spirit, when we decide on this particular bill today, should not be in any partisan sense, should not be in any political sense, and in fact, despite my comments about the role that the federal government may have played in the past, it should not be even any sense of any one party or the other having been more committed to this process than anyone else. I think the sense that we have to debate this bill today and pass it through to committee is out of a sense of acknowledgement and respect for the people, the Split Lake Cree First Nation.

* (1530)

They have been through a great deal, the life of their community, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the most dramatic challenges to the community of Split Lake was the flooding that did take place, but it is a community that has held together. It is a community that, thanks to the efforts of many people and, particularly, I might note, of the elders of the community, have held together as a community. I want to note the role of the elders because Split Lake is one community that can be a model for many other communities. There is a very strong involvement by elders, both on council and in an advisory role to council, and it is not uncommon, in the Split Lake Cree First Nation, for elders to be asked to provide advice to current-day counsellors. They know the background, and our role as legislators should be to respect their role and pay tribute to that role.

I would say that it goes beyond extinguishment of any further claims. This is the technical nature of this bill. It is not strictly a technical bill for the people of Split Lake. It is a generation in the life of a community. It is a generation that wants to move on, that wants to be able to implement some positive changes in the community as a result of this particular settlement. That is why I know, if the Split Lake Cree First Nation has the opportunity to present later this week in committee, that they will provide a fair amount of background to members of this Assembly on the role of that community and provide recognition to people in that community that were part of the initial negotiations of the agreement itself and of the final settlement which we are dealing with here.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the community of Split Lake. I want to acknowledge the difficult times that many people in Split Lake faced as a result of the flooding that did take place. I really want to pay tribute to the long-term commitment of many people who were involved throughout this process.

I want to just end by reminding us all that I think we can learn from the perspective of First Nations, particularly in this case the perspective of the Split Lake Cree First Nation, because I believe there is one thing that I have learned from First Nations people. It is the different perspective of time and of history. Believe you me, in the difficult times that faced the community of Split Lake, and I have talked to people about this, there was always that sense perhaps of a different perspective of time than many of us might have, and it was that sense and that strength of long-term view and commitment that kept the community together, that led to some pretty tough negotiations and has led to the agreement that is being achieved here today.

I call it an achievement in the sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not perfect. It does not go as far as the people of Split Lake would want, particularly the area I mentioned, but it is an achievement for the fact that the Split Lake Cree First Nation finally will be able to perhaps put right some of the things, some of the difficulties that happened to the community over the last 20-25 years of its history. I think that in itself should be something that we should mark in this Legislature as being a very significant event.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to intend to prolong the debate, but I do just want to, for the record, put a couple of points forward, and I would appreciate the support that I am sure will be coming forward from the members opposite.

Interesting, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) in putting on the record the comments that he has, did really not acknowledge the history of the Northern Flood Committee and the inability of him and his administration from 1977 to 1988 to show progress. From 1977, when the agreement was signed, to 1988, very little progress was in fact shown, and that is a fact. It is on the record.

I guess my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the lack of acknowledgement that there was a government in place that was able to accomplish what we feel was substantial.

Now, I am not here to compliment the government. What I want to do is compliment the chief and the council and the leadership of the Split Lake Cree, who in fact clearly saw that under the negotiations that had taken place as a five-party agreement as it related to the Northern Flood Committee chiefs and councils that a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of resources were being expended in the hiring of lawyers, in the hiring of consultants, and there was a tremendous amount of frustration.

In 1988, this Premier, Premier Gary Filmon, previous to the election made a commitment that there would be progress made on the Northern Flood settlement, and I am pleased to report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was.

There was tremendous progress made, and it did not come that easily for the chief and the council to make the decision to split away from the four other bands, but I do report today, and I happen to be fortunate, and I say fortunate, to be the minister responsible when we signed the agreement. I say that was a very satisfying day for the government of Manitoba, a very satisfying day for myself personally, and I know a very satisfying day for the chief who had gone through considerable frustrations of making sure that he was representing his community in the interests of his community. [interjection]

So he is back as chief again. I compliment Norman Flett on his re-election because he demonstrated commitment and getting on with the job.

I want the record to clearly state that there were a lot of years of frustration, where the New Democratic Party, for some particular reason, was not able to conclude the agreement--[interjection] Well, I am not adding politics to this. I am just saying for whatever reason there was they were not able to put the agreement together. History shows that. I am pleased that we were able to accomplish it.

I have a little bit of a concern about the comments made from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) in his criticism of the northern roads. I know it is not totally on the subject, but it has something to do with it because the northern roads, winter roads, have a lot to do with access for those people to have supplies taken in and supplies taken out.

His criticism of the roads--I am not sure whether he is criticising Norwin Construction, which had the contract over the past five years to provide the roads. What was his criticism? I was not quite clear on his criticism. Was he criticising Norwin Construction, which was carrying out the work of the northern roads? I was not quite clear as to what his criticism was. Was it Norwin, or whether it was in fact--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, I suspect--first of all, I would suggest that the minister's comments were not relevant to the Split Lake Northern Flood bill, nor I think are they in keeping with the kind of respect we should show for the importance of this issue. But, if the member wanted to revert back to the question that he was going to ask the member for Transcona, I am sure we can deal with any misconceptions he might have, because the road he was referring to is the Split Lake-York Landing Road. Norwin Construction does not construct that road.

I think we could accommodate, perhaps by leave, clearing up the misconception of the minister, without taking up the time in irrelevant comments that only detract from the very seriousness of the debate on this bill, which is very important to the people of the Split Lake Cree First Nation.

I think we should all show respect for the people of Split Lake by debating the Northern Flood concerns and the specific concerns of the people of Split Lake, not some other agenda the former Minister of Northern Affairs might have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson for that. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts, but I would ask the honourable minister to be relevant to Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement.

* * *

Mr. Downey: The point that has to be made is that this is a bill that is a piece of Manitoba history. It is important to note what contributions were made by Chief Norman Flett of Split Lake Cree. So I again compliment the committee, but I also say to the members that the communities when under some 15 years of frustration under the former administration--and it was unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we cannot have the acknowledgment from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that they were not able to accomplish what he should have been able to.

* (1540)

That aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just say that I am pleased today that the Split Lake Cree and Chief Norman Flett and all his councils and all their citizens are able to move forward, that we have seen what I believe is a compromise, yes, on their part, but a compromise on the federal and provincial governments' part.

The future, I think, is a tremendous opportunity for them, because they in fact are not sitting there waiting on a government who has prolonged for far too long a conclusion to an outstanding obligation that has now been fulfilled. I look forward to the presentations during the committee stage and am just pleased to have been a part of resolving a long-term, outstanding issue of which it is time it reached this stage. It is past time that it reached this stage.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on the bill. Actually, I was just testing a long-held tradition in this Chamber that, when the minister closes the debate on second reading, no further comments are made, but I was just checking the new rules.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I also welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this bill, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I welcome and I respect the decision and the voice of those members of the Split Lake First Nation. I do not know if the former Minister of Northern Affairs is aware that the Cree name for Split Lake is Tataskweyak. I understand that the people from Split Lake, members of the First Nations from Split Lake, had held a referendum and the referendum was--the vote was yes. I respect that.

Indeed, it has been a long time, not only for the people of Split Lake, but other communities as well, such as Nelson House, York Landing, Cross Lake and Norway House, and other First Nations in the North who have been affected by hydro development or by any development that required rechannelling the natural waterways and the lake system of northern Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, indeed, much has happened since 17 years ago. Seventeen years ago the land up north was in its natural state for the most part. It had not been disrupted. Those were the good days. Those were the good times. That was the good life.

Many of the people who were involved at the start of this process have since passed on. A lot of the chiefs and councillors, the staff of Split Lake, who worked there from day one, some of them have passed on and are no longer with us. Then there are those who were involved right from the start and who are still there today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The people and the land have changed so much up there. A whole way of life has been changed forever by this hydro development--forever. It has been changed forever. That means that we can never go back to the way it was before. That means things will never be the same any more.

When I hear stories from trappers, hunters and fishermen from Split Lake and the other communities telling me about how good everything was in those days I get really saddened and I feel for those people because I myself know what it was like in the old days before the development came on the scene. The abundance of everything was there. We lived off the land. Life was pretty good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and then the land was flooded. There was a lot of disruption not only because of what resulted after the development was completed but there was also a lot of disruption caused during the construction period. That disruption was very traumatic for many members of the community.

You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the only life that members of the Split Lake First Nation knew for a long, long time, and they were comfortable with that life. So when their environment, an environment that they knew and interacted with so well, was disrupted, naturally there was confusion and people did not know what to do. Since the beginning of time this is how those people lived up there. So now they have assessed what was there and is there now. They know that things will never be the same. They know that it will not be corrected, it will not be back, it will not be put back to the state that it was in before the development took place, so the people from Split Lake--and I know this because I have talked to a lot of people from Split lake, including the chief and council--know that this is the best they can get.

They are not entirely satisfied with the agreement, but they know that given the circumstances, given the 17 years, given the fact that a lot of people have died since while trying to negotiate this agreement, they know that they have agreed to come to terms with this government. This development and the manner in which it took away traditional land from the people and from the affected First Nations from northern Manitoba such as those ones that I mentioned, those who belong to the Northern Flood Agreement, and the social cost that it inflicted on the people is not unlike treaties that were entered into in the past. The AJI concluded, as my colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) alluded to earlier, that the Northern Flood Agreement be regarded as carrying the same legal and financial obligations as to the numbered treaties. In our case it is Treaty No. 5. This government, however, refused to even listen to that concept.

So I want to finish by saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I often wonder how people from down south, people who live on farms--because I often sit here and I read the newspapers and I watch TV, you know, people, farmers, worrying that the farming life is disappearing, and there are more and more young people moving out. Communities in some cases are dying, and so it is like the aboriginal people up north.

That is the life that they knew for so long, and the farmers down south, that is the life that they knew for so long. For any disruption that takes place on that farm, on that family farm, well, it creates a lot of problems.

* (1550)

So I often wonder how they would feel if I were to come into southern Manitoba, and I started changing waterways, and I started changing the physical layout of the land, and I started displacing people, I destroyed their way of life. I wonder how people would feel because that is exactly what happened in northern Manitoba.

Government has destroyed a whole way of life in northern Manitoba. People were caused to be dependent on governments in Manitoba in a lot of ways, not entirely, but in a lot of ways, and so when I think about those two situations, it makes me think, I wonder what they would say. I wonder what they would do. It would be a scandal, I know, if it were to happen in southern Manitoba.

So with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for listening to me, and I salute the people of Split Lake, and I wish them the very best. Thank you.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rose earlier on what I believed to be a point of order believing that the bill was in the name of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I appreciate that technically I suppose you could rule that, therefore, I have already spoken to the bill and I not now be given an opportunity to make a few comments, but I would ask leave to put just a few comments on the record, particularly in response to the member for The Pas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture have leave to put a few words on the record seeing as he had been recognized at a previous time? Does the honourable minister have leave?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Some Honourable Members: No.

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

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I am going to take this opportunity to put a few remarks on record with respect to this particular bill, Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a band member of one of the Northern Flood bands. I am a member of the Cross Lake Cree Nation, and I was born and raised in Norway House and many different northern communities throughout the North. I know first-hand of the situation of aboriginal people. I know the way of life that was altered. Among my people, the traditional livelihoods that our people once enjoyed in northern Manitoba are no longer there.

In 1977, and we can, I suppose, throw remarks across this Chamber as to who is responsible for the flooding of many traditional territories and the loss of life. It is unfortunate that we lost our way of life in many of our northern communities.

One of the things that I do, is that, when somebody else is speaking, I do listen. I would ask for that same respect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask all honourable members to carry on their conversations in the loge so that the honourable member could finish his debate.

The honourable member for Rupertsland, to continue.

Mr. Robinson: In 1977, Split Lake, Norway House, Cross Lake, York Landing and Nelson House became part of the Northern Flood Agreement. I have had the opportunity of being in Split Lake on a number of occasions, and, most recently, this past spring when I accompanied the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

At that time, we had a community meeting with many members of the community, the elders of the community, the council under the leadership at that time of Chief John Garson. Of course, now Chief Norman Flett and council are going to be speaking on this particular bill in committee that we are now talking about.

Split Lake is one of the traditional communities in northern Manitoba where the first language is Cree, and the people of that community still speak that language as their first language. As my colleague for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) mentioned earlier, many people have come and gone who have worked on this very issue for a number of years, including Chief Walter Monias who recently passed away. It was, of course, with deep sorrow that the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and myself attended the funeral and showed our respects to the family of Chief Walter Monias.

Chief Monias was one of those people who had ultimate respect for all people and elders and his fellow leaders, and in Split Lake, we have had an opportunity to recently have discussions with the community leadership and with the elders who provide extremely good advice to their current leadership, and that is a practice of this community. Their meetings are conducted in a very traditional manner where the first language is spoken, and also the availability of elders is evident, where elders provide the younger leadership with some guidance on critical issues that they are dealing with.

One of the findings of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would like to read the recommendations that were found by the commissioners of the AJI. I had the opportunity of being in Split Lake during the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry hearings. What they came up with in their recommendations is that the governments of Manitoba and Canada recognize the Northern Flood Agreement as a treaty and honour and properly implement the NFA's terms.

In other words, the NFA communities, including Split Lake, regard the Northern Flood Agreement as a modern day treaty, and we support that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Another recommendation of the AJI was that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that equivalent rights are granted by agreement to the other aboriginal people affected by the flooding.

The community of Split Lake is an active community. We have a high school. We have the opportunity now for many of the students to complete their education there from K to Grade 12, and this is primarily due to the hard work and the leadership of the community of Split Lake. We have seen a community, in spite of the problems that have been suffered in the past by the flooding and the loss of a way of life and traditional economies being taken away from the people in that community, we have seen people, in spite of those negative things that have occurred and have happened to those people, make great strides.

I was deeply honoured when the community elders and the councillors and the chiefs gave their MLA the proper blessings for him to carry out the work in this Manitoba Legislature. They sought words of prayer from their elders to provide him with the strength to be able to speak properly on their behalf here, and those are very significant things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an MLA to be given that respect and honour. Even though there was some disagreement between the communities in the past on how to proceed in terms of the Northern Flood Agreement, Split Lake was the first community to break away from the Northern Flood Committee and are pursuing matters on their own hand.

Out of respect for the community leadership, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and a request by them for us to support this bill, I stand today to applaud the accomplishment of the leadership of Split Lake, and I will be supporting this bill into committee. I will be the last person from our side of the House to speak on this bill, and I move that we move it to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed.

* (1600)

House Business

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we wish to refer Bill 13 to the Economic Development Committee for 9 a.m. on Thursday, October 26.

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed.

The hour being 4 p.m., as previously agreed, the first private members' hour.