Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if you could bear with me, we have a fair number of announcements about House business today. It is a rather complex set of activities that we will be calling upon the House to undergo.

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between House leaders respecting the afternoon's House business. I will be calling certain bills to be followed by Interim Supply in the House and two sections of the Committee of Supply meeting concurrently outside of the Chamber. In this connection, I believe, if you were to canvass the House, you would find there is unanimous consent for the following, and I will go through each point.

Firstly, to waive private members' hour for today, so I ask that first.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour for today? [agreed]

We are asking for two sections of the Committee of Supply to meet in the committee rooms, one of them being the Department of Energy and Mines to be followed by Family Services in Room 254 and the other to be the continuation of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Room 255. This is to occur while the House will continue to sit for the consideration of Interim Supply.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for two sections of the Committee of Supply to meet in the committee rooms while the House is sitting to consider the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mines to be followed by Family Services in Room 254 and the Estimates of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Room 255? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we would also ask for unanimous consent for the motion for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply to be moved a second time to enable a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in the Chamber to consider the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation following the completion of Interim Supply.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply to be moved a second time to enable a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in the Chamber to consider the Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation? [agreed]

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House that if there are any formal votes requested in either section of the Committee of Supply meeting outside the Chamber that those votes be deferred until the next meeting of all sections of the Committee of Supply in the Chamber? Agreed? [agreed]

An Honourable Member: Second readings.

I would ask, then, Madam Speaker, at this time if you could please call for debate on second reading the following: Bills 33, 4, 11, 12, 18, 5, 6 and 13. Following that, I will be moving the motion for the first two sections of Committee of Supply to begin their work.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to add my comments to Bill 33, which I think should more appropriately be referred to as the restoration of the Workers Compensation widows' pensions legislation. Thank God for provincial general elections. Had it not been for a provincial general election that was just around the corner here, and perhaps we would have been very to close e-day at this particular time, this issue probably would not have seen the light of day.

I say that with much caution with respect to my comments here, not wanting to be harsh or critical, knowing that there were several governments that were involved, but I want to reference the very fact that this issue was raised back in 1996 when the widows first came to the Province of Manitoba, to the Manitoba Workers Compensation Board, and asked that the Compensation Board of Manitoba indicate or at least investigate the possibility of restoration of widows' pensions that have been terminated by cause of remarriage by that particular surviving spouse.

I know at that time that the Compensation Board had said, if I can recall correctly some of the comments, that they would consider the matter, that it was complex, constitutional and there were statutory interpretations and that the Compensation Board would be reviewing them in conjunction with the Manitoba legislation.

* (1500)

Well, 1996 was the first time that this matter was brought to the attention of the Workers Compensation Board by the aggrieved widows. Now I am sure that the widows and widowers that had been affected as individuals, upon the demise of their spouse, would have taken some exception with the Compensation Board and the legislation at that time that took away their benefits when they remarried.

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with many of these surviving widows, because all of them that I met with were widows, even though I am told that there was one widower who is affected. The widows themselves felt very much aggrieved by the legislation that was in place at the time.

Now, I do note, in fairness to the government opposite, that it was another government prior to this government's term of office that had legislation in place that had been long-standing and that, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being in the province of Manitoba in April of 1985, the government at that time implemented changes to recognize that the Charter took some precedence in matters involving that current legislation of that day and that the legislation for the Workers Compensation Act needed to be revised.

At that time, it was revised to put in place a dependency test to recognize that where widows remarried, there would be a cessation of any wage loss or survivor benefits to the widow. Now it is my understanding that if there were dependent children that were involved, the dependent children continued to receive their allowance, if I understand the legislation of that day correctly.

Since that time, of course, going back to 1996, I noticed that the widows themselves have communicated with the Compensation Board, but the Compensation Board refused to deal with that matter at that time. In fact, I look at information that came to my attention that the Workers Compensation Board was reviewing the legislation, and the widows would be hearing back shortly. That was in November of 1996. Here we are, in June 1999, debating legislation that would restore benefits to the precharter group of widows.

If I look also at the fact that the Province of British Columbia had at that time implemented changes to recognize that there was an entitlement on the part of a group of their widows to pension benefits in the death of the spouse, and the Province of British Columbia implemented those changes to their act, I believe it was in 1997, it is my understanding that that particular British Columbia situation, the legislation was passed and that the widows in the post-Charter of Rights group had their benefits restored. The widows prior to that particular period of time, 1985, did not have restorational benefits, challenged that decision subsequently in court and were successful in having the courts restore benefits to the widows in the pre-Charter era in the province of British Columbia. So all of the widows of the province of British Columbia had their pension benefits restored back in 1997.

What did Manitoba do? Manitoba sat on the issue and continued to study it. At least that is what they tell us. In June of 1997, the letter that goes back from the Manitoba Workers Compensation Board to the widows indicates that they did not recommend any changes in any of the decisions for the pre-1992 group. Now that tells me that the Workers Compensation Board here failed to recognize that there was a responsibility, a legal and moral responsibility, I believe, in the group from April of 1985 till January 1, 1992, but the Compensation Board continued to duck and shirk their responsibility, and for that particular action at that time, I say, shame on the Compensation Board here in Manitoba.

One of the most bothersome aspects of the actions of both the Manitoba government and the Workers Compensation Board here in this province is that the widows were treated like a ping-pong ball. They were bounced back and forth between the Workers Compensation Board and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry of Labour says that it is not an issue, and I know it was not the current Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) so I will not point fingers at him. It was his predecessor that was involved and had one meeting with the widows, but that particular minister did not want to deal with the issue. He bounced the widows back to the Workers Compensation Board.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have sat here on my bench and I have exercised incredible patience listening to the aspersions of the member opposite, first of all, trying to allege motive of this government, that the impending election was the reason for the presentation of this bill. Now he is casting reflections upon my predecessor alleging further motive that that minister did not want to deal with this issue. This is supposition and hypothesis on his part, which was totally groundless and against our rules of order by trying to allege motive and improper motives in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour did not have a point of order relative to imputing motives. However, I would remind the honourable member for Transcona that in debate on second reading, our rules are very clear that the debate should be relevant to the principles of the bill.

* * *

Mr. Reid: I recognize that you may not have the history of involvement with this particular legislation as we do on this side, Madam Speaker, but I do reference for your information and for members of this House, that this legislation took away the pensions of widows. I am trying to put into historical perspective the events that have occurred as they relate to the legislation under which we are debating here today, so I want to put that historical perspective on the record, so members of the House will have some history on which to base the decision with respect to the legislation.

Yes, I fully agree that, yes, there were two different governments that were involved. I have said that on the record in my opening comments, but I do recognize, too, that the widows had approached the government and the Workers Compensation Board here in Manitoba back in 1996. It was not until this year, 1999, over three years later, that the government has decided in election year to make some changes to the pensions for the widows that previous governments have taken away, that both governments have taken away from widows. That is the point that I am raising here, the historical perspective of the issue as it has been related to me and as my research has been able to determine. I do it at no disrespect for the current Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe). I have said that on the record that it was his predecessor that did not want to act on it at that time. It was not this current Minister of Labour, so with greatest respect to the current minister, yes, he has taken some action on this, and I respect him for taking that action at this time, even though it is an election year.

Madam Speaker, going back to my comments with respect to the historical fact relating to this issue, it is interesting to note that the widows were treated like a ping-pong ball bounced back and forth between the Workers Compensation Board, who said that it requires a legislative change, and the Ministry of Labour in this province, the previous minister saying, no, it was an issue involving the board of directors at the Workers Compensation Board. So those widows were bounced back and forth in this like a ping-pong ball. What I am saying here is that they were shown no respect for the difficulties that they were encountering, both emotionally and financially, as a result of decisions that were made by two different governments in the province of Manitoba involving The Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba.

I think that the dependency test that was brought in by the previous government was not appropriate for that particular day and time. That was their decision at that time. I do not support or condone in any way the actions that they had taken at that time. I cannot second-guess the reasons. I was not here at the time, but they made the decision perhaps on the best evidence available at that time.

I do know, Madam Speaker, that in 1987 the King commission report came back to this Manitoba Legislative Assembly and made a report on changes to The Workers Compensation Act here in the province of Manitoba. It is interesting to note if one is to read Recommendation 132 of the King commission report, and I know the previous, previous, previous Minister of Labour, now Minister of Highways (Mr. Praznik), did not act on this recommendation either when he was Minister of Labour.

Recommendation 132 states: "The committee believes that the system of benefits currently paid in Manitoba to surviving spouses and dependent children needs improvement. Models used in other jurisdictions are unacceptable for a variety of reasons, including age discrimination. Therefore, we recommend that the following benefits for survivors be adopted in all fatal injuries occurring on or after a date to be specified in legislation, and (a) a sum of $175,000 be paid to the surviving spouse either in a lump sum or a pension."

* (1510)

That was the recommendation of the King commission report. There is another section in here dealing with also survivor benefits and the effect that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has on it. I reference that for minister's attention, Recommendation 133. I am sure his office has copies of the King commission report to which he can reference quite freely and openly. So at that time the previous government in the committee that they had struck, the commission they had struck, recognized that there were deficiencies in The Workers Compensation Act, and that widows who had had their benefits terminated by reason of remarriage should have had restoration of those benefits and that a lump sum of $175,000 was the reasonable amount of money to be paid to the surviving spouses to compensate them for loss as a result of decisions of the act. At that time the government, unfortunately, fell and did not have a chance to implement these recommendations, but the successive government, the current government, came into office and chose to ignore those recommendations in your legislation, Bill 59 of 1991.

I do note that the current Minister of Highways, in reference to Bill 33 and the activities of the board, indicated that the board was in some financial difficulty. It is interesting to note that the same person that was sitting in on the King commission report is the same person that that Minister of Highways, when Minister of Labour, and the current Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) and his predecessors are relying on now for their Deputy Minister of Labour. So Madam Speaker, I have to expect that the Deputy Minister of Labour, who was unanimous in this recommendation, had some knowledge of what was decent and fair with respect to restoration of widows' pensions in this province. Now, I trust that the deputy minister was acting in good faith, but this was a unanimous recommendation, and the government at that time refused to act on it.

With respect to the issue of the Charter, Madam Speaker, we had issued that the Canadian Charter of Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status. We also know that the Manitoba Human Rights Code also provides provisions in the code, and I will reference Part II: Prohibited Conduct and Special Programs. It talks about it in the equality rights section when it references them at 9(1)(b) differential treatment of an individual on the basis of any of the characteristics referred to in subsection (2), and if you go to subsection 2 it references marital or family status.

So, Madam Speaker, there was a responsibility on the part of the provincial governments, two of them that were involved, to recognize that the Manitoba Human Rights Code should take precedence in this case, as well, and that there should have been no discrimination on the basis of marital or family status. Unfortunately, that legislation did and has not been corrected until much later.

Now, going back to the issue of dependency tests, and I want to draw to the members of the House how this dependency test was applied, or not applied as is the more appropriate case. The previous provincial government had put in place, in recognition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a provision that said that where widows remarry, because it was widows in most of the cases, that there would be a dependency test applied to see whether or not they needed or were reliant on the monies.

Now, the interesting part about that dependency test was that it was never applied. Not one of the widows whom I had talked to had ever taken part in the dependency test. Not one of them was ever consulted about the dependency test and whether or not they required that pension to survive. [interjection] Exactly. The test was backwards, and I thank the minister for raising that to my attention.

The dependency test at that time, in 1985, indicated that if you were a surviving spouse and you remarried, the test would be if you could prove that your pension income was greater than the income of the new spouse on remarriage, that you would get to keep your pension, but if your new spouse on remarriage was making more money than what your pension was, you lost your pension. Now, if that is not foolish logic, I do not know what is, and I cannot in good conscience condone a policy that would use logic to put in place such a policy.

An Honourable Member: Ask your Leader. He was around then.

Mr. Reid: I cannot defend why that decision was made. I was not here at the time, so I will not attempt to defend that particular logic. But I think because the dependency test was the government's answer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' changes, that it was not applied fairly and the Compensation Board, to their credit today, has indicated that is was not applied fairly and consistently, and they recognize that they are in error in that. Therefore they have to take some steps to rectify what has happened with respect to the widows' pensions that were lost.

Now, it is interesting to note, too, that the other part of that hardship, financial and emotional hardship, that the widows had to undergo was that if the second marriage dissolved, there was no basis for the restoration of that particular pension for those widows. In other words, once you remarried your pension was forever gone as a result of that remarriage.

I talked to many of the widows here for several years now, Madam Speaker. They have told me of their extreme emotional stress at the loss of a spouse. I can only reference the cases that come to my attention when the widows would tell me that they would wake up in the morning with their families all cheerful to start the day. They would see their spouse off to work, out the door of the house. Several hours later they would have a police officer or an RCMP officer knocking on their door indicating that perhaps they should come to the hospital with the police because there has been a serious accident. The widows have indicated to me, when that happened, their lives were forever unalterably changed as a result of those events that were beyond their control.

To add insult to injury, many of them, unfortunately, after the loss of their first spouse, were involved in marriages that subsequently went bad and ended up in divorce or separation. The widows had no recourse to any source of income as a result of loss of pension through remarriage.

One of the interesting parts that the members of the House may not be aware of is that during the time that the widows were, after the loss, after their first spouse was deceased, the Compensation Board had a practice of investigating whether or not there were any males visiting the house or the homes of the widows that were involved or involved in the sense of loss of spouse.

In other words, they were told, and I recollect this as if they are standing here talking to me today, because this is one of the major frustrations that the widows have with respect to the way the Compensation Board conducted themselves in prior years, if a male, whether it be a cousin, a father, a brother, an uncle came to stay at their home, they risked losing their pension benefits as a result of that person staying in that home. They could be staying there with other people, but as long as the Compensation Board investigators were watching, no male could ever come and stay at that place. In fact those widows were not free to date, because they feared losing their pension benefits if they were found to be dating someone.

I would think that that would be an intrusion into a person's life that would not in any way be accepted by today's society. I say on those earlier Compensation Boards, shame on you for taking such actions and for involving yourself so personally in the lives of widows that were at the most vulnerable points of their own personal lives.

Now, with respect to this legislation that we have before us, I do thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) for recognizing that there is an injustice in this province with respect to the widows' pensions and that you have taken steps to correct, at least in part, the injustices that have gone on for a number of years. I feel quite fortunate that I had the honour and the privilege to work with these widows since early in 1997. It has taken over two years to bring it to this point. If there is one thing that I can point to with some degree of honour and privilege, it is being able to work with the widows. For all of the attempts that we make in this Legislative Assembly to effect some change that will affect people in a positive way, this is one of those issues that has given myself personally the opportunity to see that speck of light in that great black void of being able to effect some positive change as it affects the people of our province. So I take great pride and satisfaction in being able to work with the widows for a number of years to bring about changes, to restore some sense of justice and fairness for widows' pensions.

* (1520)

I do note that there are several other provinces in Canada that have brought about changes to the legislation. It is interesting to note that the Province of British Columbia brought in their changes some time ago. Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, PEI and Saskatchewan have put in place changes to the Workers Compensation system and have restored to some degree some of the financial monies that were lost through widows' pensions that were taken away by reason of remarriage.

Now, it is my understanding that British Columbia was one of the first, if not the first, to restore those widows' pensions and that the other provinces followed suit after that. Varying degrees of reinstatement of pensions have occurred or in some cases just financial settlements in lieu of restoration of pensions. The Province of Ontario, from my understanding, has gone even further than Manitoba has. I am sure it is no secret to the members opposite that the Ontario compensation system is in serious financial difficulties. The minister likes to talk about the difficulties that are here in Manitoba. Well, the Ontario workers compensation board, which is now a changed name, is also in serious financial difficulties, but they themselves have put in place a plan that would restore the widows' pensions in addition to a cash settlement.

The Province of British Columbia have restored widows' pensions back to the date of remarriage. The widows' pensions in Newfoundland, for example, they have reinstated the pensions upon application. In P.E.I. they have reinstated the pensions effective January 1, 1998, but no retroactivity. So there is a variety of changes that have occurred in the way pensions have been restored for widows in the various provinces across Canada. Unfortunately the Province of Alberta is, I believe, probably going to end up in court as a result of their inaction in restoring the widows' pensions, because they refuse to recognize that they have a legal responsibility I believe, if not a moral responsibility to restore those pensions. The Province of Saskatchewan has offered $80,000 as a lump sum to the widows who have had their pensions cut off by reason of remarriage, and that has been advertised widely in the newspapers here, even in our province.

The interesting part, and this is one of the questions I am going to be asking of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Radcliffe) when this bill moves through to committee, because it is my understanding that the widows in this province received a lump sum settlement of I think it is $3,600 when their pension was terminated at remarriage time. I have papers here that indicate that perhaps that amount of money is going to be deducted from the $83,000 that is being offered to the widows, because that is what I read into one of the sections of the papers that the minister has provided for my information. So if I am inaccurate or incorrect on that, I am sure the minister will correct me in that regard, because I would not want to see the widows lose any more of their money to which I believe that they are fully entitled.

The unfortunate part is, Madam Speaker, that the Province of Manitoba has opted for $83,000 when, if you did even the rough calculations, that money would have been considerably higher for a number of the widows that have been cut off for a great number of years and that the province for some reason has indicated that they want to have $83,000 as a figure. So we will be asking the questions in committee with respect to how the government arrived at the $83,000 figure, because I think it is important for the public, the widows, to know how that particular figure was arrived at.

We would also want to ask a number of other questions with respect to the legislation that is in effect here in Manitoba with respect to how the government arrived at some of the changes or the clauses that are in the legislation itself with respect to Bill 33. This legislation of course goes part way, from what I hear from some of the widows.

I am not sure if the minister has heard this or not, but not all the widows are satisfied that they are receiving full justice as a result of the acts of the Compensation Board in years past. Some of them are dissatisfied at the level of compensation that has been offered, and we may hear that at the committee hearings. Time will tell if those widows register and appear before the committee.

I do note that there are others that think that this matter is long past its time in being resolved, and they would like to have this matter dealt with and that this legislation for them will bring an end or a closure to the way this matter has been dealt with over a number of years. We would hope that we will be able to have answers for them when this matter goes through to committee.

They have asked us a number of questions for which we have no answers and that we will be asking the minister and his staff. We do hope that there will be members of the Compensation Board that will be in attendance at the committee hearings perhaps as early as next week.

If we find that there is consensus on this particular piece of legislation, I would also indicate if it is possible to have Royal Assent to this matter as soon as possible so that we would be able to put the money into the hands of those widows and widowers to reflect that there would be a need to recognize that we do not want this to drag on any longer than it is already occurring, if that can occur, if there is consensus at the committee, I would think that that would be an appropriate step to take to address these matters.

With that, I look forward to this bill going through to committee and giving members of the public, including the widows, the opportunity to come out and to share their stories with us. Thank you for the opportunity to add my comments on this bill.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 33, The Special Payment to Certain Dependent Spouses of Deceased Workers Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Tuesday, June 22, 1999, for 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 4 (The Law Fees Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les frais judiciaires et modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): This bill simply confirms Manitoba's existing schedule of probate fees, which may be in doubt following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 1998 about Ontario's probate fee regulation, which was found to be unconstitutional because it was not simply an administrative fee but was charged on a graduating scale that did not match the administrative costs. Because that was not an act of or subject or set forth by an act of the Legislature but by regulation, it was struck down. This will just confirm the validity of Manitoba's probate fees. We are prepared to see it go to committee.

* (1530)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): There was a Supreme Court ruling regarding an Ontario regulation of October 22, 1998, that ruled that the Ontario legislation was out of order and unconstitutional. This had to do with the placement of the fees in the regulations. Although this court decision referred to the Ontario legislation, it has ramification on many other provinces who have since brought their legislation up to date with this court decision. This bill, the government is responding directly to the uncertainties that have been caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Although Manitoba's fees are lower than those in Ontario, we still have the same graduated structure for the fees. This was in part one of the reasons why the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional. So although this bill will have no impact on actual probate charges being collected, which will continue at exactly the same level as under the existing fees structure, it will make them constitutional. So we look forward to this bill proceeding to committee and anxious to hear if there are any concerns from the legal community in regard to this matter.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 4, The Law Fees Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, Bill 11, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives (Nunavut), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): [Inuktitut spoken]

What I said, Madam Speaker, in my first language, which is Inuktitut, was: As an Inuit person, I am very happy and proud that the Inuit people now have our own land and hopefully that will give the opportunity to all our children in Nunavut to be able to stay home and work and find employment opportunities in Nunavut.

It was an extremely proud moment when Nunavut was formed and was undertaken by a lot of individuals, the vision of our elders and the people of Nunavut to push forward to create a territory which now we say as Nunavut instead of Northwest Territories. The reason a lot of the Inuit people wanted to create our own territory was because, under the previous NWT in the western Arctic under the government system that was in place, a lot of the funding and dollars that were available went more to the western Arctic than to the eastern Arctic. For example, the highways budget was really put in place for highway development and infrastructure of roads in a lot of the western communities because in Nunavut there is only about 20 kilometres of road throughout the whole territory.

I want to, first of all, congratulate the 19 MLAs who were elected to the new territory of Nunavut. It was a very historical election because they will go down as a record as being the first MLAs ever elected to the new territory of Nunavut. After the elections, the MLAs got together and elected a Premier and cabinet ministers, and I would like to, first of all, congratulate the first Premier of Nunavut, Paul Okalik, who was elected to Iqaluit West. He was the first ever Inuit attorney at law. He had been called to the bar four days prior to being elected as an MLA. I know that he will represent our people in the best possible way that he can, and he will do us all proud as Inuit people.

Okalik has become a beacon to others, especially young people who look to the energetic young lawyer and perhaps see themselves. People will be looking at that and saying: If Paul can do it so can I. Those words were spoken by Jose Kusagok, who is my relative and also the president for Nunavut Tunngavik. Paul Okalik brings a lot of diversity from his past and his upbringing to represent the people of Nunavut, and we as Inuit people are very proud of some of the barriers and obstacles that he has had to overcome.

As a teenager, losing a battle with alcohol, a young and despondent Okalik dropped out of high school in Iqaluit, his burning desire to one day practise law dying in an ember. He eventually returned to school in Fort Smith to earn a welder's degree and his high school equivalency. Paul spent the first two years of his working life underground in an Nanisivik Mine, a job he found dirty and tiresome. In 1985, Paul set his foot upon a path that would lead him to an Iqaluit courtroom where in front of a supreme court judge he would swear an oath no Inuk from Nunavut ever had. That was the year he began working on negotiating the Nunavut land claims agreement, yet heavy drinking in the late 1980s landed him repeatedly in jail.

In 1991, he signed himself into a 28-day alcohol treatment program. That fall he made plans to attend Carleton University to pursue an undergraduate degree in political science and Canadian studies. He completed his bachelor's degree during the summer of 1993 and was accepted into the University of Ottawa's law program in September. Last year he graduated with a law degree.

Madam Speaker, that says a lot of why we as governments, we as people must never abandon anyone or any individual that is facing hardships. Whatever the reasons are when individuals veer off the path, we cannot give up on them. Paul will always be a true role model for the young Inuit people and all citizens of Nunavut as, if I can do it, you can do it. The barriers he overcame, the problems he overcame, and I will bet you if you had talked to any individual or even himself at that time when he was facing those barriers and said: Paul, one day you will be a premier, he probably would have laughed in your face. But he turned his life around, and you must give him all the credit in the world. It shows that, with support and commitment of individuals, one can overcome the barriers that are put in our lives.

In some of his speeches, what he has said is that we have to make Nunavut and Iqaluit an attractive place to live and work for all citizens of Nunavut, and I will try my hardest to accomplish those goals. I know from speaking to family members and friends who live in Nunavut and read the papers that are out there and see Hunter on a continual basis, they are saying that he is working extremely hard, and they say that we should be and we must be very proud of what he is trying to accomplish. I know that he will do very well because he has a good heart, and I think that one of the best things and the strongest points in achieving good things for other people is having the willingness and the heart to assist other people when they need the assistance.

* (1540)

So, Madam Speaker, Paul and Hunter and also James Arvaluk, who is my cousin, was also elected that same evening, and our family is also extremely proud of and honoured for James. Uriash Puqiqnak, who was elected in Nattilik is a carver and a traditional Inuit elder. It is very important of what he said the evening he was elected. Uriash was born on the land south of Cambridge Bay, raised by his mother. Puqiqnak said his interest in sitting as an MLA is grounded in his love of Inuit culture and language. A renowned soapstone carver, a father of five, grandfather of four, he said his fellow MLAs can expect him to be a vocal supporter of better education for Nunavut's young, particularly as it affects the quality of Inuktitut. As a Nunavut people we are going to have to use our language, he says. We are a nation and a nation has to have its own language, a first language. That is something that we really have to work through closely to try to get more educated Inuktitut languages. This is an elder that is making these statements, and rightfully so, because Madam Speaker, when an individual does not know who they are, how can we expect that person to know others? It is so important to know oneself to know others, and appreciate the difference in our cultures, in our languages, and we have to appreciate our differences and that is what he is saying.

Throughout history, Inuit people, we have always been a proud people. We have sustained our lifestyle through hunting and fishing and trapping the old traditional ways. If you look at my own birth certificate, I was born in Pork's Point, Northwest Territories. When I needed my birth certificate I had to phone Yellowknife, and when I phoned Yellowknife they had my record of birth and everything there and the person I was speaking with said where is Pork's Point? You are the only person that has ever been registered to have been born in Pork's Point.

Madam Speaker, that is why my birth certificate, where I was born, I am the only one registered there to StatsCanada's records and that is what this elder was talking about, that the youth cannot lose that, and we as parents and grandparents and the elders, they want to and they must pass that knowledge on to our children. Yes, technology is evolving and, yes, our youth has to keep up with the times, but they still have to know who they are first above anything.

Madam Speaker, I will speak a little more on that later, but I also want to acknowledge Jack Anawak and Manitok Thompson, who some of the members here when they were on that trade mission had the opportunity to meet and spend some time with. They were elected in the community of Rankin Inlet. There is only one sad note for me when I look back at the 19 MLAs that were elected to the new territory of Nunavut is that Manitok Thompson was the only woman that was elected.

I hope in the future that will change and we will have a more balanced representation between men and women, and I am sure that will happen. Manitok was a sitting MLA prior to Nunavut, and she has worked extremely hard for the people and that is why she was re-elected in Rankin Inlet. Jack Anawak, you know, was a sitting Liberal member of Parliament for the Territories under the Liberal government and he too was elected. I congratulate both of them, but I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the people in Nunavut who went out and cast their votes.

You know, Madam Speaker, it was an historical moment, but it had to be a very, very proud moment for all Inuit people. I could not go at that time to celebrate the new territory, but all my family went. My sister even flew up there from Vancouver. My mother was there, and they relayed the celebrations and the pride of the people.

But, Madam Speaker, when I congratulate the citizens of Nunavut, there were 71 candidates that filed their name forward to seek the nomination for 19 seats, and the turnout that day of voters was 88 percent, 88 percent throughout the whole new territory of Nunavut. So that showed that the hard work and the efforts of the individuals to form Nunavut was greatly appreciated, and the vision of the individuals and my friends and family who live in Nunavut, the vision of a brighter future for our children and all the children in Nunavut had to be there for that to happen.

I am sure that they spent some time in some of the stores in those communities. When you look at the price of goods, there are not too many families that could exist without hunting and fishing and the sustainability of a lifestyle that depends on meat, because if you walk into any of those stores and you look at the price of pork and beef and chicken and stuff, for a lot of individuals it is unaffordable. So the hunting skills have to be passed on to the children, so when they have families and they have children, they will be able to feed and look after their families through hunting. Hunting amongst the Inuit people, Madam Speaker, I have never, ever seen it to be a sport. It has always been to sustain your family and to put food on the table.

* (1550)

So, Madam Speaker, in the education system in Nunavut, they teach that right in the education system in the schools. Elders take the children out and they teach them how to hunt, how to fish and how to dress the animal to make sure that nothing is wasted, because someday their hunting skills will either mean their family goes hungry or their family goes to bed that evening with a full stomach. So it is not for sport; it is to sustain the family.

One thing I was really pleased with was when this government struck the trade mission with the people of Kivalliq and what used to be the Keewatin region and invited the people from Nunavut to participate in the trade shows and talked with business people and with government members. I attended many of the functions, and it was well organized. I congratulate the government on their role in welcoming the participants from Nunavut and also taking the opportunity to go to Nunavut and to bring business people and individuals. Hopefully we will be able to share and assist the Inuit people in starting up businesses and opening up education opportunities for the youth in Nunavut, as we in Manitoba benefit greatly, and we could and we probably will benefit to a greater extent the possibility of trades and exchanges with the new territory of Nunavut.

For an example, we only have to look at our health care system. A lot of the Inuit people now, when they are seriously ill or need operations and stuff, they come to Winnipeg. There is a transient centre here in Winnipeg to deal with the housing and the lodging, and our hospitals provide the doctors and the specialists for operations for patients that come from Northwest Territories.

Madam Speaker, when we talk about opportunities, I hope that is one opportunity that will be kept open with the residents of Nunavut. I do not say this in a mean way. I say this in a suggestive way to the government. When you are looking at implementing frozen food to the St. Boniface Hospital and to the Health Sciences Centre, try and keep in mind or have avenues for Inuit people, and I guess other aboriginal people throughout Manitoba, an opportunity to be treated, to eat traditional foods, because sometimes our elders are flown to Winnipeg and are in a hospital until they are flown back for their own funeral, and that is a reality.

Their last days of their lives should be treated with dignity and respect, and hopefully will be provided whatever opportunities governments have to ensure that they have access to their traditional foods and meats that their relatives or families bring to them. I know many times I have had relatives at the hospital, and my mother and myself, we went visiting many times and we brought food. They said that the transient centre had brought at the hospital and they cooked caribou meat and they had seal meat and muktuk, and we have to ensure that the people from Nunavut continue to have those opportunities.

When we congratulate the new development of Nunavut as a territory, the key to success of our new territory is going to be training, because in the past, if you looked at the employment opportunities either through the public sector or private sector, when you get into the middle management and the management and the higher level positions of governments, private or the public sector, those positions were usually filled by non-Inuit and non-Nunavut individuals who would come up to the territories, stay for a few years and gain the experience, advance in their careers, and then they would leave the community. Then a new individual would be flown in, and that was always repeated over and over and over. A lot of our youth, as they were growing up, saw that, and a lot of our youth did not really see an opportunity for themselves in the employment area.

But with the creation of Nunavut, the youth today have to realize and must see the tremendous opportunities that lie before them and in their future. The employment opportunities that are going to be there, whether it is in the private sector or in the public sector, are going to be an opportunity that Inuit youth have never, ever had that opportunity in the past.

I am sure that our leaders and our elders will stress to the children and make sure that the children understand that the opportunity is tremendously great for you today if you stay in school and finish your education, get the education, have a purpose to stay in school to progress into a career of your choosing and an opportunity for your family, your children, to make a better life for you and your family. The opportunity is there.

The only way that it is going to be accomplished, I feel, is through training opportunities, and, Madam Speaker, when I talk about training, this is going to be a whole new and different way of training than we have ever seen in the past to this magnitude, because one of the objectives of the new government of Nunavut is decentralization.

Madam Speaker, when they talk about decentralization, the capital is Iqaluit, but a lot of the government positions will be in various communities throughout Nunavut. Some of those communities are not that large. To me, that is a wise choice because Nunavut is a vastly huge territory with low population. There are about 25,000 individuals who live in the new territory of Nunavut, but the communities are so spread apart and it is so hard to get from one area to another area because, as I mentioned earlier, there is only about 20 kilometres of highway in all of Nunavut. So the mode of transportation is usually through the airlines, and anyone who has flown up North knows the cost.

The costs are very, very high to fly from one community to another, but, Madam Speaker, on top of that, you have harsh weather conditions. It is not surprising for individuals who have experience in the North to know that one day you could be scheduled to fly out, and for two or three days you could have a whiteout and you are stranded.

* (1600)

So those education opportunities, Madam Speaker, are going to have to be delivered through modern technology. It is going to be amazing. It is going to be amazing to see 10 years, 20 years down the road where Nunavut is at that stage. You will see where classrooms, adult education programs, a lot of it will have to be through teleconferencing, through video, modern technology. It is going to be tremendous to see how much each community will depend on the information highway, as we know it, and how we will know it in 10 to 20 years, because that is the only way I can see, without resorting to bringing all the youth out of the communities, in order for the youth to get the training that will be needed in order for Nunavut to achieve their goals of higher employment opportunities for Inuit people. It is going to be amazing to see the progress when the programs are set up in the computer age.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that the new government has acted on which is going to be increased partnerships with businesses and partnerships and mentoring with nonaboriginal individuals is the whole contract system with governments, because the government of Nunavut will be awarding contracts on the basis of preferential contracts to companies that are at least 65 percent Inuit owned.

I know it seems drastic measures, Madam Speaker, for some individuals, but otherwise how will the goal of increasing employment opportunities in Nunavut ever be accomplished. Right now, there are so many people that are unemployed and have no access to employment opportunities either because of lack of training or lack of determination on one's own part. I think some of that is because of a lack of vision and the foresight to see business or job opportunities being there for the individuals, which I said earlier. I am sure that you will see more youth staying in the education system and more of our adolescents and our teens and young adults going into career courses and pushing for the opportunity to further their chosen careers and a life that, I am sure, will benefit Inuit people throughout the territories.

I just wanted to say a few words because, as an Inuit person, I am extremely proud of what was accomplished. I am very optimistic that it will give a greater opportunity and a greater future for our youth and for all citizens of Nunavut. Someday, Madam Speaker, I probably will return and live back in Nunavut in some future years.

I want to just congratulate Jose Kusugak, who is the president of Nunavut-Tunngavik, for all his hard work and for his understanding and respect to the elders and the patience for his great undertaking and for the accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, John Amagoalik, who was one of the spearheads of accomplishing the goal of the Inuit people to create the territory of Nunavut, had this to say, and I would just like to say this in closing. John Amagoalik, who did much to make Nunavut a reality, once described the new territory as one that will respect individual and collective rights as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be a government that respects and reflects Canada's political traditions and institutions. It will be a territory that remains firmly entrenched within the bounds of Canadian federation.

So as an Inuit person, I convey, I am sure on behalf of all of us here in the Chamber, our congratulations and our thanks to everyone who was involved in bringing about the dream of Nunavut to becoming a reality. Madam Speaker, matnamarialuk. That means thank you very much.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, in this particular bill the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is a hard member to follow. Having said that, you know, the member for Point Douglas talks very eloquently about the new province of Nunavut. I think for most of us how we relate to it is more so from documentaries or from our Discovery-type channels. We gain a better appreciation with the comments from the member for Point Douglas on this particular bill and appreciate that.

In dealing with the bill itself, it does attempt to bring in line a number of acts that we have here in the province. Our Crown Lands Act, The Income Tax Act, The Real Property Act, The Registry Act, and The Water Rights Act, Madam Speaker, as examples that will bring it as opposed to the Northwest Territories over to Nunavut. We understand in fact the legislation that was in essence at least in most part being duplicated that the Northwest Territories had into laws in Nunavut.

So it is a fairly standard piece of legislation in the sense it is an acknowledgement of the new territory in which all members recognize the benefits by, and with those few words we would love to see the bill go into committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion, the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 12, The Statue Law Amendment Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): As has been said about this bill, it is a bill that corrects a number of typographical numbering errors and other editing errors in English and French. Although they are minor in nature, they concern some bills.

Legislation is very important to people's lives in Manitoba, including The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act which reflects the practice in the House of distributing copies of reports. It causes change to The Legislative Assembly Act being amended to maintain the current state of the law with regard to Legislative Assembly records. It also makes amendments to The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporations Act and corrects some translation errors in the French version dealing with death benefits payable to nondependent survivors of deceased automobile accident victims. And it concerns The Real Property Act.

We support this bill going to committee to making sure that there are no concerns brought forth from the public or anyone else. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): On Bill 12, we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee and have further consideration of the bill at that time.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 12, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1999. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading Bill 18 on the proposed motion, the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), The Correctional Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services correctionnels), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The amendments to this act, Madam Speaker, come one year after the legislation was introduced and passed by this Legislature. These are housekeeping amendments, which certainly raise the question as to why the government did not do its job in the first place, get the bill right when it introduced it to the House, but we will move this forward to committee.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it does reminisce in terms of other legislation that the government has brought forward through Justice, which as the member for St. Johns accurately points out, is a follow-up to make amendments. There are a number of them in order to fix up a bill that the government has brought forward, just previously, and obviously have no problem with it also going to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 18, The Correctional Services Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

* (1610)

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion the honourable Minister of Highways, Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I rise today to put a few words on the record regarding Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

We on this side of the House support this bill. In a nutshell, there are three facets or aspects of this bill: namely, drinking and driving and driving while disqualified countermeasure provisions for operators of off-road vehicles; secondly, exemptions of off-road maintenance vehicles from registration which would be of particular interest to the snowmobile clubs; and, thirdly, exempting the minister from liability in off-road vehicle accidents.

All of us lament the increasing number of snowmobile fatalities. In fact, recently there was a snowmobile fatality again in Flin Flon, Madam Speaker, just this past winter, and that was devastating to the family and to the friends and acquaintances of the person involved. The previous minister indeed deserves a lot of credit for initiating the formation of a working group of stakeholders which examined the problem of off-road vehicle safety. I know it has been a major concern of Snoman, the umbrella group representing snowmobile clubs all across Manitoba.

The first part of this bill then is an outgrowth of the recommendation made by that working group, Madam Speaker. We understand that 65 percent of off-road vehicle collisions are alcohol-related, or alcohol is involved. Since off-road vehicle use, specifically snowmobile use, is escalating at a dramatic rate, we can expect a lot more problems unless we intervene, and that is exactly what Snoman is advocating. I also would like to point out that the machines that we are dealing with nowadays are much faster and much more powerful than the machines of an earlier generation, so stronger legislative sanctions in the first part of this bill are welcome, and we do support them.

The second part of the bill recognizes off-road maintenance machines such as snow trail groomers as a separate category of off-road vehicles in order to exempt these machines from registration, and this will save the snowmobile clubs some money. However, such nonprofit clubs could probably save even more money if the government would enable snow-grooming machinery to use cheaper gasoline.

A number of people from the Snoman organizations have contacted me and have suggested that this makes sense and that we should urge the minister to pursue this idea. Since there are tremendous economic spin-offs from the excellent work done by snowmobile clubs and Snoman in general, we should make this endeavour work as smoothly as possible. It would be a win-win situation for everybody.

The third aspect of Bill 5 is merely a housekeeping item to protect the Minister of Highways from undue liability as a result of municipal approval for off-road vehicle by-laws. As well, proposed amendments limit the requirement for ministerial approval of off-road vehicle by-laws to those roads and highways directly under provincial jurisdiction. This, of course, then, would extend greater authority to municipalities for roads under their jurisdiction.

At the very end of Bill 5, one could raise some eyebrows, I suppose. This section, Part 3, makes reference to the stalking prevention act of 1998 which is still not proclaimed, and that, of course, makes us wonder, for a government that is supposedly tough on crime why that act has not been proclaimed yet.

Other than that, Madam Speaker, the bill is not controversial and, in fact, I think is most timely not only because it addresses some serious issues that needed to be addressed but also because it puts Manitoba in sync with other provincial jurisdictions.

I look forward, Madam Speaker, to moving this on to committee stage. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it was only a couple of weeks ago when I met with a representative from within the snowmobiling industry. I think the potential of that industry in providing a standard of life for many in terms of enhancement to the industry or economic benefits is just overwhelming and tremendous, as we have miles and miles every year of additional snowmobile tracks being added.

Out of this excitement of growth and the need to ensure that there is an element of safety for our snowmobilers, Madam Speaker, I think that this legislation is definitely in need to bring in the whole issue of drinking and driving for off-road vehicles and is a step in the right direction. Also in recognizing the need for off-road maintenance machines and the role that they play is also important, say that we get more and more miles of tracks that are being brought into service for our snowmobiles.

The third point, which the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) makes reference to, is the question of liability, and one would have expected that having said those few words, we are prepared to see the bill go to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier et modifications corrélatives). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion, the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation, Bill 6, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): This is to say two bills are being introduced affecting The Highway Traffic Act. It addresses a variety of housekeeping amendments, and it deals in seven areas. I will not necessarily comment on all of them because it is going to committee where we will review it clause by clause, but some of the areas that are of keen interest is the first one in that it allows the use of farm trucks by emergency medical responders. I believe this amendment is being proposed through this act to allow farm trucks to be used by a farmer in the course of his or her duties as a volunteer firefighter or emergency medical responder and receive compensation for that use. I think this, on the face of it, appears to be a very good idea.

Currently farm trucks are not permitted to be used for emergency response activities as they are not recognized as permitted use under The Highway Traffic Act for a farm vehicle, and with this amendment it would be.

The second area that this bill amends increases the speed of operation of tractors. The amendments posed here are being made at the request of the farm community to increase the maximum speed of operation of farm tractors on the highway. My father, being a former employee of John Deere for almost 20 years, I know that the advances in the tractors of today are greater than what they were in the past, and the capabilities of these tractors and the safety of these tractors would warrant an increase in the speed.

The third area of the amendment to this act will expand the range of radio frequency identified by police use or emergency response. The Winnipeg Police Service has installed a new trunk radio system. The frequency bands of this usage are now currently identified in The Highway Traffic Act. The Highway Traffic Act prohibits equipping a vehicle with a radio capable of receiving police emergency response transmissions within a specified range, and I think this is very important. I could remember, when I first started the job, we were always on the lookout for people with scanners in their vehicles.

The fourth area of the amendment is the authority by the minister to waive fees. This, of course, would be delegated down to department administrators. I am looking forward to this going to committee to get further explanation on that section because I would like to question the minister as to the reason for this.

* (1620)

The fifth area is the minister may choose to address a variety of motor carrier issues, and the sixth area is for co-drivers and hours of service logbook requirements. I think this is very important now with trucking a growing industry and right now, because of this shortage of truck drivers in Manitoba, a lot of the people being trained will be new people on the road. I think it is very important that these requirements be looked at and this be amended, so we welcome this proceeding to committee for further discussion.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): As with the previous bill, I would like to say a few words about Bill 6, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. As the minister stated when he introduced the bill on April 27 of this year, the seven main amendments contained in this bill are of a housekeeping nature, and they are intended to modernize, streamline and to make more flexible The Highway Traffic Act.

The first amendment allows farm trucks to be used for emergency response activities. Thus rural volunteer firefighters and rural emergency medical responders will be enabled to legally use farm trucks and be compensated for such usage. This is only right, Madam Speaker, so this amendment rightly removes barriers that may have prevented some rural people from volunteering in the past.

The second amendment sets the maximum speed of tractors at 70 kilometres per hour. This is up from, I believe, 40 kilometres per hour before. Formerly, such speeds as 70 kilometres per hour were not necessary because basically tractors did not move that fast, but now with the modern tractors, specifically the European tractors, their road gear easily allows tractors to reach a speed of 70 kilometres per hour, which is the designated maximum speed limit.

The third amendment gives the province the power to confiscate the prohibited radio receiving sets in vehicles. The present act prohibits the putting in a vehicle of a radio capable of picking up police emergency response transmissions within specified ranges. We have no difficulty with this amendment, Madam Speaker.

The fourth area of amendment makes provisions for the minister to be able to waive fees at his or her discretion. This would come into play in an emergency situation such as a flood and in fact did come into play during the 1997 flood. It could also be considered in the case of replacing a driver's licence for a victim of crime.

The fifth amendment clarifies sanctions imposed by the Motor Transport Board. As well, new provisions are being proposed which allow motor carriers to appeal show-cause decisions to the Motor Transport Board and also provide an independent review of the department's sanctioning of motor carriers.

The sixth amendment flows from a court ruling and clarifies the obligations of co-drivers of public service vehicles and commercial trucks regarding hours-of-service log books. I think this is overdue.

The seventh and last amendment relates to the restructuring of the department and gives the minister the needed flexibility to delegate motor carrier record keeping and show-cause hearings to appropriate officials. It allows for more responsive, flexible and efficient restructuring and organizing within the department. In fact, I hope the minister will clarify that a little bit more during the Estimates process.

So with those few words, Madam Speaker, we express our support for the bill and look forward to moving it forward to the next committee stage.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 6, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): This bill, Bill 13, deals with two clauses. The first one deals with the ability of the university to deal with investment funds and puts them in line with other institutions; and the second part of the bill deals with the ability of University of Manitoba to collect parking fines, which had effectively been circumvented by certain young or perhaps older legal students, so we can probably anticipate that a new batch of law students will have the ability to find any and all loopholes. So we are pleased to support the bill which closes those loopholes and the university is able to effectively administer its parking fees. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, actually, the other day on the parking issue, it was often referred that the number of people that want to be able to acquire those prime parking spots at the University of Manitoba are akin to the number of people that want to go to a popular concert as they line up in order to try to get it.

There is, of course, the making sure of having annual elections for the three senate spots for the governors on an annual basis. The other part is in terms of financial prudence in terms of investments which brings it in line with the other universities from what we understand, even though there is no doubt some room to have some caution. We do not have any problems seeing this bill go to committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 13, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe that completes the list of bills that were agreed to be called. The first step in passing Interim Supply is, I believe, to move into the Committee of Supply. I am looking to the advice of the Clerk.

At this time, I should be making the motion, I believe, to move into Committee of Supply in which case as previously agreed two sections will continue with Estimates. The Chamber will deal with Interim Supply. Following completion of the necessary parts there, we will return to the House, but the remaining two committees sitting in committee rooms will continue in Committee of Supply. Right?

I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.