Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 14.3. Information Resources (a) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 31 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
14.3.(a)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,014,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $288,500--pass; (3) Public Sector Advertising $2,384,100--pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($2,759,500)--pass.
14.3.(b) Business Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $965,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $881,200--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($260,300)--pass.
14.3.(c) Translation Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $974,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $396,100--pass.
14.3.(d) Provincial Archives (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,945,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,533,700--pass.
14.3.(e) Legislative Library (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $707,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $604,300--pass.
Resolution 14.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9,674,800 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Information Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
14.4. Citizenship and Multiculturalism (a) Citizenship (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chair, I think that the minister agreed that at this point we could move to Capital Appropriations and that my colleague from Point Douglas and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would then, I believe, address certain questions on Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Yes, that is agreed.
Ms. McGifford: I had one or two questions on the Community Places Program. In reading the annual report, I noticed that the annual report for '96-97 says in regard to the Community Places Program that eligible projects include recreational facilities, libraries, museums, cultural facilities, community parks, child day care centres, seniors activity centres, facilities for the disabled and community resource centres. In perusing the grants for '96-97, I read that, for example, the Boissevain and Area Veterinary Service Board received a grant of $40,000. I am unclear as to how that fits into the eligible projects.
Mrs. Vodrey: Perhaps we have to find out a little more information, but in a general sense, there would have to have been community support for this particular request then to have it be considered. Also, we do not generally support the commercial side of an operation, but it obviously or should have been then funds or a project proposed which the money did not involve then the commercial side.
Ms. McGifford: Would the same explanation then also apply to the Minnedosa area veterinary services district? The Minnedosa new small animal vet clinic, I notice, received a grant for $20,000.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that the same answer would likely apply then, but without the benefit of the proposal it is a little bit difficult to say anything further.
* (1440)
Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister would agree then to get back to me with a fuller explanation as to why these two--I assume that they are veterinary clinics--have received grants from Community Places, when according at least to what I read in the annual general report, this kind of project is not included in the eligible project list.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I will find out more for the member.
Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask the minister if Community Places grants are approved by cabinet, or are they approved at a different level? Could she please tell me what that level is, if that is the case?
Mrs. Vodrey: The information is tabled at cabinet, and it is received in cabinet as information.
Ms. McGifford: So it is not approved at that level? It is received as information, or does cabinet at the time that cabinet receives the information give it a final approval?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have to say that I do not know what the cabinet minute reads at this moment. I would have to check if there is anything further, but I can say that that information is brought forward by the minister to cabinet, and it is generally received as information by cabinet.
Ms. McGifford: I would appreciate it if the minister would check the minute. I wanted to ask the minister if it is common, or does it happen at all that MLAs write letters of support for grants that relate to projects in their constituencies?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it is common for MLAs of all parties to write in support of their project. It is also common for other municipal governments or community groups to also write in favour of a project.
Ms. McGifford: I appreciate that information, because I know some of my constituents will be requesting money from Community Places, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to support them.
I just wanted to read some information into the record, because one of our caucus researchers has done some work on Community Places grants. I wanted to point out that last year there were 191 Community Places grants. Three of them went to projects in Liberal ridings, 55 were granted to projects in NDP ridings, and 133 were granted to projects in Tory ridings. That is, 1.6 percent of the grants went to Liberal ridings, 28.8 to NDP ridings, and 69.6 to Tory ridings. The total grant to Liberal ridings was $23,705, to NDP $621,628, and to Tory ridings $1,766,102, for a total grant of $2,411,435.
I put this information on the record, because I noticed last year that the overwhelming majority of Community Places grants also went to Tory ridings. I see a pattern here, and I wanted to make sure that it was on the record.
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, let me just say that I think Community Places is a great program. It is a great opportunity for communities to look for a way in which to have their funds matched and a way to get some support for projects within their community.
Now I do not have the numbers in front of me from when the NDP were in. However, my memory is that somehow I think when they lost the election, just before they lost it they sent out a whole bunch of letters agreeing to projects which they wanted to support. So I would suggest that we have in fact, under this government, an extremely fair process which does see money allocated across the province to worthy projects.
Certainly, MLAs are often very interested in making sure that when those Community Places grants applications come out, that those grant applications are available to projects within their communities, so they can be filled out, submitted, and be considered. If in fact some people are not as interested in doing that, then that may account in fact for the fewer number which come from some constituencies or some areas, maybe that those particular constituencies received a grant last year and are not proposing to have a grant this year.
The dollar amount, I would also say, is some money flowed, so that there may have been money which flowed to a project, which in fact had been started, and then finally the receipts received and the amount contributed from the Community Places.
So I would also not want to leave on the record any misunderstanding, which I think the member may be trying to put forward, that somehow there is some level of unfairness here. I would remind her that communities propose, MLAs do, if they wish to support it, and also that MLAs do work in their communities to assist their communities in understanding how this process works, to see if there is community support for a Community Places project. Then they are considered in the mix of projects.
Again, I would certainly challenge the member to perhaps go back and look at, in fact, if there was that kind of even-handed spread when the NDP were in government. Admittedly, it was quite a long time ago.
Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I merely put some information on the record. I am sorry that the minister seems to be offended by it.
I understand from reading in the annual report that there is a Community Facilities Integrated Planning and Development Guide and that it includes three modules: Define and Measure Your Needs, Planning Your Project, and Construction and Management. I wonder if it would be possible for me to receive a copy of this guide.
Mrs. Vodrey: I just cannot help but go back to say again, any upset is probably in the mind of the listener, because my role is simply to put on the record really some correct facts of point of view that probably or is often not covered, and that it is important that the whole picture be out for someone who may want to read this at a later time.
In answer to her question, yes, I am happy to provide her with that guide.
* (1450)
Mr. Chairperson: Had the member for Osborne mentioned that others would want to ask questions in this area or no?
Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, my understanding is that both the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) want to ask questions on Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Very good.
Item 14.5. Expenditures Related to Capital - Grant Assistance (a) Cultural Organizations $2,152,100--pass.
14.5.(b) Heritage Buildings $300,000--pass.
14.5.(c) Community Places Program $2,525,000--pass.
Resolution 14.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,977,100 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Expenditures Related to Capital - Grant Assistance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Item 14.4. Citizenship and Multiculturalism (a) Citizenship (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,372,600.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I would just like to--instead of going line by line, if it is agreeable that we just cover everything, and then we would just pass the whole Estimates after, if that is agreeable.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is how we have done it in the past, a general discussion which I think has been helpful. If other members are in agreement, I am certainly in agreement to continue that process.
Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I am sure that, indeed, it was agreed to earlier in the committee.
Mr. Hickes: Before I start, I would just like to pass the mike over to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who has a few questions he would like to ask.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I appreciate that. Mr. Chairperson, I had a question that actually, no doubt, I will be asked because it was in print today, earlier today in the Free Press, and it is dealing with Culture and Heritage in respect, if you like, of heritage, other ethnic groups' backgrounds, and there was an article with respect to mandatory helmets on bicycles. It is an issue which I have dealt with in the past, and it is being talked about again.
Now, the reason I bring it up in Culture and Heritage is, as the minister might be aware--if she is not, it is a good place for me to make her aware of it. Whether or not the mandatory bicycle helmets becomes law or not, one of the biggest concerns that has been raised is the issue dealing within the Sikh community where there is an obligation to wear a turban, a turban as a part of their identity, and whenever there seems to be any story on this particular issue, there is always some feedback that I get from within the Sikh community asking if, in fact, they would be exempt from a potential law, if, in fact, it ever became law.
Given the minister is responsible for Culture and Heritage, I am sure she sees the value of that, and I would ask if, in fact, she would share with the committee what her thoughts are with respect to an exemption, something which I personally believe would, in fact, be warranted because no doubt it is an issue that could come up in cabinet if, in fact, sometime in the future the discussion for mandatory helmets were brought up. I think this is an important piece which members of that particular community I know would be interested in knowing what this particular minister's position is on that issue. Also, I know the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and I had touched very briefly on it to hear that perspective also. I know it would definitely be beneficial.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the member and I had the pleasure to participate with the community. Not that long ago I had an opportunity to--well, we were actually both robed at that community event. So I have had an opportunity to meet with some of the leadership in the Sikh community. Obviously, this issue was not raised, but certainly I would be willing to meet with them or to make sure that they had access to ministers who might be responsible in this area if they were enacting this legislation, so that their point of view could be made.
At the moment, the member knows it is a hypothetical issue. I actually did not see the article in the newspaper today, and so it is obviously kind of a new issue which would have to be brought forward. I do not know that government has any position on it at the moment either.
I think the best thing that I can do is to say that I am certainly available for the community, as I know other ministers are, but I would be more than willing to play a part, if required. Again, it is hypothetical, but if this were to be considered to make sure that the leadership had an opportunity to present their point of view and their concern under any proposed legislation which may come forward, I think that I would do my best to be helpful for them.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the response, and I guess the emphasis would be is that there are many individuals from within the community, young and old, that are very strong believers in their faith that do wear the turban. It is something that I know would cause concern if in fact it were to happen. Realizing that it has been hypothetical, I respect the minister's answer. I will ensure that that message is in fact conveyed to them, but for me personally, what I wanted to do was just to get on the record as suggesting that there should be an exemption because I am very much aware of the importance of the turban.
Mr. Chairperson, I do have other questions, but I did have to leave the committee and hopefully I will get an opportunity a little bit later; otherwise, no doubt there will be other forums for me to pursue other questions regarding culture and heritage. Thank you.
Mrs. Vodrey: I will just say I appreciate the member's question, and he has raised other issues with me at other times where I have endeavoured to get him an answer back, so we will either deal with him in the time that we have, otherwise we can deal with him as well in the way where there has simply been a direct consultation with me.
* (1500)
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Chair, I have a series of issues that I would like to just put on record. A lot of the concerns I have deal with the federal government with their new policies or new proposals that are out, and I hope that they will never be adopted. For instance, the criterion for the ability to speak English and French to immigrate to Canada concerns me greatly. I am sure that it concerns all members of the Legislative Assembly because what will happen is that we will lose the potential of immigration of people from various countries, especially the Asian countries, and it will only stimulate, and probably most of our new immigrants coming to Manitoba would only be from the European countries because the ability to speak English is already there. If you look at France and other countries where French is the first language, I do not think it is very well thought out. I have heard some comments that the federal minister was reviewing it and probably would not be supporting that, and I hope that is the case.
The other thing that really I feel should be totally abolished is the whole process of a landing fee. I think that is a discouragement to individuals who want to come to Manitoba to start up their new life and new challenges, that $975, you know in some cases is even more than an individual's yearly salary. So that is a real detriment for people that want to make their homes in Manitoba, and in a lot of cases would make a great contribution to our province and would be hardworking individuals that just wish for a new opportunity. On top of that, you have the processing fee of $500 per adult, $100 per child, and most new immigrants who are coming to Canada or to Manitoba are usually with a family. So you just tally that up, and just for a married couple, you are looking at $1,950 right there, just for the landing fee alone. The whole process of it having to be up front, I think it hurts a lot of people. Just the fee alone for me would be a setback to individuals wanting to come here.
Now, on top of that, you hear under the proposals that are out there, or I guess it is just a report that is out there--and the minister has held hearings and stuff, the federal minister--the whole process of individuals paying for English language classes. How are we going to get ordinary-class citizens into Manitoba if all we are really turning to in order to judge individuals' ability to come to our province is the ability of dollars? I do not think that was the intent, I hope that is not the intent, of our immigration process for Canada, let alone Manitoba, because if you check back in recent history and you look at a lot of individuals who immigrated to Canada and then eventually made Manitoba their homes, did not have a lot of money in their pockets, but are outstanding citizens, and their children are outstanding citizens.
You just look at our own Premier of the day. He will tell you the same thing. I am sure when his parents came over, if the only way they could come here is if they had those kinds of landing fees, processing fees and money, money, money, I do not know if we would have the Premier we have today, because I do not know if his parents would even have been able to afford to come here. I do not know him on a personal basis, but just what I hear in the media, that sort of was the case that he was bringing forward. So I hope that the government of the day agrees with me and that we will keep trying to convince the federal government to rescind some of the policies they have for immigration, because we need to be fair.
The other thing that I would like to hear about from the minister later is the whole family reunification family class. We hear in the Chamber over and over from all parties, and we stress, the importance of family. We talk about the support systems that are within families. We talk about resources needed or individuals that could get help when they are in difficulties if they turn to families. Yet why are we in Canada making it harder and harder for family reunification? That just does not make any sense. We have said it many times. Most of my family is in the Northwest Territories, and it is not that far away, yet you miss them dearly. Even a lot of times it is difficult to visit back and forth because of the airfare costs. So you imagine that, when we encourage an individual to come to our province, our country, and say: yes, but we do not encourage you to bring family members along with you. I think that is defeating the whole purpose of family as we describe it. I just do not understand how we could be saying one thing and meaning something else. But, if your family has a lot of dollars then, sure, bring them over. You know, we welcome your dollars and come on over.
I do not think we as a country need to depend on only the wealth of an individual, because we also have to judge, to my way of thinking, the tremendous wealth an individual brings, not in dollars and cents but in work ethics and in bringing up strong families. You see that in different cultures, where, for example, a family will come to Manitoba and lots of times will have to take low-paying employment opportunities until they can further their training and their education to meet our Canadian standards.
In order to accomplish that, there is a lot of dependence on family to help raise the younger children in that immediate family. A lot of times that is done by grandparents. Thankfully we should encourage that, because I believe very strongly that an individual, no matter what their background, what their culture, what their language, that is who they are. Every individual should be encouraged to speak their language, whether it is Saulteaux, Cree, Inuit, Chinese, Filipino, and learn about your culture.
Sure you are coming to Canada to be Canadian, but you should never forget who you are because that is the foundation that is built within us. The foundation we start to build our lives on is usually built with assistance of our immediate families. That will always identify who we are and what we are. So when I say that, we have to encourage and do what we can to make sure that the federal government rethinks the whole process of family reunification and to encourage them to open the doors for more--to me anyway--to more family reunification when we invite individuals to join us.
The other aspect that I hope the minister will address is the whole certification and training for new immigrants. You know, I mentioned it many times. I have heard you mention it in some of your reports, about one's ability to make the greatest contribution one can give; that is the career of their own choosing, where an individual will be happy doing what they are doing and not feel like they are forced to have to do either what they would perceive to be less meaningful employment opportunities, because we do not give the opportunity to meet the standards that we set in Canada.
* (1510)
When I say that, I think we really have to make sure that we look at reviewing one's certification, diplomas from other countries and trying to set up training programs to meet that need, where you have some individuals that are very highly skilled in their countries, they bring those high skills here, but are stuck at dead-end service industry jobs or driving a taxi. Yet, for a lot of individuals, that is not their first choice of a career. There is nothing wrong with the service industry or driving taxi, if that is what you choose to do. But some of the individuals have high skills that they would like to practise in Canada, but I think we put false barriers or we do not have strong enough programs to meet those needs. I think it has to be a joint effort, federal and provincially, to try and assist individuals to meet their chosen careers.
So I just wanted to make those few statements. I know that the minister has had a meeting with her federal counterpart. I heard your comments, when I raised some questions in the House, that you were going to be meeting with her and will be encouraging her to changing some of her so-called proposed policies that they are introducing. I was very happy and very encouraged with your response to my questions in the House. So, if you could just touch on some of the things that I raised, I would really appreciate that. Thanks.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). He is right that we have spoken about these issues a number of times in a formal way on the record in the Legislature, during Estimates, but often we have met each other in the hall or at events where we have together talked about the commitment to increase Manitoba's proportionate share of immigration and to make sure that we, in fact, increase the number of immigrants which come to Manitoba from the number of people who generally come to Canada.
Just starting there, then, I would like to cover some of the issues that the member has raised. First of all, I did meet with the federal minister and made it clear to the federal minister that Manitoba wants to at least have its proportionate share. In fact, we need to be very aggressive then in terms of our marketing of our province to make sure that people do consider Manitoba.
The position that our government has taken on a regular basis is that Manitoba is open and encouraging to immigration and that we do not support anything which has been put forward by the federal government which may have the effect of discouraging immigration to our province. That is the starting place by which we are measuring each of the initiatives which have been put forward by the federal government. I made that point again to the federal Minister of Immigration so that she would know right away where Manitoba stands, which I agree is somewhat different than perhaps some of the other provinces. I think the federal government needs to know what our province's goals are in no uncertain terms.
So personally I have raised that with her, and I also raise it in letters which I write to her to continually remind her in writing of Manitoba's efforts and goals to, in fact, have our proportionate share. I probably said: raise our proportionate share. We are asking at this point even to reach our proportionate share. That is what we want to do right now.
In the area of the language requirement, both our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I as minister have been vocal on that issue where we believe that the language requirement, which was put forward by a committee studying changes which might be made to the act, gave to the federal minister. I believe that people across the country were very clear to the federal minister that in any consideration of any changes to the act that that language requirement would be unacceptable. Manitoba's position is also clear and on the record. We could not support a language requirement. The effect of the language requirement would be to discourage certain immigration to our province. We do not want that to happen.
In the right-of-landing fee, Manitoba has also been very clear on the record to the federal government raising our concerns that this right-of-landing fee and when it is imposed, when the charge is imposed, has the effect of being a discouragement, and that Manitoba--Canada wants to be considered--Manitoba, in particular, wants to be considered for immigration as people are looking at where they would like to live around the world and that we are not in support of steps which have been taken that, again, have the effect of discouraging immigration, particularly to Manitoba. I have written the federal minister. I think my most recent letter on that was in February of this year, again reminding her of our position on that.
On the matter of family reunification, I can also say that our position is one which says that family reunification is one of the most important types of immigration that we can have to our province and that people be able to come with their families where they come and raise children, they have the support of parents, and that some of the dollar amounts, particularly for grandparents right now--in fact, they might even be considered penalties for wanting to bring parents and grandparents--are unacceptable because it provides a discouragement.
We have concerns about some of the federal government's positions because they have been developed based on a system in Ontario or British Columbia, and Manitoba simply does not have the same kinds of difficulties in terms of people being able to support family members or in terms of finding work, in terms of default and going on welfare. So Manitoba has asked the federal government to consider their policies in the light of all of the country, not just in the light of two provinces, and, again, very specifically, to consider in Manitoba our goals of family reunification as being one type of immigration which we are very supportive of.
In the area of certification and credentials, my most recent letter to the federal minister was actually about April 30 of this year. It is quite a recent one, and it follows on my meeting with her. In that meeting, I again reminded her of our Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement and the fact that we are very interested and anxious in making sure that we have the greatest benefit possible under that agreement. Also in that same letter, I spoke with her, as I did in person, about the credentialing and certification issue, and I have asked the federal minister to consider what part Canada might play in some areas of certification and credentialing. Much of that credentialing does have to be done by virtue of provincial groups which, in fact, have control over who can work in certain professions in each province. However, I think that it really is very important for us to be able to look at the credentialing process and also, as I believe we are doing in Manitoba, to make every attempt to encourage and assist people in the credentialing process.
During my opening remarks, I did take some time to speak about what we have done in Manitoba, what our process of assisting people is, and we are certainly believing that that is an important part. I understand that it is a complex matter, but it is also very important for some leadership to be shown. It is also important for the educational or professional organizations to participate with the province and with the federal government in recognizing the importance of immigration and in looking at ways that some of that credentialing process can occur.
So I would be raising that each time I speak with the federal minister about the role that the Government of Canada can play, in addition to making sure that as people decide to choose Canada there is the greatest amount of support for them and that, in fact, we are encouraging people to come.
I just would say I have mentioned a communication I had about April 30, discussing the credentialing, and I also had, well, a communication which I believe I have spoken with the member about before in relation to the low-income cutoff guidelines which we are concerned about in Manitoba as being more representational of Ontario than a requirement in Manitoba.
So I, again, would end my comments. Hopefully, I have touched on the issues that the member is interested in and made clear our government's position. I would end with the same position I make clear every time I have the opportunity to speak about the immigration side of my department, and this is Manitoba is interested in immigration. We want to work with the federal government to ensure our proportionate share, and we are actively marketing ourselves to have people consider Manitoba as their home.
* (1520)
Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for her comments. I know that your support for immigration has always been there. I am not doubting that because of some of the statements that you have made publicly and your response to various questions and your government's commitment to immigration. But what I feel is that we have to find a way of addressing the problems with immigration through the federal government.
You know, when you mentioned about some of the proposed changes, discouraging grandparents from accompanying families or joining families, one of the individuals that works closely with immigrants or new immigrants is Tom Denton, who is executive director of the International Centre. I am sure you know who the individual is because he is very well known in the community. One of his first comments pertaining to the proposed changes in the hearings that were going around was he called it antigranny rule. So that is recognized out in the community, and I am sure that message has been passed on to the federal minister loudly and very, very clearly.
What bothered me at that time was that when they had the so-called public hearings, it really was not public hearings, it was just who was invited. A lot of individuals wanted to express their concerns, especially dealing with the inability with getting their family members over and then the criteria with the English and the French, but she only would hear from select individuals.
I know our member of Parliament, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, was not even able to present a brief there, so she did it in writing, which I also did. I sent one in, in writing, because I think it is important that we get that message across. You know, like, our population--and you understand it very clearly as I do--when we were children it was nothing for families to have five, six, seven children, some 12. That is what is in my family, but now it is different. Now, the families are much smaller. A lot of families are only two, three children and that is it.
So our population will be decreasing quite rapidly if we do not get more immigrants into Canada. You know, and that myth where immigration, like a lot of people will use that myth, immigration hurts the economy, immigrants take away employment opportunities. You know that is not true, because more immigration stimulates the economy. You have more people purchasing goods and more people in our schools and on and on. I do not have to explain that to you because I am sure you have a very good understanding of that. So I am very encouraged with your discussion with the federal minister.
The other areas that bothered me under the so-called proposed changes was the inability of siblings--and here we go again where we talk about families--to pool their resources to sponsor their parents, their grandparents into Canada and, hopefully, into Manitoba. Where now they only look at one individual's income, you know that in a lot of the ethnic communities the culture is family together. That is the way it is and always was and, hopefully, always will be, where family members assist one another. So, when those proposed changes came, some of them were very alarmed and rightfully so, plus not only the hardship of that, but they increased the amount of earnings per individual. Now, if you have a family of five or six children and you are the grandparents waiting to join your children in Canada, it would have to almost be which individual had the highest earnings, or even if one individual had the earnings to meet that criterion.
So here we go again. Talk about importance of families, and here is another barrier thrown by the federal government. It is so discouraging when you talk to individuals, and you see where the families are so strong and so united. You know they work so hard to help one another, and they want to be with their parents. There is nothing wrong with that. I am sure you would agree with that. Yet we see these kinds of--to me, anyway--false barriers to try and get away or stop the immigration of individuals, unless they are very wealthy, into our country. I do not think we are heading in the right way. We need both. We need wealthy immigration, but we also need strong families, whether they are rich or poor. If we can assist someone to come to Canada because they seek a better life for themselves and their families, I think that it is very honourable. That is something that we have to make sure that we never lose sight of, and we always work towards that.
But I hope that you raised those concerns with the federal minister when you met with her. I would just like to hear your response.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, these are the issues that I raised with the federal minister. We had the opportunity to discuss the different classes of immigration. Obviously our government and many would support an entrepreneurial class of immigration in which people do come, are able to start certain businesses and anxious to make investments. But in looking at that particular class, I made it clear to her that in Manitoba we still continue to strongly support the family class, and for many of the reasons that the member has discussed and put on the record, in that families are good to have in our province. They are good to have; it is good for our schools, and it is good for our communities to have people come as families. That is why our position has always been that we do not support steps which have been taken by the federal government that in any way continue to put up barriers for family class immigration in particular. Many of the steps appear to have had the greatest effect on the family class which is the concern and has been a concern to our government.
I did write to the federal minister as well, and I think I spoke to the member about this last year, have put in writing to the federal minister our concerns about some of those barriers. Again, as I said in my last answer, my concerns are that some of the decisions appear to be based on a certain default rate which takes place in Ontario or British Columbia. I believe Ontario may have the highest. So, as a result of that, certain decisions have been made that if you have a population over a certain level, you fall into this net. That has affected us in Manitoba, but we do not have that same default rate. We do not have the same difficulty as Ontario is experiencing. So it has really been an important opportunity each time to raise this with the federal minister that our province is in a different position, and our province has a different experience.
I can just say to the member again that, yes, I have done that in person; yes, I do it in writing--and we have talked about this--my colleague before me as minister in this position signed the Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement. That is intended to give us more influence over immigration to our province and, in the end, also to give us influence towards the federal government in terms of immigration that we would like to have, and initiatives. So many of the positions that I take with the federal government as well, I like to reflect back on the fact that we have signed that agreement. It is an important agreement in Manitoba and that, if that agreement assures us some influence, then I would like that influence now to be considered on behalf of the issues that we have been talking about today.
* (1530)
Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for her response. Another area that was raised a little bit earlier that I would like to touch a bit on is--I heard your response to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) about the helmets--apparently, it is in the paper, because I received a phone call on that too--to look at an exemption for helmets for bicycles.
But also I think it would be worthwhile almost to meet with the Sikh community because the wearing of a turban is not for fashion; it is based on their faith. I think if meeting with the Sikh community and looking at some of the opportunities that are out there in workplaces where some individuals will not take employment if they have to wear, say, a hard hat, because they will not remove their turbans--look at maybe designing a different hard hat, I do not know, but I know that has been raised with me quite a few times in the past. It would be interesting if the government could meet with the leaders in the Sikh community and see if there is a way of addressing that. I do not know what the answer is because the answer would have to come from within the community, but that was raised
I know we have the labour standards and labour codes and stuff. I know we also have waiver clauses where individuals sign waivers, and if they are injured or hurt, we do not cover those. I do not know. I am just wondering if the minister would be interested in meeting and discussing further the possibility within the Sikh community.
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly I am always happy to meet with Manitobans on any issues that are important to them and, in fact, in particular where government may develop a policy. So I always leave that door open.
I understand a little bit, however, in using the example of the hard hat on a construction site. I have to say personally I do not know what the requirements and liability issues are in relation to that industry. So I am not sure how much my efforts could influence what may happen in that case.
But certainly in terms of any prospective legislation, which is what we were speaking about earlier, their views would be considered in the development of any prospective legislation, and I have to be honest--make sure it is on the record--I do not know that there is any legislation even being developed. I did not see the newspaper article today, and I have not had that raised with me. So it is very, very hypothetical, the issue.
But the question itself is: would I be willing, on a matter of importance such as that, to meet with the community? Yes, of course, and leave that door open where the community would like to do that.
I was very honoured, as I said earlier, to attend with the community at the temple to be robed, to receive a very high honour, the highest honour from the Sikh community. I have taken that very seriously and from that day received a number of questions from them as well and have answered those questions or have had ministers directly responsible answer to the community.
So I look forward to that communication continuing, and I look forward to making--you know, now we know each other. I think this is the important part: we now know each other. I would certainly be contacted by them if there was a concern, and I would be more than happy to help them as I hope I have helped them in the past.
Mr. Hickes: Yes, I think that, when you say you know them better, it is a matter of building a trust, and trust goes a long way, where people feel more open and more willing to approach individuals. If that trust is not there, they would shy away from it. So I am glad to see that trust is there, because we do not have all the answers, meeting within the community and hearing about their concerns and opening the doors to find that sometimes nothing can be done. You know, we have laws and rules and regulations that cannot be changed, but I think the openness or the willingness to meet with the community, I will convey that. Because they raised it with me, I will convey that to them that you would be.
I just want to get back to the trend that we are almost going into or the federal government is going into, it seems like it is all geared to business-class immigration, and I have said it over and over: it bothers me, because we cannot have every individual per se as a businessperson. We still need our mechanics, our painters, our plumbers, and on and on and on and on. Our population is declining, we are having smaller families and, if we do not, if we only look at gearing our immigration policies to the business class, who is going to fill the other roles? I do not know.
I am sure some of our children would like to be in business too and not being forced to be the mechanics, painters, and plumbers. There is nothing wrong with that but, if they choose to be in business, what is wrong with that? We also need people from other countries that have skills in the trades areas. I think we have to encourage them to come here too.
I do not have too many more questions. I just wanted to raise some of those issues, and I just wanted to pass on to the minister that I agree with a lot of the things that are happening and what you are trying to do. I give you my encouragement and support because I know that in Manitoba we need to increase our numbers and without barriers being put in place. Because people want it we should be very honoured and proud when people choose Manitoba as their home and just reflect back.
A lot of the parents and grandparents of people in this room came from other countries, and I just wanted to finish off because of my disagreement with the proposed new federal proposals that are coming out. I was reading a press release that was put out by a former Manitoban, Gordon Earle, who is a member now federally for the NDP. He is the critic for immigration and multiculturalism. When they proposed that, he said: I wonder how many members of Chretien's cabinet would be sitting so comfortably today if their ancestors were allowed to immigrate to Canada only if they were wealthy and had to follow these same criteria. I thought that was a really well-put question, because I do not think too many of his cabinet would be here, you know, if they had to follow the same criteria that they are proposing to others.
I just wanted to end on that. I do not have any more questions, and I propose that we pass the Estimates.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the position that he has raised, especially because much of it touches on the family side, which is a particular interest of mine. Also, I think our government has attempted to continue to make that clear that the family class of immigration is important to our province.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would just say that I have appreciated his comments and also the comments that we have shared when we have met at other times, and so I will look forward to continued communication with him. Thank you.
* (1540)
Mr. Chairperson: Item 14.4. Citizenship and Multiculturalism (a) Citizenship (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,372,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $420,200--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $1,391,600--pass.
14.4.(b) Multiculturalism Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $87,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $47,500--pass; (c) Multicultural Grants Advisory Council $286,700--pass
Resolution 14.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,606,100 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Citizenship and Multiculturalism, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $26,300. At this point we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.
Item 14.1.(a) Minister's Salary $26,300--pass.
Resolution 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,350,100 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999--pass.
This ends the Estimates for the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics for the next department to set up their Estimates? [agreed]