LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, March 6, 1992

The House met at 10 a.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Robert B. Znidarec, Sandra Tuzzolino, Bruce Martini and others, requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Malinda Zdrill, Laurie Cannon, Anne Katlmen and others, requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member. It conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth:

THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and

It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and

Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and

The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Ms. Barrett)

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister responsible for Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table with the House the Auditor's Report and Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 1991, for Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in the House today the 1988 and 1989 Annual Report of The Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee.

* (1005)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Budget

Employment Creation Strategy

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, unemployment statistics released today have both good and bad news for Manitobans. Fifty‑two thousand‑‑[interjection] I know the Tories do not like balanced budgets because they do not have balanced responses, but perhaps we could have an intelligent debate on these numbers if the members will allow us to ask the questions.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: I notice the Premier is back and the decorum in this House has continued to go down.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. There are 52,000 people unemployed in the province of Manitoba, and we are pleased that that is 5,000 less than last month. It is 10,000 less than were working in the province of Manitoba a year ago and 20,000 people less than two years ago in February of 1990.

Of great concern to members on this side of the House has been the so‑called despair figures that we are seeing in the unemployment statistics. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) asked that question yesterday about the number of people who are dropping out of the labour force, and we did not get any answer back from the Premier or his Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson). There are 8,000 people who have dropped out of the labour force over the last 12 months. They have quit looking for work, or they have moved out of this province.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is: For the 8,000 people who have dropped out of the labour force in the province of Manitoba, will his budget next week continue to be developed in the policies of despair that we saw last year, or are we going to have hope for the 52,000 people who are unemployed and the 8,000 people who have quit looking for work in the province of Manitoba?

* (1010)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to be back to listen to the questions from the prince of darkness over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable First Minister that all members are honourable members. I would ask the First Minister to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly withdraw any comment that is seen to be offensive in this House, however true it may be.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable First Minister.

Mr. Filmon: The fact of the matter is that we get nothing but doom and gloom from the member opposite. When he talks about an intelligent debate on the statistics, that means that he can selectively draw the worst part of the statistics and concentrate on that as being what he would like to see here in this province.

Mr. Speaker, most Manitobans will take a balanced view on that. Most Manitobans will be happy that in February of 1992 we have the second lowest unemployment rate in the entire country. Most Manitobans will be pleased that on a seasonally adjusted basis, there are several thousand more people employed today than there were just a month ago.

Most Manitobans will be pleased that while the manufacturing employment Canada‑wide dropped by 4.6 percent, this province did not have a drop in its manufacturing employment, that in fact, as a result of announcements that have been made just in the past month at Versatile, at places like Advance Composite Structures, at other major employers, that those who have been laid off are being recalled and that at places like Dominion Bridge and so on, there are significant improvements in the employment and our economy. Most Manitobans will be pleased with that. The only ones who will not be will be the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and his doom‑and‑gloom colleagues, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, despite the fact that things are turning in a better direction, we are going to continue to work and work hard to improve the situation, to get more Manitobans working and to turn around this economy in a more positive vein, and every single thing that is in this coming budget will be designed to ensure that we keep on the path toward growth and improvement in our economy so that more Manitobans will be working.

Mr. Doer: Speaking of keeping on the path, the increase in welfare and social assistance in the province of Manitoba, specifically in the city of Winnipeg, has been 51 percent, the highest increase of any urban centre in Canada.

I would ask the Premier, in light of the fact that he is going to stay on the path, the path of last year which has not produced the prediction of the unemployment rate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) made in this House in his budget in any month since he produced and tabled that budget, will the Premier have any hope in his budget for the 51 percent increase in people on social assistance, some 67,000 last year, according to the School of Social Work, who found themselves on social assistance in the province of Manitoba and a 51 percent increase in the city of Winnipeg alone?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Leader of the Opposition wants to ignore the fact that during the last recession, there were greater increases in welfare numbers year upon year when the NDP were in government. He may not recognize that throughout this country, in places such as Ontario under an NDP government, there are huge increases in numbers of people on welfare.

The fact of the matter is that we obviously do not want that to continue to be that way. In the interim, we are giving increases in social allowances, greater increases than were given by NDP Ontario. We as well, of course, have made some changes to their asset test requirements, so that it would make it easier for those who are facing the prospect, the very unpalatable prospect, the prospect that we do not want to continue, of them being on social allowances.

The fact of the matter is that last year we also allowed them to keep their GST rebate and have done various things to improve the social allowances for those people who are handicapped, Mr. Speaker.

All of those things were designed to try and make it easier for those who, unfortunately, face that burden because we do not want them to be in those difficult circumstances.

As well, Mr. Speaker, what we are working on is to have the overall economy improved, and that is what all the measures that we are taking into account will do, unlike the NDP, who have raised taxes every time they have been in similar circumstances. We do not want to place a greater burden on the people in this economy, unlike the NDP, who have raised the deficit so that future generations will pay the price. We do not want to do that. We are going to carry on to improve circumstances.

* (1015)

Employment Creation Strategy

Government Priorities

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the First Minister.

The unemployment rate is continuing to rise in the city of Winnipeg. It is now 11.1 percent. That is on top of the 51 percent increase we just talked about on the welfare rate increase.

With the good news of the reduction of 5,000 people unemployed, it is still leaving us 52,000 unemployed in the province of Manitoba, and the bad news of the 8,000 people dropping out of the labour force, which should be a major issue for this province‑‑there are only four provinces that have had losses of people in their labour force. In fact, Canada and many other provinces have had an increase of numbers in their labour force.

My question is to the Premier. Given the unemployment rate in the city of Winnipeg and the unemployment rate now in northern Manitoba, will the actual economic unemployment rates be a factor in the decisions the government is making in terms of the delivery of public services, or will the location of cabinet ministers be the determining factor for how government employees are deployed in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that whenever investment in job creation takes place anywhere in this province, it benefits the city of Winnipeg.

In fact, I recall seeing a survey that said that the investment, for instance, in a hydroelectric project up north such as Conawapa would create 60 percent of the jobs in Winnipeg, because the suppliers, the contractors, the service support people for those kinds of things would come out of the city of Winnipeg. It does not matter where investment takes place. Ultimately, Winnipeg benefits.

If this Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we ought to abandon the rest of the province and not look at the needs of rural Manitoba, which is under severe pressure because of an international grain subsidy war, because of low prices for their commodity, because of all sorts of problems, if he is suggesting that we ought to ignore the plight of all of those areas because he wants to politicize the job creation in this province, I will not accept that.

We are going to take a balanced approach. We are going to ensure that the economic benefits that accrue to this province will indeed be spread through all regions of this province as much as possible.

Cross-Border Shopping

Government Initiatives

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, some months ago and over the last year, the public has expressed surprise and anger at the fact that this government has chosen to do some cross‑border shopping of its own.

MPIC had purchased furniture, the Department of Education was asking teachers to go to North Dakota, and Christmas trees were purchased out of province.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Can the minister indicate to this House what specific steps the province will be taking in concert with groups like the Chamber of Commerce to stem the tide of cross‑border shopping which has cost Manitoba, it is estimated, some 3,000 jobs? Can he specifically indicate what the government is going to do with respect to the request by the Chamber of Commerce and other groups, individual businesses, about the need for Sunday shopping? Can he indicate what the government's policy is with respect to those issues?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I believe the honourable member would appreciate that the Chamber of Commerce has recently struck a task force to deal with this very issue. We met with them recently, and we are expecting feedback from them in terms of specific recommendations.

I would hope he also appreciates some of the decisions that have been made in the last several weeks by the federal government related to this issue because it is an issue that is not only affecting Manitoba. In fact, Manitoba is faring, if you put it in perspective, better than many other provinces as it relates to the cross‑border shopping issue. Decisions such as the reduction of tariffs on some of the products coming into our provinces, some of the other decisions that were made by the federal government recently should help the cross‑border shopping issue.

We as a province also are represented on the national task force on cross‑border shopping dealing with issues, the fundamental issues, the long‑term issues of competitiveness, issues that, unfortunately, members across the way have created, the problem that we are faced with today in terms of that fundamental issue. We as a government have said on many occasions that we are working to create the positive economic climate in Manitoba so that we are competitive with the United States and other parts of the world.

* (1020)

Dept. of Industry

Trade and Tourism

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, we are always‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.

Mr. Storie: Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism explain why, after suggesting that when the Department of Natural Resources used the U.S. post office to mail letters the practice would stop, and yet in January of 1992, the minister's own department is mailing in U.S. post offices?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I think a concern that was raised some time ago was that a particular department not so much used the mailing services of the United States, it was that in one particular instance, I believe, an error was made where somebody mailed some mail from the United States back into Canada.

There are occasions where, I believe, government departments and other organizations have utilized U.S. mail services for U.S. mail only, because of the financial element of it, whereby it is a significant cost saving to that particular department, to the government of Manitoba and to the taxpayers of Manitoba. Something, unfortunately, that the opposition party never seems to take into consideration is the taxpayer of Manitoba, the due diligence that governments have to do to deal with taxpayers' dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Storie: According to the Chamber of Commerce, 3,000 of those taxpayers are unemployed today because of cross‑border shopping.

To the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, will he stop the practice of cross‑border shopping in his own department that he has condemned in others?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the honourable member is coming from. We have never, never indicated anywhere in our department, obviously, any support for cross‑border shopping. We oppose cross‑border shopping. We are doing all that we can to deal with it.

The issue that the honourable member raises has nothing to do with cross‑border shopping. In particular instances, the mail might be trucked down through Manitoba companies to utilize the postal services of the United States because of the cost effectiveness, not mailing mail back into Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, we are continuing to work with the Chambers of Commerce in this province, with communities in this province, with the private sector, with Manitobans, on that issue. Progress is being made through some of the decisions of the federal government, and we will continue to work with Manitobans on that issue.

Point of Order

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I neglected to table the document that I was referring to.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order.

Repap Manitoba Inc

Financial Status

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on February 27, we heard a great deal of rhetoric about the difficult financial circumstances faced by Repap. We were told that the restructuring was necessary. In fact, our Minister of Finance told us the restructuring was necessary, "given the incredible economic losses, the financial losses within the industry."

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House today why this company under such great financial losses is capable of investing 26 million new dollars in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to the corporate decisions made by Repap with respect to investing their funds generally and certainly not with respect to specifically making decisions with regard to other provinces.

I do know that the Manitoba project would require $1 billion. I do know that Repap had invested significant millions of dollars in Phase 1 development costs, which for the most part is now going to be lost, as a matter of fact one of the reasons contributing, I am led to believe, to their significant write‑down of losses. The circumstances changed in the industry. They certainly, I am led to believe, have changed from province to province. The decision to invest $26 million, using that information coming from the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs), is new information too.

* (1025)

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table an article from The Globe and Mail business section this morning which indicates exactly that kind of investment in British Columbia.

We had a comment from the minister on the 27th which said, how are we going to maintain the operation at Manfor if Repap is then forced into insolvency because of this action? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear this company is not insolvent. If they can come up with $26 million to invest in British Columbia, then they can honour some of their commitments in the province of Manitoba.

Can the minister responsible explain to this House why Repap has been allowed to default on every one of its contract obligations when it obviously has money to invest in other provinces?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled with the attitude the Liberals bring forward on this issue. It tells me, particularly listening to the question put forward by the Liberal Leader yesterday, that they are against commercial logging. She said so in her commentary yesterday. What is obvious is the Liberals are driven to want to drive Repap out of the province of Manitoba and destroy the livelihood of thousands of people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, Repap has done everything that they were committed to do with respect to cleanup within the facility and within the grounds put on the schedule. Repap has been a model corporate citizen in The Pas community. Do not take my word for it; take the word for it from the community leaders in that place.

I say to the member, if she is saying to the people of Manitoba that Repap has broken their commitment to our province because they have invested $26 million, I would think in Skeena, I would ask her whether that is for environmental purposes. I would ask her, seeing that she has access to the article and I do not, whether or not it is for other commitments that they made. I think to play Manitoba off against B.C., in my view, is shameful on her part.

Employment Creation Strategy

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, but by just the slightest bit of coincidence, they are buying a log‑chipping facility, which of course they were not prepared to honour in their commitment in the province of Manitoba.

Can this minister explain why the contract in British Columbia will force Repap to maintain levels of employment, whereas the agreement he is prepared to renegotiate talks about comparable and will not inform us whether those comparable are what they are committed to on Day One or what is in place right now in The Pas?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, every assertion in the question put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party is incorrect.

Firstly, right today, Repap, instead of owning chipping facilities of their own, because they have contracted through Spruce Woods, because of that, 60 to 70 people in the Swan River area have a job today, purely because of their commitment under the contract. There is a portable chipper in place but I do not expect the Liberals to know that.

More importantly, the Repap original agreement was a commitment to 1,200 jobs after a billion‑dollar investment. Of course, the restructuring will attempt and make its best efforts to work toward still the 1,200 figure as agreed to in the first agreement.

Gemini Reservation System

Merger

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, reports out today indicate that the Gemini Reservation System shared by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International are merging operations with a global network to be known as Galileo international.

My question for the Minister of Highways and Transportation is: Can the minister tell the House today what impact this will have on the over 100 Manitobans employed in the airline reservation systems in this province?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot.

* (1030)

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, since there are over 100 Manitobans employed in the Gemini Reservation, and the merger will lead to employee layoffs‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Reid: It is in the article, right there.

What assurances‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have also taken the opportunity to consult with members of the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Reid: Since this minister does not know, what assurances can he give to the people employed in these jobs that these jobs will remain in Manitoba?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and find out what the impact would be on people working in Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: Will this minister and this government notify the federal government and the airlines involved that Manitoba is strongly opposed to the further removal of any more airline jobs from Manitoba, including the now jeopardized reservation jobs?

Mr. Driedger: As I indicated before, I will try and get the information to try and find out what the impact is going to be for jobs in Manitoba.

I might indicate that this government has always been very conscientious of any of these things, to see whether we can negotiate and work with them and try and influence so that these jobs stay in Manitoba.

Manitoba Telephone System

Billing Contract

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.

Now that Bell Canada has taken control over SystemHouse, will the minister cancel plans to give the MTS billing contract to this firm, a move that would cost Manitoba jobs?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Telephone System has a mandate to provide the best quality service at the lowest possible price to all its subscribers.

The Manitoba Telephone System has a very good track record of being able to do that over the last four years, after the debacle of the NDP in the sands of Saudi Arabia.

In terms of the Manitoba Telephone System doing work or contracting to have work done, they will analyze the bids and look for the best bidder at the lowest cost in order to protect our subscribers in the province of Manitoba. It is a principle they have used for a long time, particularly over the last four years, and a principle they will continue to use.

Rate Structure

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, how much of the $100 million that MTS has allotted to modify network information systems, a move to attempt to compete with Unitel, will MTS spend this year, and what will be the impact of these expenditures on local rates?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, almost some four years ago, we made an announcement of Service for the Future. It was a process to take 47,000 party lines in rural Manitoba and convert them to private lines, individual lines. That program is occurring over a course of seven years. It also includes replacement of old switches with digital switches.

The program continues. At this point in time, about 13,000 of those individual lines have been put in place in rural Manitoba to increase the quality of telecommunications services, to increase privacy and increase the ability of people in rural Manitoba to do business.

I am very proud of that program. It is ongoing. It is up to speed, with the expectations year to year that were announced some four years ago, and it will continue in 1992.

Telephone Directory Contract

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House, in the upcoming contract for the telephone directory, that he will not once again give the contract to the United States, to keep the jobs here in Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my first answer. I said very clearly that the job of the Manitoba Telephone System is to supply services at the least cost, and whenever a contract is put out, we look for the lowest bidder, the person most capable of doing the job.

The last time around, it saved considerable money for the telephone subscribers in Manitoba by using that principle. I can guarantee you, the citizens of Manitoba and all telephone users that the Manitoba Telephone System will continue to use that principle, operate a good telephone system and be able to have a positive bottom line year in and year out, not lose $28 million dollars a year‑‑

Transportation Industry

Rail Line Jurisdiction

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

The Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is currently reviewing CN Rail's application to sell the main railway line between Truro and Sydney, Nova Scotia. That is presently before the Senate committee. The relevance for this minister and for this province, we suggest, is that this is the first time that this type of rail line is being applied for for abandonment. This is not a branch line, but is equivalent to a main rail line such as the line between Portage la Prairie and Brandon.

Mr. Speaker, given this new phase of rail line abandonment which is being applied for by CN to sell these off and put them under provincial jurisdiction, is the Minister of Highways and Transportation supportive of this new phase of abandonment by CN Rail, to sell and put them under provincial jurisdiction so that the provinces will be responsible for maintaining these rail lines?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the position of this government in terms of rail line abandonment is well known and well documented. I might also indicate that the TAC committee has at the present time been mandated by the Council of Ministers of Transportation last September here in Winnipeg to go out and review exactly the implications of a total rail system that was going to provide the best system for all of Canada.

This has been requested by the federal government as well. That study is underway right now, and I would anticipate that by the time they come back with their report a year from now, we will be able to see exactly what kinds of decisions will be made for the future.

Senate Transportation Committee

Manitoba Representation

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, again for the minister, he is free to attend the Senate committee. Will the minister, will the government be making a presentation to this committee, given the enormous consequences that will flow from these main rail lines, these lines being placed under provincial jurisdiction if they are sold off privately? Is the minister going to make a presentation to that committee?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I indicated before that we have a TAC committee that has been set up across the whole country. They are reviewing the whole aspect of rail lines and ports across Canada. Our representatives have been very active in participating in that role, and if there is any need for further involvement, we will look into that.

Transportation Industry

Rail Line Jurisdiction

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, again for the minister, will the minister ensure that any privatized rail lines continue to fall under federal jurisdiction and that this is a condition of privatizing? Will he make that known to the Senate committee because, otherwise, this province is going to be left holding the bag, maintaining those lines when it is properly under federal jurisdiction?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, I have indicated that the position that Manitoba has put forward, as well as the members opposite, when they were government‑‑we have been on the same course in terms of position that we have taken regarding rail line abandonment. There has been no change in our position. We will continue to look very carefully at any moves that are being made by both CP and CN rail lines.

Education System

Funding Formula

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased that at 4:30 yesterday, the Minister of Education and Training finally acknowledged that there were major problems in fairness in the government's funding model.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is what procedures has the minister put in place to monitor the situation to ensure that 50 teachers will not lose their jobs in St. Vital, teachers will not lose their jobs and taxes will not go up in Evergreen, the vocational programs in Morris‑Macdonald will not be cut, and the line‑ups for special needs students will not continue to grow?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to make that announcement yesterday. The announcement provided additional phase‑in funds for divisions which were experiencing in the first year of applying the funding formula some difficulties and concerns in their area. Having provided those funds, I now trust that the divisions will be extremely responsible in the application of those funds within their divisions.

* (1040)

Mr. Chomiak: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take another look at her own advisory committee report that recommended a four‑year phase‑in because of the serious difficulties in tax increases that will result as a result of the government's funding formula? They recommended a four‑year phase‑in‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Vodrey: At this point we have been focusing with school divisions on the first year of the phase‑in, and we have been talking with them about their anticipation of applying the funding formula in the second and in the third year. I think it is very important that the divisions and our department keep a very open communication. That is certainly my aim and the aim of this government.

Mr. Chomiak: My final supplementary is to the same minister. Can the minister assure this House that she will return to this House with a revised formula if things like 30 percent tax increases in Leaf Rapids and other school divisions continue to result as a result of that‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's question is hypothetical and therefore out of order. The honourable member, kindly rephrase your question, please.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is: Does this minister have any idea of the kind of tax increases and job losses that are occurring as a result of her funding formula in the first 30 days of the funding formula, never mind year two or year three?

Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to remind the honourable member that by and large across this province the funding formula is in fact working very well. The funding formula, as I reminded him last week, was also the creation of interest groups in Education who sat around the table to develop that formula. It is working well, and I remind him again too of our government's increase in our commitment to Education of 3 percent. With that commitment, I trust that the boards will then act responsibly in the next few years.

Port of Churchill

Rail Line Protection

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, during the transportation talks hearings, it became evident that the Minister of Agriculture had not ensured that Manitoba's interests were protected. The minister endorsed hearings and documents that were used during the hearings that provided limited and biased information on such key issues as rail line abandonment at Churchill and the alleged efficiencies associated with those issues.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture, since he so proudly endorsed this federal process, why he did not ensure that information was included on Churchill that would show the true savings and efficiencies to farmers of maximizing the use of Churchill. Instead, it was included in the first documents, Mr. Speaker, whereby statements were made that eliminating the rail line to Churchill, the facilities at Churchill, would be part of efficiency.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, farmers in Manitoba have to export at least 80 percent of the wheat they grow and it is probably fair to say about 70 percent of all the grains they grow in this province. It is very important that the cost of transporting those grains to those export positions, whether it is at Churchill or whether it is at the West Coast or out at the East Coast, are kept in line. Those costs have increased very rapidly over the last 10 years in particular, in some cases over 50 percent.

Farmers cannot afford to pay those continued increased costs. There must be a major effort made to try to find efficiencies in the system. There was a major transportation task force some two years ago that looked at some efficiencies that could be had. The transportation talks process was set in place to allow all the stakeholders to talk about some of the realities of the system‑‑how do we control the cost, how do we keep things efficient.

The Port of Churchill is a very important port for us in terms of agriculture and hopefully other commodities in the future, but the Canadian Wheat Board that is selling through that port has to be sure that the farmers are getting the best possible deal in the process of making that sale. Certainly the buyer of that grain has to want to pick it up through that Churchill port. There has been some difficulty in being able to sell grain through there, but the Wheat Board continues to try to do it. They have been relatively successful in making sales there and will continue to try to do it, particularly as we make more sales to Russia and the Eastern European nations.

Mr. Plohman: The minister did not stand up for Churchill‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, why did this minister not ensure that Manitoba's position was clearly put before the producers as part of the information that was included, that Manitoba will not endorse abandonment of railways with its so‑called efficiencies without including the cost of all alternatives and demanding compensation for those who are hurt by rail line abandonment? Why was that position not put forward by this minister?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing that this member does not want farmers to talk about information that is important to them. He wants to stamp out the ability of producers to hear about what is going on. All that information he has just talked about has been on the record for some time.

Manitoba took a very strong position. They did a major study some two years ago to identify what would happen if the method of payment was changed in any way; somebody did it. We certainly identified that pooling of seaway cost must be part of any change, but it never materialized. That is a position that was never recognized before, something he never talked about before that would have clearly hurt Manitoba farmers had we not done the study to identify it.

Mr. Plohman: Loss of Churchill will devastate‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Plohman: Will this Minister of Agriculture admit that he has failed Manitobans by not standing up in the hearings for Churchill and then not standing up with the issues of rail line abandonment which the Saskatchewan government says will save, in terms of efficiencies, only 3 cents to 4 cents a bushel, where the transportation cost as a result of rail line abandonment will be 25 cents a bushel. Is this the kind of efficiencies this minister supports?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, it is rather appalling that this member stands up and does not mention the 50 percent increased cost that the farmers paid at the farm gate. The farmer's value of a loaf of bread has shrunk rather drastically from 25 percent 10 years ago to 4 percent today.

He does not talk about that, and that is what the issue is all about, to reduce the costs that the farmer has to pay beyond the farm gate. He needs a better share of the commodity he is producing and selling. All the efficiencies the farmers gained in the system have been lost beyond the farm gate because of attitudes of that kind of member.

Foreign Domestic Workers' Program

Government Position

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservative government's changes to the foreign domestic workers' program is setting up a system which makes these women even easier to exploit. We have a situation where these women are forced to live with their employers. They have no freedom of movement, and they are going to be at the mercy of employers who are looking for cheap child care and home care maintenance.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism. What has this government done and what has she done to show her opposition to this federal program, to the proposed program which is backward changes to immigration legislation?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I have met with domestic workers, and I have met with members of the immigrant community and listened to their concerns about changes in legislation. We are trying to work with the federal government to ensure that all women in Manitoba, including those who are immigrants, have opportunity to come to this province to work and to earn a living.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS