LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, March 18, 1992

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):  I must inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker and would ask, in accordance with the statutes, that the Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Dacquay) take the Chair.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

PRESENTING PETITIONS

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Laurene Myrnold, Kim Maksymyk, Caroline Rizkalla 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. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Allison Dewar, Laurie Sutherland, Katie Sutherland and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  I beg to present the petition of Carole Cahill, Shannon Mason, Debra Delveaux and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial likelihood of further family violence.

 

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

       

Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay):  I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies 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:

       The bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and

       The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.

       WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated. (Mr. Dewar)

* * *

       I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies 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 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)

* * *

       I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies 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?

* (1335)

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

       The bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and

       The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.

       WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated. (Mr. Reid)

       I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies 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:

       The bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and

       The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.

       WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated. (Mr. Chomiak)

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all members of the House to the public gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, from Victor Wyatt School, thirty Grade 4 students under the direction of Mr. Bell. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay).

       Also with us this afternoon are eighty‑two Grade 9 students from the Sargent Park School, who are under the direction of Mr. Robert Forrester.

       On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

     

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

     

North American Free Trade Agreement

Government Position

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Madam Deputy Speaker, during the last provincial election‑‑and dare I mention the Leaders' debate?‑‑I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province a very, very serious question about free trade with Mexico and asked the Premier whether he was opposed to the free trade position, what is your position?  The answer from the Premier at that time in the debate was, no, we are not going to support the free trade with Mexico.

       Since that time we have seen the unconditional "no" go to a conditional "maybe."  On countless times in this Chamber, we have been asking the government their position on not only the substance of the free trade agreement but the timing of the free trade agreement with Canada, United States and Mexico.  In fact, I asked the Premier this question in his Estimates last spring.

       I would ask the Premier in light of the fact that the Prime Minister is now stating that they are on a very fast track for free trade with United States and Mexico, and in light of the fact that the Prime Minister is even talking about dates as early as April of 1992, has the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) advised the federal government to put this on the slow track so that Canadians will have an idea of what is in the agreement, or has the Premier not phoned the Prime Minister to communicate our concern about the fast track that the Prime Minister is now taking with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico?

* (1340)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were the Leader of the Opposition, I would not want to mention the last televised debate either.

       I repeat, at the time, in 1990, nothing was known of the proposal or of any potential proposal for a free trade agreement as to whether or not there was anything that was supportable or not supportable.  Since then as information has come out, Manitoba has put its position clearly on the table and has written to the Honourable Michael Wilson indicating that we would not be able to support a free trade agreement unless six conditions were met.

       Those six conditions were as follows:  (1) Manitoba insists that the trilateral negotiations must not result in a renegotiation of the current Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement; (2) Manitoba believes that Canada must seek assurances that under any free trade Agreement, labour standards in Mexico will improve in line with Mexican prosperity and will be adequately enforced; (3) Manitoba believes that negotiations between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico must encompass broad coverage of issues with respect to environmental standards; (4) Manitoba calls upon the federal government to ensure that comprehensive and adequately funded adjustment measures be provided to ensure that Manitoba and Canada are equipped to capitalize on the opportunities provided by trade liberalization; (5) Manitoba stresses the need for policies at all levels of government which reinforce the efforts and needs of Manitoba businesses in adjusting to trade liberalization within a globalized world market; and (6) Manitoba urges the federal government to follow through on its commitment to involve provinces in developing the Canadian mandate and objectives and to implement full provincial participation throughout these negotiations.

       That is the clearest position that has been put forth by any provincial government in the country, and that is the position of the government of Manitoba.

Mr. Doer:  Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has given us no answer of whether he advised the Prime Minister to go on the fast track which is presently in existence now.  I guess we will just step aside like we have done before, and Mulroney will sign the free trade agreement, and then we will pull our six conditions out of the hat at the end of the day after it is all over.

       The Premier has stated that we have taken the strongest position of any other government in Canada.  I would point out that he made no statement to the Prime Minister directly at the last First Ministers' meeting dealing with the economy.  I would also point out to the Premier that the Premier of Saskatchewan has said directly to the Prime Minister, in front of all Canadians, as far as the North American free trade negotiations are going on, the so‑called Mexico round, Saskatchewan urges that they be shelved until the lasting impacts of the Canada‑U.S.A. Free Trade Agreement become more clear.

       I would ask the Premier of Manitoba:  Will he be taking a strong definitive position on the fast track that is now in existence at the economic First Ministers' meeting next week with the Prime Minister?

Mr. Filmon:  I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is jumping at media reports and doing things with respect to things that are put in various speculative reports.  I remind him that in response to these speculative reports, Trade Minister Michael Wilson has stated that, firstly, there is no deal yet and there will be no deal unless it is good for Canada.  Secondly, the final agreement could well be very different from the speculation that is currently in the media.  Finally, the reports that have been in the media have been based upon material that is both partial and out of date.

       I suggest to him that the best position for us to be in is to state unequivocally the conditions that must be fulfilled before such an agreement is acceptable to Manitoba and the people of Manitoba.  That is what we have done, and we have put it forward very clearly, not in political statements or knee‑jerk reactions, but in very well‑considered and well‑presented concerns that must be met in order to be acceptable to us.

 

North American Free Trade Agreement

Government Study Tabling Request

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  The Premier did have an unequivocal position in the last election campaign during the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.  He now has a set of six conditions, but he cannot tell us whether he is in favour of a "fast track, slow track" or whether he has advised the Prime Minister on any track to follow.  He quotes Michael Wilson.  This is the same person who told Canadians that the GST would be revenue neutral.  Again, we see the Premier not taking a strong stand.

       They have the Georgetown draft.  The provinces have the Dallas draft on trade, and they cannot tell us yet whether they think the Prime Minister should go ahead and initial this agreement or not in terms of a quick pace and whether he will take any stand at next week's First Ministers' meeting, Madam Deputy Speaker.

       I have a further question to the Premier.  In 1988 in this Chamber, the Premier stated on August 5, 1988, that free trade with the United States based on their empirical study would create between 10,000 and 15,000 new net jobs in Manitoba.  Madam Deputy Speaker, I assume the Premier has again an empirical study on the free trade agreement with Mexico.  He has a very, very expensive Economic Secretariat that he has put in place to give Manitobans that kind of empirical material.

       Will the Premier today table the study that his secretariat has done on the winners, losers and job opportunities with a North American free trade agreement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, while we have drawn on the resources of some of the national studies that are being done on the Canada‑U.S.‑Mexico free trade, the best resource that we have are the people of Manitoba and the people doing business in Manitoba.

       In the development of our position on this particular issue, we met at length with all of the central organizations.  We met with labour unions.  We met with the academic members of our various universities and communities and helped utilize them in developing our policy, because they are the ones who have to deal with any change in a North American free trade agreement on a day‑to‑day basis in terms of doing business here in Manitoba.

       They have provided us with some of their concerns.  It was based on those reviews and consultations that helped us formulate the position that we did in fact take and to attach the six conditions that were put in place to any support for North American free trade.  We will continue to work with the private sector in terms of meeting the concerns of Manitobans.

* (1345)

 

Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report

Northern Court Services

 

Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland):  My question is to the Minister of Justice.

       When government has virtually ignored recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry‑‑so far its major actions had been two photo‑opportunity press conferences featuring the Justice minister (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), hardly the sort of action that was promised when the report was handed down six months ago.

       My question is for the Minister of Justice.  Has he read the report yet and, if he has, does he reconcile the recommendations of the report with his plan to create a two‑tier justice system, where the service in northern communities is even worse than it is already?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, if I understand the honourable member correctly, he was referring to a newspaper article today, not naming some unnamed sources, and it relates to contract negotiation discussions which are underway.  I was contacted by the newspaper involved and declined to comment on the specifics of the issues that are the subject of collective bargaining.  The honourable member knows better than to suggest that this government has ignored the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry recommendations.  He knows also that we await with anticipation the participation of aboriginal leadership in discussions that will lead to implementation of real programs for real people in Manitoba.

Mr. Harper:  Madam Deputy Speaker, northerners expect a better system‑‑

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Question.

 

Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report

Northern Court Services

 

Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland):  My supplementary question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

       Has the Minister of Northern Affairs read the report?  Does he disagree with the report in terms of court services in northern communities?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs):  Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has reviewed the report.  We have established a process by which positive changes can be made on behalf of the aboriginal people.  As soon as the aboriginal people identify themselves to work on those working groups, action will be taken.

 

Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report

Northern Court Services

 

Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland):  Will the Minister of Northern Affairs answer this question?  Aboriginal people are tired of being treated as second‑class citizens.  How can this government justify cuts when the northern justice system is creating‑‑and not only failing the people in the North?  Will the proposed cuts not result in more guilty pleas and more people needlessly serving time in prison?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  I have no idea what the honourable member is talking about, Madam Deputy Speaker.  I do not see anything relating to cuts with respect to the delivery of justice services, the delivery of real services to real people.  In fact, if the honourable member engages in discussion with me when we get to the review of the Estimates of my department, I would be happy to discuss the many, many aspects of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to which this government is committing itself to move forward with aboriginal people in the future.

       It would be nice, however, and we look forward to having the aboriginal leadership join us at the table so that we can together implement these things.  Perhaps the honourable member can use whatever influence he has with the aboriginal leadership in this province to encourage them to join us at the table.

* (1350)

 

School Division

Boundary Review Cancellation

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been pointing out to this government since 1986 of a need to review school division boundaries, a review that has not been conducted effectively in this province for 40 years.  Finally in the 1990 campaign, we got a commitment from the Premier that, yes, along with the revision to The City of Winnipeg Act, we would get a review of school division boundaries.

       Can the Premier tell this House today why his government has deliberately backed down to their commitment to parents, children, trustees and the need for education in this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Madam Deputy Speaker, as was, I think explained and outlined quite adequately yesterday by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), there are a number of issues that are actively under consideration and under action by the minister and her department, many of which have varying effects on the delivery of education services throughout the province of Manitoba that need to have the time to be able to take effect and to be able to be dealt with by the various school divisions involved.

       Yes, I will openly and freely admit that the promise the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) referred to was made during the election campaign.  I made that promise believing that there was a need for a review.  Subsequently, as a result of the fact that we are dealing now with the new Education funding formula; we are dealing now with new Francophone governance structure to be implemented over the next while; also with respect to the High School Review implementation‑‑all of those matters I have been persuaded by members of school boards in the educational community are matters that require adjustment, flexibility and response by the school community, the education community‑‑now is not the time to further impose yet another potential major change on them.  This is a matter that ought to be put on the back burner at the present time.

       I believe that the Minister of Education made the right decision and the right policy decision on this matter.  I am quite happy to accept it.

Mrs. Carstairs:  Madam Deputy Speaker, the reasons why the minister has given for why it is not the appropriate time was the review of The Public Schools Act, which has been going on now for a year, the Francophone schools governance issue, which has been going on now for two years, the implementation of the High School Review, which has been going on for three years, and the implementation of the new finance model which was proceeding prior to the last Speech from the Throne.

       Can the Minister of Education or perhaps the Premier‑‑because she was not in the cabinet at that time‑‑explain why they made a commitment to review those boundaries on December 5, 1991, when all of those things were at that point going on?

* (1355)

Mr. Filmon:  Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, those matters are underway.  Those matters all require a great deal of time, energy and commitment on the part of not only members of the staff of the Minister of Education and the department, but school divisions throughout the province.  Teachers, resource people, administrators, school board members are all involved and engaged in the implementation of all these many things.  They can only be spread so thin in terms of implementing these changes and after discussion‑‑and I invite the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs), rather than do as she normally does, which is to impose from on high her judgment on the people in the education community, every other community, I suggest to her that she do a little consultation with those people and find out whether or not they wanted to have yet another potential major change imposed upon them at the same time as they are coping with all of these other changes.

       I am convinced from my consultations and discussions that they did not at the present time.  I invite her to once in a while get in touch with the people out there who have to do those things.

Mrs. Carstairs:  I will compare my list of educational stakeholders whom I have talked to, to his list any day, and I will come out far ahead.

 

School Division Boundary Review

Impact Francophone Governance

 

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

       Since the review of school division boundaries will not take place, how does she believe that the issue of Francophone governance can be dealt with quickly and effectively in that it affects a number of school divisions?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Madam Deputy Speaker, in answering that question, I would like to say that the matters are in fact two separate matters.

       In consultation with the educational stakeholders, with school divisions and with parents who have let us know the pressure at the moment on the educational system, this government listened to them, and we said:  I believe you.

       The issue of Francophone governance, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are pleased to be moving ahead with in a very active way, and there will be an announcement soon regarding implementation.

 

Core Area Initiative

Renewal

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  My question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

       Last June the minister received federal proposals for a new Core Area Initiative.  He was, he said, hopeful, and he said the province and the federal government were this close.  Some weeks ago now, he received a revised proposal from the federal government.  It seems clear now that it is this government which is dragging its heels on the future of the core area.

       My question for the minister is:  Will he tell the House exactly what the obstacles are in his view?  Why is his government choosing to stand in the way of such significant programs?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I can advise my honourable friend, as I have on a number of occasions, that we are in the process of negotiating with our two partners in this matter.

       The fact of the matter is, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while we are reasonably close, I think, to an agreement, we are not prepared to sign an agreement at any cost for the sake of signing an agreement.  We want to have the best possible agreement, and they will be the first ones to criticize if we signed an agreement that was not the best possible agreement.  We will continue to work toward that end.  I am hopeful that within a short period of time, we will have significant announcements to make.

Ms. Friesen:  Could the minister then tell the House, give us a time table, when is he prepared to make a decision, so that the remaining employees in the Core Area Initiative can stop packing their bags?  Will he in sum manage this transition in a responsible and appropriate way?

Mr. Ernst:  Madam Deputy Speaker, the management of the Core Area offices, as a matter of fact, has been managed in a most responsible way.  We are not carrying on with large employee groups that have nought to do, whose jobs have been completed. We are keeping a small staff there to ensure ongoing programs are looked after.

       We have taken the initiative with respect to the core area immigration training programs, that they will in fact be kept on as skeleton staff.  They will be kept on for the next two months in anticipation of a new agreement.  So, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is being well managed.

Ms. Friesen:  Madam Deputy Speaker, could the minister then tell the House in light of the less than spectacular funding that we have seen for Core Area Initiative in the past, what level of funding is he proposing for the next Core Area?

Mr. Ernst:  Madam Deputy Speaker, almost $200 million of taxpayers' money has been spent in the core of Winnipeg over the last 10 years.  That is a spectacular amount of money.

       The fact of the matter is at the moment we are in negotiations with respect to a subsequent agreement.  That agreement, as I have said on a number of occasions, is under consideration at the moment.  As soon as we have finalized that, I will be pleased to advise the House.

* (1400)

 

Human Resources

Opportunity Centre Closure

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last budget, Selkirk was hit hard by this government when it announced the closure of the School of Psychiatric Nursing without any consultation.  Now we find in this budget Selkirk is the only community to lose its Human Resources Opportunity Centre; again, no consultation.

       My question is to the Minister of Family Services.  What criteria did this minister use besides an electoral map when he made the wrong decision to close this centre?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Madam Deputy Speaker, from time to time, we hear from opposition members the need to evaluate and look at training programs to assist people who are seeking employment.  We have some successful programs that I could tell you about in that area.

       The Single Parent Job Access Program is one I would speak of that has graduated a number of people into the work force.  We also have the Gateway program which assists young people in particular in retraining at a number of areas to get into the work force.

       Simply, besides adding programs‑‑and we have referred to the Partners with Youth program‑‑we also have to evaluate the programs that we have and look at ones that are not as successful as other ones and reprioritize some of our spending and some of our initiatives in that area.

       One of the decisions we have made in this budget is to look at the training plant in Selkirk.  We feel that we can offer that service through the HROCs in Winnipeg and Gimli and, at the same time, have those people serviced in those areas and also put in place some new programs that we will be announcing in the not too distant future.

Mr. Dewar:  Everything is going to Gimli, Madam Deputy Speaker.

 

Service Expansion

       

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Will the minister keep the Selkirk centre open, in fact expand services there, so we have some more trained workers in this province and fewer unemployed?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Madam Deputy Speaker, again we hear opposition members asking for expanded services, expanded expenditures.  When we looked at the pretend‑budget that was brought down last Tuesday, it called for only 5 percent additional expenditures in Family Services, almost 4 percent short of what our budget has in it.

       That $20 million that they would not spend, I challenged the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) yesterday to let us know where they would not spend that money, whether they would take it out of training programs or whether they would take it out of daycare.  I am sure the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would not hear of that.  I suspect that there were a number of members concerned in putting that budget together, and we have far, far surpassed the calls for spending in Family Services.

 

Closure

       

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Will this minister table in the House any studies which demonstrate that Gimli is more cost effective than Selkirk?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a number of effective programs, and I reference the Single Parent Job Access Program. [interjection] I see a former Minister of Education laughing at the thought that there are effective programs in training people.  I reference that program and the Gateway program.  We do have human resource centres in a number of areas of the province.  We are going to add new resources to job training, and we are reprioritizing some of the funding that we have in this area.

 

Manitoba Heritage Foundation

Granting Authority

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Madam Deputy Speaker, this government and in particular the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship do not support, apparently, volunteer organizations.  We need to look at this particular minister when she took away the funding capabilities of the MIC and gave them to a politically appointed board.

       Madam Deputy Speaker, while we were listening to the budget last week, the deputy minister met with the Heritage federation, and once again this government has chosen to take away from the volunteers the funding or the granting authority from the organization.

       My question to the minister is:  Can the minister tell this House why the granting authority has been taken away from the Heritage federation?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I will attempt to answer that question for the critic from the second opposition party and indicate that, in fact, the Heritage community will be served in a very reasonable and good way as a result of the changes that were made.

       There has been no reduction in the amount of funding to the Heritage community as a result of the decision.  In fact, there may be more dollars available, because the money that will be distributed will not go as much toward administrative costs but will go to the community organizations who need the money most.

 

Volunteer Board

       

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Madam Deputy Speaker, why did the minister not sit down with the federation and discuss the problems that she had with their operations and suggest options for them to reform instead of simply firing the volunteers?

       If she is using the administration costs, she entered into the agreement with the federation and knew full well what the administration costs were.  You cannot use that, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.  Does the member have a question?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I realize full well that there are many, many volunteers within the Heritage community and within all communities who dedicate and commit their time to serving their interests and their needs, so I do nothing but commend volunteers for their contribution.

       Madam Deputy Speaker, I have on occasion met with the Heritage federation as I have met with the entire Heritage community.  We believe that the process that will be put in place to deliver funding to the Heritage community will indeed serve the community well and be administratively less costly.

Mr. Lamoureux:  The question quite simply to the minister is: Why does she not trust the volunteers in administering this program?  If the administration is the argument that she is basing the cutting out of this particular organization of the volunteers, why does she not just simply sit down with these volunteers and work out some sort of an agreement‑‑

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.  The question has been put.

Mrs. Mitchelson:  Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has been the critic for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship for several years now, and I believe this is the first time he has ever asked a question on Heritage in this House.  I do not think he spent much time on Heritage issues through the Estimates process either.  So I would encourage him, like I know the critic from the NDP party does, to meet on occasion with members of the Heritage community to attempt to understand the community and the needs of the community, and then maybe he can ask some really informed questions.

 

Vegetable Producing Industry

U.S. Inspections

 

Mr. Edward Connery (Portage la Prairie):  My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.  Manitoba is a leader in Canada in high‑quality vegetable production.  Distributors in the United States want our produce, but importers and exporters alike are harassed by the United States Food and Drug Administration by putting loads under detention while they do residue testing.

       This unfair trade practice ties up space in the wholesalers' coolers and ties up this fresh product.  They have never found a load unacceptable in their testing.

       Can the minister inform this Legislature what action he has taken as the federal government has taken none?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Madam Deputy Speaker, very clearly this is a very significant issue for the vegetable industry.  Clearly what the United States is doing is, in my mind, putting in place nontariff trade barriers.  The normal rate of inspection of vegetable loads going into the United States is 1 percent.

       We found evidence in the last couple of months that they are inspecting as many as 25 percent of the loads going into the Minneapolis market in particular.  It seems that the same trade harassment does not occur for going to the Texas market or Chicago.

* (1410)

       I have sent a letter to the federal Minister of Trade back in August of last year.  My officials met with American officials in October of last year.  I have again‑‑because probably have to say the increased rate of inspections in the last two months‑‑sent another letter this month asking the federal minister to talk to his counterparts in the United States to be sure that we are not being harassed in this process, although I would say, in my opinion, we are being harassed in the process of the rate of inspections applied to Manitoba produce going to the Minneapolis market.

 

Federal Day

Haul Worker Program

 

Mr. Edward Connery (Portage la Prairie):  My question, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to the same minister.  The federal government is phasing out its assistance for the day haul of Manitoba workers.  The vegetable growers employ large numbers of workers from local reserves.  If this occurs, we will have inadequate workers and at the same time aboriginal people will be deprived of their employment.  Will the minister vigorously lobby the federal government to reinstate this program fully?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Madam Deputy Speaker, yes.

 

North American Free Trade Agreement

Impact Agricultural Industry

 

Mr. Edward Connery (Portage la Prairie):  My last question, Madam Deputy Speaker.  Free trade with Mexico could be a disaster for Manitoba and Canada.  Manitoba exports very little agricultural produce but imports of cheap‑labour‑produced vegetables could have a serious negative impact on Manitobans‑‑

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.  Does the honourable member have a supplementary question?

Mr. Connery:  ‑‑and especially aboriginal people.

       Will the minister forcefully put forth Manitoba's concerns in regard to a free trade agreement with Mexico?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Madam Deputy Speaker, with regard to the Mexico market, it is important for those who export canola, those who export breeding stock, particularly bulls, sometimes for swine.  About less than 1 percent of our export market exists in Mexico, and we import less than 1 percent of our agricultural commodities from Mexico.  It is a very small market.

       I will take the member's concerns forward to any of the discussions I am involved in.

       I would also like to remind members of this House that the United States market has grown very, very significantly for Manitoba agricultural exports.  In 1987, we were exporting 14 percent of Manitoba agricultural exports to the United States. It is now 32 percent.  It is the highest market for us in the whole world.  Second place at 12 percent is China.  Third place is the old U.S.S.R. at 12 percent.  The United States is the big market, and that is what we want to improve our position with in regard to the agreement we have in place.

 

Broadway House

Closure

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Madam Deputy Speaker, last week the staff and residents of Broadway House, a provincially operated transition home for women with mental disabilities, were notified that this facility will be closed May 31, with a loss of seven jobs.

       Did the Minister of Family Services consult with community groups such as the Association for Community Living or the Residential Coalition of Service Providers before he closed Broadway House, or was it closed, as the staff of Broadway House was notified, to satisfy the Treasury Board requirements of decreased spending and decreased services?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Madam Deputy Speaker, the member references decreased spending and decreased services.  I would point out to her that this department has the highest increase in spending of any department across government, some 8.7 percent increase in our budget. [interjection]

       Well, the member wants to talk about social allowances.  We have brought in some very innovative changes, greater reforms than the previous NDP government ever brought in.  We created a new program for the disabled.  We brought up the liquid assets levels, initiatives that my friend in the NDP has brought forward frequently.  There have been a tremendous number of reforms brought forward.

       As far as working with the community to provide programming for mentally handicapped people, we have had a number of working groups.  We have some initiatives we are going to be bringing forward.  We have major legislation that we are bringing forward that I have shared with the critics of the other two parties.  We have some very innovative things that are happening in that area.

 

Employees' Status

       

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Madam Deputy Speaker, what is the status of the seven staff at Broadway House, several of whom who have worked at that facility for over 10 years?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):