LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 26, 1992

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of J. Sprout, S. Dunphy, A. Staniscia 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 a substantial likelihood of further family violence.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Barbara Tapp, George Negrave, Tannis F. Negrave and others requesting the Minister of Housing consider reinstating local housing authorities with volunteer boards.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Holly McNally, Enid Krause, Eleanor Bond 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. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Heather Molchanko, Rosalind Muskego, Dennis Linklater 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. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Pat Rhodes, Laura Epps, Colleen Bruce 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): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Alice Vorst, Rose Buss, John Doyle and others requesting the government consider funding the Abinochi preschool program to ensure it continues to operate.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Cynthia Wood, E. Creeley, L. Harper and others requesting the government consider funding the Abinochi preschool program to ensure it continues to operate.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: 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. (Mr. Hickes)

* * *

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. Reid)

* * *

* (1335)

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. (Mr. Storie)

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. (Mr. Dewar)

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House, and I will await the distribution of the copies to the Leaders opposite.

I would like to provide the House with a brief report on the First Ministers' meeting on the economy which concluded yesterday in Toronto. Attached to the copies of my statement, which are being distributed to the opposition Leaders, are copies of a document entitled Outcomes of Discussions. This is not all of the ministerial statement. It is the back‑up material for you.

That document summarizes the main conclusions of the conference.

Before I left for Toronto, I expressed the hope that we would make significant progress towards securing agreement on a national highways program. We did so.

Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Filmon: The Prime Minister has given a commitment in principle, and Ministers responsible for Highways and Transportation have been asked to work out implementation details as soon as possible‑‑[interjection] I am being heckled by the member for Wellington about medicare. I remind her that the paper upon which the decisions were based was prepared by the NDP government in the province of Saskatchewan.

As we expected, Mr. Speaker, there was strong support for a national highways policy from most provinces and territories. Clearly, the federal government has bought into our view that the national highways policy is fully consistent with all of Canada's major economic recovery and unity objectives. It will create jobs and bring the country closer together.

We also made some progress on other fronts as well. On interprovincial trade, we have agreed to accelerate the reduction of trade barriers and work toward a code of conduct to avoid harmful investment competition. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) is now the chair of the Committee of Ministers on Internal Trade. The ministers will be meeting here in Winnipeg at the end of April to follow up on First Ministers' discussions.

On international trade, we had a discussion of the North American free trade agreement negotiations, and I reiterated the six conditions Manitoba has set out as conditions for our support.

* (1340)

In our statement of conclusions, we agreed on the need for an updated review of trade priorities, co‑operation in trade promotion, and the importance of a strong and assertive policy approach by the Canadian government to defending Canada's trading rights in international agreements. We also agreed on the need for improved consultation and will continue to press that point.

On health care, we agreed on a joint meeting of Health and Finance ministers and a joint commitment to co‑operation and program management and reform. We also agreed on the importance of better co‑ordination in integration of other social programs including income support. On training, we identified two major priorities: the need to review disincentives to work in training and existing unemployment insurance and social assistance programs, and ways to encourage more private sector investment and skills upgrading.

On Agriculture, we discussed a number of issues and all provinces reiterated their full commitment to an early resolution of the GATT based on Canada's balanced position.

Our discussion on fisheries focused on foreign overfishing and the need for strong federal action in this area as well.

We also confirmed plans for the federal government to begin collecting provincial taxes on liquor and tobacco at the border, and we agreed to continue discussions of other options for creating a more level playing field for Canadian retailers.

These conclusions and the others we reached in Toronto represent useful progress, but the progress we made was admittedly more limited than what we might have achieved. We hoped to accomplish more. Most provinces worked hard to make the conference as productive as possible, but there were some problems. Consensus was difficult to achieve on a number of key issues. At the meeting itself, some provinces apparently made a decision to place a higher priority on their own agendas than on co‑operation among governments.

As members are aware much of the debate outside the meeting, and to an extent inside, centred around federal offloading and its impact on the Ontario budget. Ontario made several valid points about the negative effects of federal cutbacks, but it went beyond those points to start threatening equalization and other federal transfer payments for the smaller provinces. The fact is that Ontario's economy and budget are in serious trouble. No one denies that they have massive problems. Our concern is that they seem to be responding to those problems in a very parochial way. Severe as they are, I do not believe Ontario's problems should be used as an excuse for threatening the cornerstones of federalism such as equalization.

Part of the reason Ontario's economy became so strong over the years is that it was protected and favoured by national policies such as tariffs and freight rates. Equalization was established to make sure the economic benefits of those protective measures were shared more fairly across the country. The fact is that to greater or lesser degrees all governments are under heavy pressure right now.

These problems are only partly related to revenues. There are also expenditure control problems, both have to be addressed. The best way of dealing with these problems is to work co‑operatively with other provinces.

Both the federal government and the provinces have responsibilities which must be met. Federal offloading has to stop, but provinces have to make some tough and difficult choices and decisions too, and we have to work together.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

* (1345)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to respond to the statement of the Premier to this Chamber, the results of the March 24‑25 meeting‑‑operative word, results, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side heard a lot of debate in the last three meetings with the First Ministers, listened very carefully to the media reports arising out of the meetings. We just received the copies of the communiques that were arrived at over those meetings just a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, we hope that there were positive results from the meeting because the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed, the 52,000 Manitobans who are unemployed, the huge numbers of people increasing every day on our welfare rates need results. They do not need statements and communiques full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

On the good news side, our former Minister of Transportation, our present Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and many Ministers of Transportation over the last number of years have fought very hard for a national transportation system in this country‑‑an east and west link. Many of us believe that we should be building up our east and west links over the last number of years instead of moving very quickly to our north and south routes, Mr. Speaker, like the Premier opposite.

Mr. Speaker, we await the results of the meeting on the highways position. Will it be a national system? Will it be just a federal‑provincial system? Will it be $850 million over the next 10 years from the federal government to the provinces? Will it be $250 million, that we heard from the Minister of Transportation, over the next 10 years from the federal government? Will it be new money for job creation on our highway development program or will it be as the Prime Minister stated yesterday in his statement, it will be the reallocation of federal money? That begs the question, where will the reallocation come from. Will it come from Manitoba? Will it come from Ontario? Will it come from some other region? Will it come from the core area agreement for education and training? We do not know, Mr. Speaker, because today the Premier announced a national program but there is no funding in the agreement and no announcement of specifics in this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the proposal. We would like to see what the proposal actually is in terms of what the federal government agrees to. As our member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) stated yesterday, we have had lots of promises before from the federal government. Before the last federal election we had the national child care program promised, made right here in front of the Western Glove corporation, and that evaporated after the election.

We suggest to the Premier, you better get the cheque from the Conservatives and you better be sure that they are marching to the beat of a real economic agenda and not just marching to the beat of their own Conservative election agenda in this country, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier raised the issue of Education and Training. We are pleased to see that the First Ministers are dealing with the issues of disincentives. We have spent, ourselves, in this Chamber $90 million more on social assistance over two budgets from the provincial government; yet they, themselves, cut $10 million out of the community colleges last year and said they were going to spend $2.5 million more in this budget but added $1.1 million in their own actual Estimates. We want to see real results in this area, Mr. Speaker, and again we will await to see the announcements of the government.

On the issue of cross‑border shopping, we do support the Premier's position that the federal government should not require the provinces to harmonize the GST as a condition of dealing with cross‑border shopping. We agree with the Premiers of the country on that point. It is absolutely‑‑what should I say, the term blackmail is inappropriate‑‑but it is absolutely wrong for a federal government to require the provinces to harmonize their dastardly GST that has resulted in thousands of Canadians losing their jobs, has resulted in a devastation of our retail sector, devastation of our tourism sector. It is absolutely unconscionable that the federal Conservative government would require all the provinces to bring in that harmonization, and we applaud the Premier for saying "no" to that harmonization. We look forward to what results they may come up with in this whole area that seems to be at an impasse between the federal government and the provincial government.

In the area of interprovincial trade, Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to see some announcements on interprovincial trade. I have often felt, and we have often felt, that something like the investment initiative is a good thing. Provinces bidding against provinces, whether it is Manitoba bidding against Cargill, or Saskatchewan having another plant of Cargill bidding against the Manitoba Simplot plant, is not good for Canadians. It is not good for Canada. I hope that the minister and the government can get some initiatives on investment procedures in this country.

We note, Mr. Speaker, that there is again another meeting in September on interprovincial barriers. We also note that the communiques include a reference to regional realities, and we would ask the government to pay particular attention to the regional reality of 90 percent unemployment in northern Manitoba which we always felt required special attention from all governments of all political parties.

In the area of agriculture, I was surprised the government did not mention the whole issue of the offloading of the federal government onto the provinces of partial payments on agriculture. This is a big problem in western Canada, but we are pleased that the Premiers have agreed to a review of the impact of the changes in programs on western Canadian life. There is no question for any of us that western Canada has been devastated by the changing international markets, by the depressed grain prices and by the offloading, I believe, by the federal government onto the provinces. We would want to work with the government on the whole area of agriculture and we too hope that GATT resolves itself.

* (1350)

In the area of health care reform, it raises the whole question, and this is a question for all governments of all stripes including NDP governments, Liberal governments and Conservative governments. What public input is going to go on for this ministers' meeting? The Finance ministers are going to meet, the Health ministers are going to meet, but when is the public, the greatest stakeholder in our health care system, going to have some say on the kind of reforms that are going to take place in our health care system?

I would urge this government to open the doors and open the windows on health care reform in this province. There is committee after committee after committee, and we want to have access, the public wants to know what is going on, Mr. Speaker, in their health care system.

I note that the Premier made a big point of raising the whole issue of offloading, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely clear that the federal government, over the last 10 years, the federal Conservative government especially after 1984, has proceeded with massive offloading onto the provinces. I would hope that all the Premiers stand together on the federal offloading dealing with the federal government.

I remember that when we asked this body across the way, when they were in opposition in 1985, to join us in standing up for medicare and post‑secondary education, they refused to do so, Mr. Speaker.

One final point dealing with the communique which we will be raising is of course to the North American free trade agreement. We, on this side, do not believe the public has any say on what is going on with this international trade agreement. We, on this side, will be fighting for public input into the trade arrangements that are so crucial to everybody's daily lives in this province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the Premier back in the House. Unfortunately, it is sad that he could not bring anything of any concrete measure with him today. I do not lay all of that blame with our Premier, but we have a situation in which 13 governments sat for 14 hours and did not come up with one concrete proposal about anything. They have commitments in principle, but no money. They have more studies. They have more ministerial debates and conversations but not a single initiative to address the very serious economic problems facing Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, rather than deal with every single one of the areas, I want to deal specifically with one. When the minister went on Tuesday‑‑just the evening before, the day before we had some discussions about the need for training and retraining‑‑he said there were going to be some positive initiatives. Well, look at what has come out of this. We are going to review the disincentives to work. What terrifies me is there is the sense that somehow or other thousands and thousands and thousands of Canadians are not working because we are not providing them with the right incentives. Thousands and thousands and thousands of Canadians are not working because there are not any jobs out there. There is nothing in this documentation that provides them with jobs.

The second thing they said they were going to do was they were going to encourage the private sector to invest more in the training of workers. There is a total opt‑out of responsibility on the part of all of the First Ministers of this nation to do anything for the people in this country who need appropriate post‑secondary education, who need appropriate retraining as they move from job to job to job. There is nothing for them to even have a glimmer of hope that we are going to be able to meet the competitive challenge that faces all of us as we end this century and begin the next one. It is a lot of words directed towards the most vulnerable, but no commitment to change the system that got us into this position now and will do nothing to encourage us to get out of it.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Can we revert, Mr. Speaker, to tabling‑‑

* (1355)

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to revert back to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports? Leave. It is agreed.

Mr. Ernst: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to table the Supplementary Report of the Winnipeg Wards Boundaries Commission.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1989‑90 Annual Report of the Conservation Districts of Manitoba.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

North American Free Trade Agreement

Public Hearings

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the First Minister has opposed the North American free trade agreement in August of 1990. He has now modified his position, and he has the conditional position of the provincial government, the six conditions which he reiterated in his statement in the Chamber today.

We discussed this issue in the Premier's Estimates on Monday night, and he stated to us that he would be raising the whole issue of the proposed North American free trade agreement with Mexico and United States in the First Ministers' meeting. He has indicated in the statement that he reiterated the six conditions in that meeting, Mr. Speaker, but there was a great deal of conflicting information coming from the meeting from different Premiers on the level, or lack of level of input, from Premiers and the public in the whole area of the free trade agreement with Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, some Premiers are saying, shelve this agreement until we have digested the effects of the American Free Trade Agreement. Others were asking for a greater commitment for input.

I would ask the Premier: Did he receive from the Prime Minister a commitment that the Canadian public would have input into this very, very vital proposed trade agreement that would affect their lives in Manitoba and across Canada? Did he get any commitment from the Prime Minister that Canadians and Manitobans would have input into this very important trade proposal?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Doer: Again, that is consistent with the Prime Minister's comments of treating the Premiers, to some degree, without any commitment for even a First Ministers' meeting and treating the Canadian public as if this is a matter of imperial debate with the governments and not a matter for the public.

Manitoba Conditions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question, Mr. Speaker. We have a copy, as many other members of the Canadian public, of the Dallas draft of the free trade agreement. The government has had this draft for over a week now. The Premier has indicated that they are analyzing this draft.

I would ask the Premier: How many of the six conditions that Manitoba has established are contained within the last draft that his government has reviewed on the trade agreement with Mexico?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that matter is being reviewed by the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism and the minister. After they have done their review and analysis of the draft, they will be reporting to cabinet, and I will be able to discuss that matter further with the Leader of the Opposition when I have received that analysis.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the document. Some of the crucial areas established by the Premier, areas like health and safety standards, areas like workers' rights, areas such as the environment which we raised in the Premier's Estimates on Monday night, are not specifically covered by this agreement. There is absolutely no protection in the draft document.

I would ask the Premier: When is Manitoba going to move from a position of conditionally looking at this agreement? When are we going to end our silence and be opposed to it, because it does not meet the conditions the Premier established?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we will do, I think, what people expect of us, and that is to review the matter very carefully. I am not certain whether the document that the Leader of the Opposition has is the collective draft position of the three countries. I am not sure whether it is some other older version or what it is, so I would not want to jump at that conclusion.

I will report further when we have done the analysis, when our officials have made their concerns known and when we are in a position to discuss it further.

Red River Community College

Funding

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

The Premier has just identified, as a priority, the need to review disincentives to work and training for Manitobans, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the biggest disincentive for Manitobans is in fact the decrease of places for post‑secondary education in Manitoba. Last year, this government eliminated more than 500 places at Red River Community College. This year, when there are 3,000 more youths unemployed and the youth unemployment rate has risen from 14.6 percent to 16.7 percent, the community college budget is still $9 million less than it was two years ago.

Will the minister tell the House exactly how many new places will be opened to Manitoba students at Red River Community College this year?

* (1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister of Education and Training was not at the meetings in Toronto and in the preamble the member for Wolseley has referenced the statements within the communique that was issued, I want her to know that the statements with respect to disincentives to training and work have to do with the fact that in most of the other industrialized countries of this world, the income support programs, by way of UIC and social allowances, spend approximately 75 percent to 80 percent of their funding on training and upgrading people's skills and only 20 percent to 25 percent of their money on income replacement. That is the reverse in Canada.

That is a nation‑wide problem. It stems from the fact that many of the rules of these programs‑‑and even I was not aware of how these rules especially apply to seasonal workers such as fishermen in the Atlantic provinces. They actually prevent them from going to work by virtue of the fact that they lose substantial benefits in taking on even term work, matters of six and eight weeks, when some of the plants in their shoulder season, the fishing plants are not able to‑‑so the question is a matter of us having to remove these disincentives from the program which in fact say to people, if you go to work, you will be penalized and your income will be reduced. That is the key element of recognition of this program.

If you take away those disincentives to work and training, then you can turn your attention to the needs that are there in terms of the skill shortages that still exist in some areas of our economy and in terms of the opportunities that exist for people to go into areas where there are jobs but they lack the skills. That is the first point.

The second point of the issue is with respect to wha