LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, April 15, 1992

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Sharon Evens, Maxine Gudnason, Marilyn Budzan 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

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). 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 of the 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, it has been predicted that only three will survive beyond the year 2,010 unless action is taken now; and

The Abinochi‑Zhawayndakozihwin Ojibwa nursery program which began in 1985 has taught children between the ages of three and five the Ojibwa language, culture and history; and

The Abinochi preschool language program seeks to promote and strengthen aboriginal languages and has been praised as a model by groups across Canada who have requested its curriculum; and

The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry stated that maintaining aboriginal languages is vital to rebuilding the culture lost through years of colonization; and

The provincial minister's working group studying the school recommended that long‑term funding be found for the school; and

The provincial government recognized the importance of the school in 1991 when it committed $64,000 to the school that year; and

The provincial government has chosen in 1992 to not commit any funds to the program this year, threatening the future of the school, while it is increasing funding to private elite schools by 9 percent after giving them an increase last year of 11 percent.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba consider funding the Abinochi Preschool Program at a level which will ensure that the school continues to operate.

* * *

I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), 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.

* * *

I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), 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:

WHEREAS the Human Resource Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed and people re‑entering the labour force; and

WHEREAS during the past ten years alone over 1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training; and

WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the Training Centre recent graduates have found employment; and

WHEREAS without consultation the program was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and

WHEREAS there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of Selkirk, the Selkirk local of the Manitoba Metis Federation as well as many other local organizations and individuals.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services to consider a one‑year moratorium on the program.

* * *

I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), 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 Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and

The AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and

The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system; and

The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many others, also recommend both aboriginal self‑government and a separate and parallel justice system; and

On January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and

Despite the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government, the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jurisdiction.

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 aboriginal self‑government by considering reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction and implementing a separate and parallel justice system.

* (1335)

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Hon. James McCrae (Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the House with a brief report on the status of the current series of multilateral meetings on the Constitution. As honourable members know, federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal delegations met yesterday in Ottawa to complete a meeting that began in Halifax on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. The next multilateral meeting of ministers and aboriginal representatives will be held in Edmonton in two weeks. The following week, the same group will convene in Saint John, New Brunswick, and there will probably be weekly meetings thereafter until the end of May.

While there was extensive discussion on many of the issues that are part of this Canada round, no final decisions have been made on any major issue. There has been some clarification of the issues, and certain matters, such as changes to the mandate of the Bank of Canada, have been set aside. There has been a general recognition that because so many of the issues are interrelated, it would be inappropriate to sign off on individual components until there is a reasonably clear sense of the nature and scope of the overall package.

Members of this House are well aware of the complexity of these issues. Our task force took many months to reflect on many of the same issues that are the subject of these meetings. Nevertheless, some encouraging progress is being made. For example, our task force report urged our fellow Canadians to adopt an inclusive Canada clause. The federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal representatives are now working on such a statement. We supported reform of the Senate, and most participants now agree that the Senate must be reformed. Again, it is recognized that all of the components must be considered together as a Senate reform package.

"Elected" is a given, but the method of election is to be worked out. "Effective" is agreed in the sense that no delegation wants to create a Senate with no powers. We all want the Senate to have enough power to make the House of Commons think seriously about the effects of its policies on provinces and regions but not so much power that it can bring the whole apparatus of the federal government to a halt. "Equal" is still very much on the table as well, and discussions continue. We believe it is critical, during this Canada round, that all of the provinces in Canada be made equal partners in Confederation.

I am also pleased to advise that the Manitoba task force position on aboriginal rights, namely recognition of the inherent right to self‑government within the Canadian Constitution with a process to define, is now the central basis for multilateral discussion. There is still a lot of work to do, as details of self‑government have not been the subject over the years of the same kind of intensive analysis as Senate reform. I am, however, confident that the good will exists to work out the practical problems.

The work on the division of powers has progressed more slowly. In large measure, this is because of the way Canada has evolved over the last 125 years. It is very, very difficult to unscramble an omelette. In this area in particular, the absence of Quebec from the table has hampered the process. This item was placed on the agenda primarily to respond to Quebec's objectives, but no one from the Quebec government has appeared to clarify its position.

While some of the larger provinces are seeking more responsibilities, I believe most of the participating governments are more concerned with ensuring that the federal government lives up to its obligations in the fields of equalization, Established Programs Financing, the Canada Assistance Plan and support for aboriginal services than they are with redistributing power.

In this connection, honourable members will be interested to know that one of the major accomplishments of yesterday's meeting was a strong agreement among most provinces that the current equalization provision in the Constitution needs to be strengthened. That agreement is consistent with our task force's recommendation and is of major importance to Manitoba. This issue will be discussed again at our next meeting in Edmonton.

Mr. Speaker, we are one month into this process. We have made some progress, and although a great deal of work still has to be done, a substantial consensus on a practical set of amendments may well be achievable by the end of May.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to provide regular updates to the House following each of the multilateral meetings. Thank you.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement in the Chamber here this afternoon.

The members on this side remain pledged to the all‑party report and the all‑party process that we have established in Manitoba. We believe that Manitobans should be speaking with one voice on this very important constitutional round. We believe that we should be speaking with one voice consistent with the report and the recommendations in the report that basically came from the hundreds of Manitobans who presented their views to the all‑party task force in 1991, which was contained in the report made public in October of last year.

We note some of the areas of progress that the ministers have made. We noted last week that there was some optimism from the discussions dealing with aboriginal self‑government and the inherent right of self‑government for aboriginal people by the ministers at the table and from the aboriginal leadership, Mr. Speaker. We join with the thousands and millions of Canadians who feel this is long overdue to have recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people to self‑government, and we are thankful that there was some progress in articulating that principle at the ministers' meeting last week.

I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker‑‑those of us in this Chamber who know very well about the issues of aboriginal people remember that at the Meech Lake proceedings, various provincial delegations were at the conference centre and aboriginal leaders were left across the street at the hotel waiting to hear about their destiny. I think it is much more appropriate that their destiny is determined in joint partnership at an equal level at the table.

When we are talking about participation in the process, the minister has noted the lack of participation of Quebec, and I noticed the minister from British Columbia yesterday was very vocal. Minister Sihota was very vocal about the lack of participation with the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest very strongly that the ministers of Canada keep the invitation open to Quebec to attend those meetings, but I see absolutely no reason to discuss items that are allegedly on the Quebec agenda for discussions to be discussed without the Province of Quebec there. In other words, I do not believe there should be any incentive for Quebec to stay away from the table with any kind of implicit negotiations going on, on the massive division of powers that the Quebec government has asked for in this round. I think, not only would that be wrong in terms of the process, but it would also be wrong in terms of what Manitoba believes.

As the minister has articulated, we believe in a strong federal government with the ability to redistribute wealth to individuals and to regions. That is in direct contradiction to the position paper of the Allaire Report in Quebec, the Belanger‑Campeau Commission in that province as well, and we remain united with the government in dealing with that issue.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the government has not mentioned the very important issue of the amending formula. I think it is important to be very specific that Manitoba remains committed to an amending formula that has 7‑50 as the basis for decision making and not to agree to some proposal for vetoes that are presently being proposed by some provinces dealing with some issues, or the Victoria formula which would remove power from Manitoba in the existing amending formula.

Mr. Speaker, we would note that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a couple of weeks ago said that he would make available his legal opinions to all members of this Chamber. I raised that question in the Premier's Estimates. We have not received those legal opinions yet, and it is very important for all of us who are going to be working together that we have the legal opinions.

The Premier said on national television that the social charter wording could affect the enforceability of Section 36 of the Constitution. We have been told that may not be true, but if the Premier has legal opinions in that regard, we would like to see those opinions as committed by the government some four weeks ago in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other issues that we are very interested in‑‑the Bank of Canada recommendation, basically a monetarist policy in the Constitution we are opposed to, and I believe Manitobans are opposed to, and I believe this government should be opposed to it. You cannot talk about the high interest rates in this country and then entrench in the Constitution a monetarist policy.

Similarly, I would remind the government that many women's groups in this province, many environmental groups in this province, many aboriginal groups in this province, are very much opposed to the Conservative proposal for entrenching in the Charter of Rights a section on property rights. That is again contrary to the Manitoba all‑party task force report that recommends against any change in the Charter of Rights. I would remind the government of that point because I know that is also a matter on the table.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are glad the tone of the discussions are positive. We are glad that there are lots of discussions going on between all provinces except Quebec and the aboriginal people, and I would suggest and urge the government to continue in making sure that Manitoba's priorities are very much indeed part of this Canadian round of this very important Canada process. Thank you very much.

* (1345)

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I welcome the report from the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. McCrae) in the province of Manitoba to this House this afternoon to keep us informed as best he can of the process and procedures that are going on. My concern remains the same concern that I have had from the very beginning because, as the minister says, progress has been made in a number of areas. No progress has been made, I would suggest, if in fact we do not know where Quebec stands on any of those issues. It is fine for us to talk about the recognition of the inherent right to self‑government, but if Quebec is not prepared to recognize that inherent right to self‑government, does that mean that the entire deal that is presently being drafted and constructed by First Ministers and constitutional ministers then all falls apart?

I share the same concern about the inclusiveness of the Canadian clause or Canada clause and I commend the minister for keeping that at the top of the agenda. I want to ensure that a Charter protection is part of that inclusive clause because it is certainly part of our inclusive clause here in the province of Manitoba, that the rights of all Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada, have to be guaranteed. This is particularly significant this week. On Friday, we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Charter in Canada and all of the accomplishments of that document as part and parcel of our Constitution and the inherent equality of Canadians‑‑male, female and of all the colours and religions of the rainbow.

My concern also is that there were discussions yesterday with regard to the Senate, and there seemed to be, not from this minister‑‑and I want to say that very clearly‑‑but there seemed to be from others the sense of trade‑off, that you could trade off effectiveness with equality. They are not trade‑off positions. There is no point in having, quite frankly, a reformed Senate that is not also equal and effective. To say that you are going to sacrifice equality for effectiveness or you are going to sacrifice effectiveness for equality is not the name of the game here. If we are to have a Senate for which we are going to spend multimillions of dollars, then that Senate has to be effective. That Senate also must be equal.

Finally, in terms of the debate and the discussion of the division of powers, it is imperative that Quebec be at the table because it does not really matter what the rest of the provinces come up with. In the final analysis, if Quebec is not prepared to negotiate along the lines of a document that seems to be well into the preparatory stages, seems to be getting the consensus of a number of governments behind it, there is one government that can quite frankly throw a wet blanket on this entire process, and that is the government of Quebec. Yet we continue to proceed along with these negotiations as if, again, the strategy is that all the rest of us will present a package to Quebec, and it is not that way. There are 10 provinces in this country. There are 10 governments, and each government has as much at stake in this Confederation as the province of Quebec.

I commend the minister for the progress. I also, again, give the warning signals which I know he is well aware of, and I again urge all of them to do everything they possibly can to get the province of Quebec at the table so that we are not left with what we think, and this certainly happened at Meech Lake with what we thought was a package that was acceptable to everybody, only to be told yet once again it was totally unacceptable to the province of Quebec. The spinning of our wheels is not a progressive spin if indeed one of those wheels absolutely essential to making the operation run smoothly is not there.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon eight visitors. They include two Japanese exchange students, namely, Katuski Yamaki and Ali (I) Murase from the Dakota Collegiate. They are under the direction of Mr. Wayne Ruff, the principal. These are guests of the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay).

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

Also with us this afternoon, from the Garden City Collegiate we have twenty‑five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mrs. Carolyn McCormack. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

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

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Employability Enhancement Programs

Funding

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government, in its Estimates, states that there will be 27,000 Manitobans accessing social assistance in this fiscal year. Eighty percent of the increase in the funding for the Family Services department is taken up by social assistance programs. The cost of social assistance benefits, not staffing and not administration, but pure benefits to each of those 27,000 Manitobans is $12,500 per year. There are also Employability Enhancement Programs that this government has in its Family Services budget which are targeted solely to social assistance recipients. The cost for those programs are $4,200 per client per year.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why he has reduced expenditures for the Employability Enhancement Programs element to Family Services by $500,000 this year, which will service 95 fewer clients than last year.

* (1350)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): These are issues that we are currently discussing in our Estimates process. We have a number of programs that are provided for social allowance recipients whereby they can access training and education to enable them to get back into the work force.

Later this week we are announcing a new program, the Partners with Youth program, which in part is going to provide some additional programming for unemployed youth in Manitoba. We also are looking at the Employability Enhancement projects and have maintained many of the ones that have been successful and are looking at other ways by which we can provide training for individuals in the province who are unemployed.

Two of our most successful programs that we have maintained are the Single Parent Job Access and the Gateway program. We feel these are programs that have had a greater success rate, and we will be maintaining those and training people as best we can to put them back into the work force.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about unemployed youth; we are talking about social assistance recipients.

The cost for the Employability Enhancement Programs are one‑third the cost of providing basic social assistance services for the people of Manitoba. Why has this government chosen to reduce by 12 percent the amount of money put into those Employability Enhancement Programs and reduce by 9 percent the number of social assistance clients who can access those programs, instead of putting that $500,000 decrease into the two programs that the minister says are functioning well? Why has he chosen to eliminate cost‑effective programs, instead of putting the money into additional programs?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that overall we have increased the Family Services budget by almost 9 percent in a year when other departments with tremendous demands have been unable to increase their budgets.

Government, not only in Manitoba but across this country, is under tremendous pressure to provide funding for health care programs, education programs, as well as the social programs. In addition to that, we have tremendous demands in rural Manitoba in Agriculture and other departments where we have to find funding.

Even given these difficult times, we have been able to increase our budget by some 9 percent, maintain programs, and this year we are also providing a new program called Partners with Youth. Some of the individuals who will be accessing that program are social allowance recipients.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the increase in the Family Services department was not by choice; it was because they are mandated to because it is social assistance. What the department has done is it has chosen to take away $500,000 from programs that had a 70 percent success rate by the government's own admission.

Why has this government chosen to decrease the funding for successful job creation Employability Enhancement Programs that were helping 500 social assistance clients every year get off social assistance into jobs and into training? Why are they doing that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would mention to the member that the addition of some $10 million for other programs within Family Services is not a small amount. We have evaluated the programs, and we are supporting the programs that have been very, very successful.

We are putting money into new programs to provide employment, not only for unemployed youth but also for social assistance recipients, and from time to time, we have to evaluate the programming and make some changes and keep the ones that are successful.

* (1355)

Youth Unemployment

Government Strategy

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Family Services, who I understand this afternoon or later this week will be making an announcement about a youth partnership program which, when we consider that we have youth unemployment at 18.6 percent in this province, will be a drop in the bucket.

Looking back at the programs for youth before this government took office, we had a STEP program with 900 people working in it; today it is down to 300. We had a northern youth job program with 874 young people working in it; today it does not exist. We had a Manitoba jobs and training program, a multimillion‑dollar program, most of which went to the young people, that does not exist today. We had a CareerStart of $8.5 million with 6,000 jobs, and they are down to $3.5 million. We had departmental budgets drop before funding.

Mr. Speaker, why will this minister, why will this government not go back and look at the record, take a lesson from the past and set up some real, significant programs for young people and restore real opportunities for our youth, a real partnership for youth?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, one of the inhibiting factors in creating new programs by this government is the tremendous debt that was left by the member across the way in his term in government. It has reduced the flexibility, a flexibility that all governments are looking for to create new programs. We are paying that tremendous debt, that interest on the debt that was run up by the previous government.

I do not know why the member would criticize a program that we are about to announce, Partners with Youth, a program that has met with a lot of support from municipal level governments. They are looking forward to this program, and I do not understand why the member for Brandon East would be critical of it.

Social Assistance

Employment Creation Strategy

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I make no apology in spending money for jobs for young people to allow them to work. There is real goods and services.

Would this minister have his senior staff meet with the administration of the City of Winnipeg welfare department, which has prepared a series of seven major work projects for welfare recipients? These are the unemployed, employable welfare recipients, the bulk of whom are young people. Would he have them meet with the department of welfare in the city and explore a joint co‑operative effort with the City of Winnipeg and hopefully with the federal government to get people to work? We have a record number of unemployed people in Winnipeg‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member says he makes no apology for the tremendous debt that was run up in the mid‑1980s. He makes no apology for the expenditures of the 1980s that we are inhibited by today. I hear his fellow travellers in Saskatchewan saying that they cannot do anything and that they are bringing in health care user fees because of previous debts. These are the same problems that we have in this province because of the debts that were run up in the 1980s when the actual income by government was much higher than it is today.

We meet on a regular basis with officials from the social allowance department of the City of Winnipeg to look at programs. I know that they will be very interested in the Partners with Youth program to see what funding they can access to do some of the works projects, and we would be more than willing to meet with them.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, we left this government with a surplus of money, not a deficit, a surplus, and you put it in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

Will this minister have his deputy minister today call up the administrator of the City of Winnipeg social services department and explore specifically the ways and means of getting people to work with these seven major projects: newspaper recycling, forestry programs, nursery sod project, riverbank stabilization, large compost facility, noxious weed eradication and residential waste stream proposition study? Will you get your senior staff‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

* (1400)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I know that not only the City of Winnipeg but all municipalities will be interested in the program that we will be announcing, and we will work with them.

We have recently attended the MAUM provincial meeting and talked to UMM representatives as well as the City of Winnipeg, and there is a tremendous interest in working with government to promote some job creation.

Youth Unemployment

Government Strategy

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I take a certain amount of pride in bringing correct information into this House, but I have to suggest that yesterday when I stood up and I said there were 2,952 jobs that had been cut, I did not provide the most accurate information, because when we went into the Estimates process, I found out that there were another 530 jobs which had been cut between 1990‑91 and the present time as far as employment programs for young people are concerned, and the correct figure is now 3,482 jobs which have been cut in the last two years.

Can the minister tell this House on what basis and on what philosophical background‑‑because one likes to think they make it on the basis of some kind of party philosophy‑‑has this government decided that young people are not worth investing in?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I hate to make an attack on the member's pride, but some of the information she brings today is not accurate.

One of the key factors that she is looking at is the Manitoba Youth Job Centre Program, which simply registers unemployed youth and youth looking for work. There are going to be again 44 centres throughout the province to register any youth who are unemployed and seeking work.

In 1985‑86, for instance, there were just over 8,000 people who registered. These were not jobs that were created. These are simply people looking for work. Later on in the 1980s, there were some 12,000 children registered looking for work. This year, we are estimating that there may be 9,000. Now, that estimate may be low. There may be 10,000 or 12,000. These are simply offices where people seeking short‑term summer employment register.

So let not the member leave on the record that these are job cuts. These are individuals who are looking for work. The government provides these offices where the individuals can register. We are basing that on the figures from the previous year, but there may be in fact more than 9,000 people registering for employment.

Employability Enhancement Programs

Funding

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have never known the Estimates of any government department under any administration not to give the best possible news to their numbers, and the best possible news to their numbers are down, down, down. At the same time that they are cutting these kinds of job opportunities, they are cutting out other programs.

Mr. Speaker, in light with the same kind of philosophical rationale, can the minister tell the House today why, under Employability Enhancement, a program called Job Access for Young Adults‑‑these are young people who find themselves on social assistance wanting desperately to get off‑‑that program has been scrapped in its entirety?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The member is asking the same question that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) asked. We have retained the programs that have been most successful, the Single Parent Job Access, and the Gateway program. We feel that by creating some new programs that are more receptive and more in keeping with job searches and employment for the 1990s, we will be serving those individuals.

In addition to the figures that the member is putting on the record, we might also mention the Environmental Youth Corps which employs a number of young people and also brings forth thousands of volunteers across the province. This is part of new programming that was introduced last year. As well, the senior level of government is proceeding with the CHALLENGE program for 1992 and will be providing somewhere over 2,000 positions in the work force for young people.

Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, nobody likes it, this government nor opposition, but the increase expected for those who will have to look to social assistance is 34 percent in the province of Manitoba, 34 percent.

Can this minister explain why, to this House, there is not going to be one single person from that new group, those 34 percent new recipients, not one single placement in an Employability Enhancement Program which will allow them to get off welfare and to get into the workplace? Is this Tory philosophy, people on welfare and social assistance and do not get them back to work?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We have maintained the majority of our programming which puts people back to work. I have mentioned the Single Parent Job Access, the Gateway program, the HROCs that we have across the province. These are the ones that have been successful. We have maintained those programs and are confident a number of these individuals will be finding their way into the work force.

Single-Industry Towns

Equity Insurance

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the government an opportunity to do something it often says it would like to do, and that is to accept positive solution from members opposite.

Last year, I wrote to the Minister of Energy and Mines and asked him to begin to investigate the concept of equity insurance for homeowners and small business people in northern Manitoba. The then Minister of Energy and Mines refused to accept that suggestion. On March 24 of this year I asked the new Minister of Energy and Mines whether he would consider that concept, and he refused to respond. Yesterday, at the MAUM convention, a resolution introduced by the town of Snow Lake and supported by many, if not most, of the people at the MAUM convention, recommended that the government undertake that kind of investigation.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is: Will he today indicate whether he will appoint a task force to begin to look at the possibility of establishing an equity insurance program, a tripartite, a multiparty equity insurance program to protect the investment and encourage investment in our northern single‑industry towns?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that what we have attempted to do is to try and change the attitude of the international mining industry, particularly the Canadian mining industry, as to its attitude towards this province. We had the worst tax regime of any province in this country as it related to the development of mines and the continuation of building new mines.

It is our belief, through the mining tax incentive program and through the mineral tax incentive program, the new mine tax holiday, Mr. Speaker, that we will do more to encourage the long‑term existence of those communities by new mine developments and by new mineral exploration activities than other programmings that would bring in insurance such as the member is talking about.

If that fails, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to find new resources and new job opportunities through mineral extraction, that is another option, but first of all, we had to change the draconian tax policies that were in place under the NDP government.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister an opportunity to be positive.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Energy and Mines can explain then why the Conservative government, in 1989, placed a 1.5 percent surtax on that supposedly impossible tax regime and has not lifted it to this day. Can the minister explain as well why yesterday at MAUM he was nominally supportive in face of some 450 delegates from municipalities across the province and today he has all of a sudden turned his back on his commitment of yesterday? Will he now agree to support this resolution, which is supported by‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

* (1410)

Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I have not turned my back on the people of northern Manitoba. The recommendation that the member has brought forward is worthy of taking a look at to see how it may in fact work and help. The bottom line, though, for the people of northern Manitoba is through meaningful resource development and creating the policies to create the employment opportunities and add wealth to this province so we can pay for the social services that the people have come to expect.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we have today with us, in the gallery, representatives of Leaf Rapids Town Council. They can tell this minister that communities throughout northern Manitoba, but certainly single‑industry towns, are doing without investment, that homeowners are not investing in their community, that small businesses are limited to the extent they are investing in our communities because of a lack of securities.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did accept the premise that this concept may work. Will he today announce the creation of a task force to begin the work immediately of exploring the concept and seeing whether in fact we can develop an equity insurance program that is not taxpayer supported, which will protect the investment of northerners now and into the future?

Mr. Downey: This government has put in place a Northern Development Commission which will look at all options and opportunities for northern policy. I would recommend that the member, I would recommend that the communities take before the Northern Development Commission the very ideas that he has talked about so that it can have the full and complete review of people who are fully knowledgeable and qualified. We do not need an additional commission; we do not need an additional task force. There is a mechanism there, Mr. Speaker, for this idea and this proposal to be reviewed under.

Furnace Inspections

Mandatory

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago the Canadian Gas Association issued a warning concerning the Flame‑Master furnaces. About one week later, the Minister of Labour was persuaded to put out a press release stating that Flame‑Master furnace owners should have their furnaces checked immediately and that carbon monoxide could cause headaches, nausea and even death.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since then the gas company has been swamped with calls, as many as 850 alone on Monday. Is the minister now prepared to follow the lead of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all of which have mandatory inspections?

We would like to know what is holding him back on this matter, because he has had a month.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): First of all, in the preamble of the member's question, he makes it sound as if someone had to twist this minister's arm to issue a release. I have to tell him that as soon as I was notified by my staff, we issued the release. In fact, I think the time might have been five minutes from the time it was provided to me to give the okay to issue the release.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of mandatory furnace testing, we in the Department of Labour are always interested in assessing what in fact is causing the problem, what the risks are and what is the best way to minimize those risks.

We are always prepared to entertain a discussion as to the proper way to ensure that risks are reduced, but I caution the member, in this particular case, we still have a fair bit of information to gather, and just the idea of jumping into mandatory inspection is not necessarily the answer.

Condemning Authority

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I would like to know if the minister will require the gas company to have sign‑off authority before a furnace is condemned so that perfectly safe units are not replaced, as was the widespread case last year.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): I am not quite certain I appreciate fully the member's question with respect to sign off. Under our appropriate legislation and regulation, the gas company has responsibility to ensure that before they are providing gas, there is a safe installation.

If the installation is not safe, they have the provision to cut that off in order to ensure that gas is not going into an unsafe mechanism. Perhaps the member could expound in a subsequent question.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, perhaps I could repeat the question to the minister. We are quite clear that the gas company has authority on new installations.

What the question was today, and was the other day, was: What about furnaces that are being condemned? Currently, installers can condemn furnaces and have new ones put in without the gas company even knowing about it. We want the gas company to have the final authority before an old furnace is thrown out and a new one is put in.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I see a somewhat inconsistent comment with the gas company having final authority. I think yesterday we were in an exchange where the gist of the member's questions was whether the authority ultimately lies with the Department of Labour and not with the gas company.

Mr. Speaker, before a new furnace would be put into place, the gas company, of course, would have to be assured that the furnace is sufficient. I think the member's concern is that an installer may condemn a furnace or a repair person may think that a furnace is not safe and condemn that furnace. I believe what the member is asking for is a second opinion on that particular decision, and I would be prepared to have some discussions with him as to the proper process.

Always in those cases, if it is an independent installer or contractor, I think some of the difficulties that took place a few years ago or a year ago in installation are worth a second opinion.

Mr. Maloway: Perhaps we ought to put the minister in a room with a Flame‑Master to see how‑‑

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

Minister of Labour

Meeting Request

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister is: Considering that aggrieved parties are quite angry over the lack of action on the part of this government, will the minister agree to meet with a group of homeowners to discuss this issue and perhaps have a better appreciation of the problem?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to meet with a group of homeowners if the member would like to arrange that.

I just say to the member, he talks about lack of action, the greatest complaint that I have detected, of course, is those people who are faced with the cost of repairing or replacing their furnace or purchasing the replacement parts. In the news coverage I read of the honourable member, he even acknowledged that government cannot have responsibility to cover the costs of replacing that equipment in all cases.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are trying to work with as many people as possible, the people who are affected, to resolve the situation. I admit it is not an easy situation. Most of the difficulty, from the information that has been brought to me, has to do with those people who are having difficulty in finding the resources to do the necessary repairs, and there are programs available from the Department of Housing and others for those who are low income.

Canada Health Act

Tray-Fee Regulation

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Canada Health Act does not allow extra billing or user fees, but this government, like the previous NDP government, continues to allow this practice in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, certain services like tray fees, which are billed to the patients to cover the cost of providing the necessary medical supplies for a required procedure in a doctor's office as opposed to the hospital, they are not insured in Manitoba. It is costing as much as $18 per person.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House, as some other provincial jurisdictions recognize that is in total violation of the Canada Health Act, why we are allowing such services in Manitoba?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I missed the specific name of the clinic my honourable friend brought on the‑‑[interjection] oh, okay.