LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 18, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

 

Committee of Supply

 

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees):  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.

 

          I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon 19 seniors who are out touring today from Treherne, Manitoba.  They are under the direction of Mrs. Isabelle Adams, and they are from the constituency of the Speaker.

 

          Also with us today, we have from Gainsborough, Saskatchewan, ten Grade 8 students under the direction of Mr. Gerald Kelly.

 

          On behalf of all honourable members, we would like to welcome you here this afternoon also.

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Western Premiers' Conference

Agenda‑‑Quebec Election

                                                                             

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

 

          The original press release from the Premier had no reference to the whole issue of national unity and the possibility of the election changes in the province of Quebec.  Subsequent to the release and news media coverage, the Premier indicated yesterday that the issue of a western Canadian position could be on the agenda of the western Premiers subsequent to the comments made by Premier Harcourt.

 

          I would like to ask the Premier whether, in fact, the agenda has been changed, and will this issue be dealt with at the western Premiers' meeting in Gimli?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the member has incorrectly put on the record something that I did not say.  I did not say that it would be on the agenda.  It will not be on the agenda.

 

          What I did say was that given the comments of both Premier Harcourt and Premier Romanow, undoubtedly, when we have breakfast or lunch together on a private basis, as national leaders, we would, I am sure, be talking about and speculating about the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in Quebec and what that might mean for the future of our country and the decisions that Quebec might have to take.

 

          But it is not on the agenda, and it will not be on the formal agenda, Mr. Speaker.

 

Quebec Separation

Manitoba Position

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know then from the Premier, the Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Saskatchewan have clearly stated that the question before the people of Quebec should be very clear, that if they want to co‑operate and stay in Canada, there will be very positive relations with the rest of the country; but if they choose to go on a different path, that the path will be a tough one and that the province of Quebec can take nothing for granted.

 

* (1335)

 

          I would like to know whether this scenario will be discussed informally at the Premiers' meeting, given the fact that many people feel that the people of Quebec should be fully aware of the feelings of western Canadians in terms of the decisions that the people in Quebec will be making in terms of a separatist government or a federalist government in the next provincial election.

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I just caution the member opposite that this is not a matter in which any of us ought to be looking for short‑term political gain, getting into a situation that frankly lies within the jurisdiction of the people of Quebec.  I have said time and time and time again, we have gone through two constitutional rounds in which I have been a participant, and I know that the people of Manitoba do not want us to engage in another round of constitutional debate and discussion, negotiation.  The people are fed up to here with constitutional discussion.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where having discussed the constitution in a formal sense for too long, too long taken away from the economy, jobs and the real issues of Canadians and Manitobans, we do not want to go into that any longer.  We are in a situation in which we can say very openly that Manitobans would prefer Quebec to make its decision.  They would prefer Quebec to remain a part of Canada.  I believe that very strongly.  I know that is my belief, but they do not want us to get into a situation in which we have to give in to further constitutional concessions and other things in order to convince Quebec to stay.

 

          We believe that Quebec ought to stay because Canada is the best place for Quebec, and Canada is better having Quebec a part of it, but we do not want to get into that kind of constitutional negotiation now on an ad hoc basis, and further, I do not think that we want to be seen as putting things on the record that can be used to inflame the separatist movement in Quebec.

 

          So we do not want to get into situations in which we threaten Quebec or are perceived to be inflating the consequences or upping the ante to Quebec.  I believe we are in a better position to just simply let Quebec make its decision and then deal with Quebec on the basis of whatever decision that it makes, having told them first and foremost that we would prefer them to be a part of Canada.

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, we of course agree with the Premier in terms of the decisions that Quebec people will have to make, and we agree with the Premier in terms of keeping a strong and united country with all provinces in it.

 

          Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable amount of feeling in western Canada, and perhaps in other regions of Canada, that the early referendums in the 1980 period were almost an artificial referendum, where the words "sovereignty association" were used, and that the separatist movement in Quebec is pedaling a very, very irresponsible alternative in terms of what will happen if indeed they choose to go on a different path.

 

          I would ask the Premier, at what point will we be dealing with the issue of allowing the people of Quebec to make an intelligent decision in their best interests but, at the same time, recognizing the strong concerns that other Canadians have about those options and what the ramifications of those options will be?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I do not think at this point we need to add our voice to those that have already been made, that have suggested very strongly, and I have happened to have had this discussion with the Prime Minister not too long ago.  One of the best things that has happened over the last while with the election‑‑a considerable number of Bloc Quebecois people to Parliament‑‑is that they have been smoked out, and they have now started to use the term "separation."

 

          That term has also been used in Quebec by Mr. Parizeau.  I do not think that anybody is going to be dealing with a soft and mushy question when the Government of Canada and all the other governments across the country are saying very clearly that the choice is either to be a part of Canada or not to be a part of Canada.  It is not some kind of mushy definition of sovereignty association or whatever you may want to characterize it as.

 

          I think that is perhaps one of the better things that has come out in the last six months, that both Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard have said clearly that their goal is separation.  Under those circumstances, I believe that the people of Quebec will know what the choice is and what the consequences are.

 

* (1340)

 

Firearms Control

Amnesty Program

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  My question is to the Minister of Justice.  We understand the minister is considering an amnesty program for the owners of illegal guns so we can get these guns off the streets and out of our communities.

 

          My question to the minister is:  In order to make this program effective, is she considering forging a partnership with police so people do not have to just go into the police offices and be intimidated, but that the police can go out to homes to get the guns, and, as well, is she considering any incentive program to go along with the amnesty?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  As I said earlier in an interview, the government was considering several points to deal with illegal guns, one of which was an amnesty.  I will confirm now that this government will be looking at an amnesty for illegal guns.

 

          The details of that amnesty will be released when the program is released.  As the member knows, it does require the co‑operation of police services across the province, and I will be working with those police services to work out the details of an amnesty.

 

Manitoba Position

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  Just for clarification, the minister talked about an amnesty being one part of the government's plan, and we recognize it as only one part and perhaps a very small part.

 

          What is the provincial government's position, and what position has the provincial government advanced to the federal government, first, about increasing the offences for the crime of using a gun in the commission of an offence?  Second of all, what is this government's position, and what have they told the federal government about what has to be taking place on the issue of handgun control?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  This government and I as minister have said to the federal government that we certainly support the responsible use of guns and also the safe and responsible storage.  Those were two areas in which we reinforced our commitment.

 

          We have asked the federal government, however, to consider some changes within the current legislation that might deal with sentencing where crimes have been committed with a gun as a weapon, also in the area of parole to be considered.

 

Government Strategy

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  First, I just wonder if the minister would table any written correspondence she has had with the federal government, so this House knows what this provincial government's position is.

 

          My question is, what is the province itself going to do about guns in Manitoba?  Does it have any position?  Does it have any plans, particularly regarding pellet guns and replica guns, otherwise complementing the federal legislation, Mr. Speaker?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  The member asks the questions but appears not to have listened to any of the answers.  This government has made a decision to move ahead in co‑operation with police services to move towards an amnesty to deal with the illegal guns, which are the guns of concern, the illegal guns which may in fact be the ones that people may use in the commission of a crime.  Perhaps he did not listen to the answer.

 

Manitoba Medical Services Council

Nursing Representation

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  My question is for the Minister of Health.

 

          Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Health released the membership of the new Medical Services Council which originally was the product of the agreement between the government and the Manitoba Medical Association.

 

          My question is quite simple for the Minister of Health.  Given all of his talk about an inclusive system, about the need to consult broadly and widely, not restrict the level of his outreach to the various stakeholders in the health care system, why out of 14 members on that committee is there only one nurse?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Medical Services Council is there to advise the government on various areas, areas respecting the medical services appropriations of the government.  It is true that one of the members representing the public interest is a nurse, and I think that is appropriate.  I think it is also noteworthy that of all of the 14 members, four represent the medical profession, and the others represent regulatory agencies, the Faculty of Medicine, the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, and the general public.

 

          So we think the mix is an appropriate mix.  When you consider also the Physician Resource Committee and the opportunities that will be there for the public to have a say and the membership that has already been announced for that, two of those people are nurses, so we feel that the nursing profession will have its input this way and also directly with the government.

 

* (1345)

 

Mr. Edwards:  It is my understanding that there are six medical doctors.  In addition, there is the executive director of the Manitoba Medical Association, Mr. Laplume.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the minister is right.  There are two nurses on the Physician Resource Committee.  As the physicians decide what they want to investigate, they can certainly speak to nurses.  Nurses are not brought into the decision‑making process on what the minister calls medical services appropriation.

 

          Why is there only one out of the 14 that is a nurse, given that there are 10,000 nurses in this province, Mr. Speaker, and only approximately 2,000 doctors?

 

Mr. McCrae:  If the honourable member looks at the large number of committees, implementation teams, task forces and so on that provide advice to the Department of Health, he will see nurses on many, many of those committees.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, this, by the minister's own announcement, is in fact the most critical committee in the review of health reform and how it is going to be implemented.

 

          My final question for the minister:  There is one out of 14 on the council, there are two as part of the Resource Committee at the direction of the physicians, but why, when the minister set up the advisory subcommittees, and he set up a number of these, is there not even a committee there dedicated to representing the nursing profession and the 10,000 nurses who are, in fact, delivering the vast majority of health care services to Manitobans every day on every shift on every ward?

 

Mr. McCrae:  What the honourable member misses, which is the main point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this Medical Services Council has been set up to help us administer an agreement between the government and the physicians.

 

          Now, maybe the honourable member is upset that finally at long last we have been able to bring peace to the relationship between the medical profession and the government, and he is now taking the position that he does not support the agreement between the government and the Manitoba Medical Association. [interjection] Well, he just said from his seat that we sold out.  If he wants to support what he calls a selling out or wants to repudiate that, that is fine.  He is saying that he does not support that agreement.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we have had problems in Manitoba that have gone on for years and years.  Members of the previous government‑‑and previously we have not been able to resolve those differences.  Through the agreement we have with the Manitoba Medical Association, we have a fighting chance of providing a quality health system for Manitobans for generations perhaps to come.  We are pleased to have the input of the nursing profession on the Medical Services Council and on the Physician Resource Committee as well.

 

Manitoba Medical Services Council

Selection Criteria

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, the minister will know from questions in the Estimates that of 89 working committees that this government has, only 6 percent of the representation on those committees are nurses, and the minister will know that we asked the minister and he undertook to try to increase the percentage of nurses on all committees.  He gave that undertaking in Estimates.

 

          My question to the minister is:  We see familiar faces, like Jules Benson and Frank Maynard, on this committee.  I am wondering if the minister can outline for us how it was determined which individuals would represent the public interest on this committee, because there are three representatives, and can the minister indicate how it was that the three individuals who represent the public interest were chosen?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I think the record needs to be set straight, too.  It was not too long ago that I asked the various members of the nursing profession to sit at the same table.  There are some nursing professional and educational issues that need to be resolved, have not been resolved for 28 years in this province.

 

          I tried to bring all of the nursing organizations together.  We had representation from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Registered Psychiatric Nurses, representatives of nursing assistants, and the day before the meeting that we were to have a day‑long meeting‑‑and there will be others as well‑‑I was told by the Manitoba Nurses' Union that they would not be attending the meeting.  I went to the further step of calling Vera Chernecki to ask her if she herself could not attend this extremely important gathering of nurses to try to resolve long‑standing issues, and her answer was no, she would not be attending.

 

* (1350)

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that there is a little bit of a lack of trust perhaps in the community given that response?

 

          Will the minister answer the question:  How was it that this government determined who the public interest representatives would be on this committee?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Mr. Speaker, the consideration of the government in the striking of these committees was driven by the agreement itself, which calls for representation from the department.  We have to have government people involved in a committee that is going to be making very important recommendations.  There is representation from the Manitoba Medical Association; representation on the Physician Resource Committee; from the Urban Health Advisory Council; as well as the Northern/Rural Health Advisory Council.  The Faculty of Medicine‑‑I think it is appropriate that that organization, which does not represent the same interests as the Manitoba Medical Association or indeed of the government be represented.  The Professional Association of Residents and Internes of Manitoba‑‑it is appropriate that, when the future of physicians in Manitoba is being discussed, that organization be represented; and the Manitoba Health Organizations and on and on.

 

Agenda/Minutes Release

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, since this committee will deal with a billion dollars of expenditures over five years, it will have a significant factor on our health care system.  Will the minister, in what he says will be a new era of communication, undertake to make public both the agendas and the minutes of all meetings of this committee because it deals with such significant issues?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I would take the honourable member's question as a representation and consider the matter, but I think it is also important that he understand that decisions are based on population health needs.  That is why it is important to have representation from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, that we have representation of people who have an interest in the community and an interest in the health needs of the population from a purely public point of view.  That is why we have people like Edith Parker, Lynn Raskin‑Levine and Barb Gfellner on that committee representing the public interest.  I do not know what it is the honourable member has against these people, but I think they have a lot to offer.

 

Adoptions

Aboriginal Family Reunification

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, between 1964 and 1981, over 2,500 aboriginal children were removed from their home communities.  In the early 1980s, aboriginal children represented over 60 percent of children in care, and in 1982, 45 percent of aboriginal children placed for adoption were placed outside of the province of Manitoba, half of them in the United States.

 

          In his excellent report in 1985, Judge Kimelman called this process cultural genocide.  I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what her government is doing to assist aboriginal persons who were adopted to find their birth parents, a crucial process for these individuals that is reuniting families and helping individuals re‑establish their identity.

 

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services):  Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable member for that question.  The history in our province has left some questions unanswered, much before my time as the Minister of Family Services or this government, in fact, and I suppose members of governments of all political parties have had a part to play or a role to play.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we have within the Department of Family Services a postadoption registry that does try to unite birth parents and children.  We will continue to use that process to ensure that where there is a will, there is a way to unite both sides.

 

Postadoption Registry

Fee for Service

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  I would like to ask this minister, why has she and why has her government begun to institute a fee for service in April of this year of $300 at the postadoption registry, since Judge Kimelman recommended that staff resources continue to be available to co‑ordinate and expedite the repatriation of native children who were placed out of province in the past?  Why this new fee to many people who cannot afford it?

 

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services):  Indeed, services that are available in many instances‑‑I mean, it would be wonderful if government could do all things for all people, and we could just tax more and generate more revenues so that we could spend unconditionally.

 

          Unfortunately, that is not the case.  In very difficult economic times, we have to look at, in instances, recovering the costs for services that are provided by government.  This is one of those instances where, indeed, there will be an increase in fees.

 

* (1355)

 

Mr. Martindale:  Unfortunately, this minister does not understand that this issue is really about righting a historical wrong.  That is‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  And the question, sir, is?

 

Mr. Martindale:  I would like to ask the minister, since these changes have major implications for aboriginal peoples and First Nations in the province of Manitoba, could she table any correspondence that she has had, before this fee‑for‑service policy was implemented with aboriginal Child and Family Services organizations, with any aboriginal organizations and with the federal government?  What consultation was there before this fee for service was implemented?

 

Mrs. Mitchelson:  We have an opportunity, and I believe it might be just as early as tomorrow, to get into the Estimates process for the Department of Family Services.

 

          Indeed, we will have the opportunity to dialogue around all of these issues in great detail.  Members of the opposition can put on the record their policies and what they might do differently from this government, and I look forward to that opportunity for that dialogue and discussion.

 

Manitoba Sports Federation

Funding Reductions

 

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):  Mr. Speaker, recently the members of this House passed a resolution praising the achievements of several Manitoba athletes.  Their hard work and training brought them to the highest levels of competition, but their achievements would not be possible without the strong foundation created by the presence of the numerous provincial athletic associations.

 

          However, the Manitoba Sports Federation's latest budget contains several severe blows for athletes in Manitoba, as funding for several sports were substantially cut, particularly the high school and university sports programs.

 

          Can the Minister responsible for Sport tell this House how he will ensure that Manitoba will maintain its strong record of achievement in athletics in the light of the cuts made by the Sports Federation, forced on them by this government?

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport):  Mr. Speaker, I would caution my honourable friend from Interlake, he should not always believe everything he reads in the paper.

 

          Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend would read the Estimates book tabled with the budget a month or so ago, he will see that our funding to the Manitoba Sports Federation is exactly the same as it was last year.  No change.  As a matter of fact, the president of the Manitoba Sports Federation has publicly, on a number of occasions, complimented the government for in fact maintaining the funding that they have obtained for this year.

 

          What is going on, as the member perhaps knows or should know, is that the Manitoba Sports Federation is made up of 96 different organizations.  They are the membership of the Manitoba Sports Federation.  They are the Manitoba Sports Federation.  What you have read in the paper today is in fact a dispute among the members as to how much of the pot they are going to get.  It is an internal dispute, nothing to do with us.  It has to do with only the membership of the Manitoba Sports Federation.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Will the minister not acknowledge that a cut of 30 or 50 percent for university athletes and the cutback in sport activities in high schools and public schools will reduce future opportunities for our young people to participate and achieve athletic goals as well as their education?  Will he not accept that?

 

Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my honourable friend from Interlake.  I do not find it very palatable that the sport profile arrangement that the Sports Federation has for distributing money amongst its members is very fair in terms of this agreement.  I agree with the member for Interlake.

 

* (1400)

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Mr. Speaker, will the minister then agree with this member to consider alternate provincial funding, including money from lottery ads or block grants which are unfair for the organizations which are unfairly penalized by this new policy?

 

Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, we once again see the true spots of the members in the opposite benches.  When all else fails, throw more money at it.  When all else fails, put more money in.  It does not necessarily mean that the money already there, the same as it was last year, is being appropriately spent.  That is the argument.  They ought to appropriately spend the money that they receive.

 

Child Guidance Clinic

Service Reductions

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.  Last night Winnipeg School Division No. 1 finalized their budget for '94‑95.  In this budget, the effects of this government's cuts to the education system became, once again, evident.  In order to preserve the classroom setting, the school division cut a number of services, among these staff of the Child Guidance Clinic.  The Child Guidance Clinic deals with thousands of cases every year and already has a lengthy waiting list.

 

          My question for the minister:  What alternatives are there for children with development and behavioral problems in need of treatment when the mental health system is overburdened and the services provided through the Child Guidance Clinic are being cut?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Well, Mr. Speaker, the member asks a question not totally within our responsibility.  The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is constituted under law to make decisions with respect to its own budgetary matters.  The board was put in place and indeed has been duly elected.

 

          I, too, have been watching carefully what decisions that board was going to render with respect to its programming areas, and although it would be unkind for me to reflect on some of the decisions made, I can say that if the member is wanting, again, more money directed to the questions, I am indicating to him that I would be more than willing to engage in discussions on this.  It is coming up very quickly in our Estimates review, and I would expect that we will have an opportunity to dialogue around that issue at that time.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that the government does not have an alternative, which is most unfortunate given the children that need these services.

 

Education System

Physiotherapy Services

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Can the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) tell this House if the department is now ready to provide physiotherapy to needy children in the schools, something they have refused to do in the past, in that Winnipeg No. 1 is now refusing to pay for this service which is a health and not an education service?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, again the member is asking the provincial government to step in and assume the responsibility for the fallout of decisions that are made elsewhere.  Yesterday in Estimates review, of course, the members opposite wanted us to assume all the responsibility of the ACCESS programming, given the federal government has stepped out of that.  Now what the member is saying is that the provincial government should have contingency plans or other plans in place when a school board which has been supporting a particular area of programming decides no longer to support it.

 

          The members try and make believe that somehow it is our responsibility.  The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is accountable to the people who elect it.  They have within their purview to make these decisions.  That is indeed what the governance model is all about, and I do not think the members opposite would take very kindly if we were to rush in and do all of the activities, make all the decisions of that local board.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Education understands.  Physiotherapy is in fact now as a result of the cut‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  This is not a time for debate.  The honourable member for Inkster with his question.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  I would ask the Minister of Health‑‑physiotherapy is a medical requirement that students require.  It is something that the school divisions have picked up because of the lack of commitment from this particular government to be able to provide‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Question, please.  Order, please.  The honourable member for Inkster, kindly put your question now, sir.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health is:  Will he indicate to this Chamber what sort of alternatives the minister has to deal with this particular area?

 

Mr. Manness:  Again, not to reflect too strongly on decisions made by other levels of government, but there are other alternatives.  I say that we are open to the local school division.  There are other priorities that could be chosen, but again, the member is asking us to somehow defend the actions of the local school board who have given lesser priority to this particular health care issue than some other areas.

 

* (1405)

 

          So, Mr. Speaker, what the members are saying now is, more clearly define education from health and make sure that health is funded out of this pocket and education is funded out of this pocket.

 

          It does not work that way, Mr. Speaker.  The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is responsible for the whole Consolidated Revenue Fund, and indeed the whole process of budgetary decisions are all directed towards drawing from one Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that is the issue here.  As far as the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 making certain decisions with respect to their responsibilities, they have done so accordingly.

 

Western Premiers' Conference

Agenda‑‑Farm Support Programs

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, given that the western Premiers will be meeting in Manitoba, I would hope high priority will be given to agriculture issues.

 

          My question to the Premier is:  Will agriculture be on the agenda, and can he tell us if he will be encouraging a co‑ordinated effort by western provinces to develop a national farm support program to replace the existing programs?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, agriculture and particularly agricultural trade and some of the harassments that western agriculture has been experiencing at the hands of the Americans will be a serious issue for debate on our agenda.

 

          I know that the member will want us to ensure that we speak out in the strongest possible terms against the harassments that the U.S. government has been placing against things like hogs, things like sugar, durum wheat, barley exports and all of these other issues.

 

Ms. Wowchuk:  Certainly we will want those issues addressed, but my question is, will there be a discussion on farm support programs, and can the Premier tell us what position he will be taking to the table as far as support programs?

 

          Has the committee that is developing the replacement program here in Manitoba put any proposals forward, and can those proposals be tabled here in the House?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the Agriculture ministers will be meeting, I believe, in Manitoba this summer and will be discussing very seriously those issues.

 

          We in Manitoba, of course, have continued our commitment to programs like GRIP and NISA.  We, in fact, extended the time of the agreement on GRIP to provide that extra security of the safety net to our farmers, and we, of course, believe that that is the approach to take, that we ought to be ensuring that our farmers have that kind of safety net which they can fall back on.

 

          Agriculture is an extremely important part of the Manitoba economy.  We will continue to give it our utmost support, Mr. Speaker.

 

Farm Support Programs

                                                              Government Position

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

 

          Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether his committee has put any proposals forward as to what they see as a replacement program, whether they are supporting a national program and whether they are considering programs that will have caps on them and programs that are based on the cost of production, and if there is a proposal, will he table it in the House for us?

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, the member asks a very large question.  A committee is busy at work.  Those proposals will be viewed very seriously by the Ag ministers who will be meeting here in the national conference during the first week of July.

 

          They contain a host of variations.  Some include an enhanced NISA type program.  Others, in particular eastern provinces, are looking towards extension of current stabilization programs.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I would invite the honourable member to enter into this discussion with me during the Estimates debate on the Department of Agriculture.

 

Keewatinowi Awasisak Opi‑Ki‑Wak