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