ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Canadian Wheat Board
U.S. Exports
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
When we were told a year and a half ago that the changes in GATT would not eliminate the Western Grain Transportation Act, we were somewhat sceptical on this side of the House. Unfortunately, the provisions of the WGTA according to the federal government have gone from non-GATTable to GATTable as the reason for eliminating those investments in western Canadian producers.
Madam Speaker, a year ago we were told that the federal government would take on the United States and not allow any capping of our wheat sales to that country. Regrettably, after that date, we saw a capping of Canadian wheat sales to the United States, unilaterally suggested and unfortunately agreed to by the federal government to cap the sales for a year to 1.5 million tonnes.
We now hear again that vital programs for western Canadian producers and Manitoba producers are on the table with the International Joint Commission on Grains, and they are reviewing the option of eliminating the Wheat Board as the marketing agency into the United States.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), is his government opposed to the option of eliminating the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in sales to the United States?
* (1340)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, first of all, I am delighted and I am pleased that the Leader of Her Majesty's opposition acknowledges the importance of the American market to the farmers of Manitoba and western Canada.
I certainly concur with him in his concern that he expressed and I expressed, my government expressed, in the clearest and loudest terms, that any interference in that trade, including the cap that was arbitrarily imposed on it and agreed to, I might say, regrettably, by our government in Ottawa last year, last September, was done so against the vigorous opposition from this minister and from this government.
I can report more up to date that just as late as last Thursday, I have had the opportunity to have a lengthy private discussion with the federal minister in Ottawa. I am led to believe that he will resist any attempts to extend the cap that currently exists, that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, that is due to run out on September 12 of this crop year.
So, to that extent, we see eye to eye, and I certainly am pleased to hear this kind of support for that kind of free movement of goods and trade which has been so important, particularly to agriculture.
Since the signing of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and since NAFTA, Madam Speaker, our trade has increased by 35 percent, 45 percent and 50 percent in certain commodity groups. That is extremely important to the agricultural producers of this province of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, the commission's reports have not been made available to either governments in Washington or in Ottawa. There has been no release of what the commission's supposed recommendations to either government will be, and in my opinion, it is idle to speculate at this moment about the kinds of rumours that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) raised in the House yesterday and the ones that are being repeated today by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question then is to the Premier, because I asked the government to respond to the option of eliminating the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in marketing grain to the United States.
Madam Speaker, under the recent listing by the Financial Post in Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board is the largest corporation in Manitoba. It is the only corporation here in this province that is in the top 50 in that listing. The Wheat Board is a positive instrument of marketing for farmers here in western Canada, and it also represents a tremendous financial asset to this community and to this province.
I would like to ask the Premier to show the same kind of effort that he is now showing for a hockey team. Would he now get involved and oppose the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board as an option in terms of marketing grain to the United States?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, lest anyone be misled by the kinds of figures that the member throws around, the Canadian Wheat Board is shown as such a large corporation because of the fact that it sells all of the wheat for Canada to the world, but in terms of employment numbers or payroll or any of those, it would not be nearly as large as many of our corporations. Perhaps there are as many as 10 or more that are much larger than the Canadian Wheat Board, so let him not try and play games with the rhetoric and the figures.
The fact of the matter is the Canadian Wheat Board has served the agricultural producers of Canada very well over the years. I believe that any survey of western Canadian producers would say that they would support the Wheat Board, and this government and this administration continues to support the Canadian Wheat Board. We make no bones about it, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we are very worried on this side that every time Mr. Goodale--[interjection] Well, maybe the Premier is not worried about the last time--[interjection] Well, let us talk about elections.
We have been informed that the federal Liberal Minister of Agriculture does not want to release the interim report until after the Saskatchewan election. There is a great deal of support in Saskatchewan, Madam Speaker, for the Canadian Wheat Board. We would hope there is a great deal of support for the Canadian Wheat Board, not just with farmers here in Manitoba but by members across the way.
I would like to ask the Premier, will he definitively state today that he and his government are opposed to the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board as the marketing agency to the United States?
Mr. Filmon: I just said, Madam Speaker, that this government supports the Canadian Wheat Board and the job that it does on behalf of Canadian farmers.
* (1345)
Winnipeg Jets
Private-Sector Funding
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the government and Spirit have apparently agreed that the public sector and the private sector will each contribute approximately $111 million to the arena-Jets project.
Spirit confirmed yesterday in their press conference that they have raised to date approximately $60 million, of which $13 million is from the grassroots campaign. In other words, Spirit has actually raised $47 million to date, yet they say they are only $20 million short on their fundraising campaign. Even counting the grassroots money, Madam Speaker, they would appear to be $51 million short.
Can the Minister of Finance explain the arithmetic?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the commitment of the Spirit of Manitoba, the private-sector investors, is to raise $111 million to sustain the Winnipeg Jets here in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am not sure what point the member is making by discounting the grassroots contribution of some $13 million. That was done in a public way with everybody being aware that this was going to be a contribution to retaining the Jets here and part of the funds being raised by the Spirit of Manitoba.
So, again, as is common from across the way, we know they oppose keeping the Jets here. We know they are trying to find every way to scuttle keeping the Jets here in Manitoba, and they quote statistics that are absolutely inaccurate.
The grassroots campaign, Madam Speaker, is part of the money that has been raised. They have raised in excess of $60 million. They require another $20 million to close, and they will continue. They have a confidence level that they can then conclude by raising the entire $111 million.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, is it the intention and understanding of the government that, given that the grassroots has raised $13 million and the private sector has raised $47 million, for a total of $60 million, as Spirit said, both parties the private sector is talking with will have to raise $111 million in total before this project is committed? Is that their policy?
Mr. Stefanson: I continue to be baffled by the member for Crescentwood not agreeing that the grassroots always was, always is, a part of the contribution towards keeping the Jets here, and it forms a part of the funds being raised by the Spirit of Manitoba. That has always been well-known. Spirit has always talked about that in an open, public way.
If the member takes the time to read the press release that was issued yesterday by Spirit, they refer to why they are setting $80 million as the minimum threshold that they have to have added by August 15, with confidence at that point that they can raise the additional $31 million through a combination of continued private-sector investors and through some other charges that would be put in place as it relates to having the facility here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.
Winnipeg Arena
Provincial Funding
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the Minister of Finance and his government then make the contribution of $111 million a matter of public policy prior to the commitment to construction of the arena?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, when Spirit indicated yesterday that they are prepared to accept and close on the option and move forward now with an August 15, 1995, closing date, they clearly outlined that there were at least three conditions that have to be met during this next two-month period. One is the approval of the NHL, one is a satisfactory ruling from Revenue Canada, and another one is raising an additional $20 million which will take them to in excess of $80 million.
They refer to the fact that they will continue to pursue private-sector user grants, as well as other advances from the private sector, as well as other private-sector contributions to ultimately achieve the $111 million.
That is how things will move forward, and those are the three conditions that have to be met for the agreement to conclude on August 15.
* (1350)
Granville Lake, Manitoba
Social Assistance
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Members will be aware that two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister and his government questions regarding the people at Granville Lake and, unfortunately, of course, those questions started off a rather unfortunate debate, where the First Minister made some remarks about us.
My question is, Madam Speaker, what is the current status of negotiations over social assistance responsibility for the people of Granville Lake? Is the First Minister going to do anything, or is he going to just let those people live there with nothing?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.
Indeed, we have experienced over the last number of years, since the federal government has offloaded its financial support to Status Indians off reserve, some $70 million that Manitoba taxpayers have had to pick up, and we know that they continue to put health, education and social services for people very low on their priority list, just looking at their recent federal budget and where the reductions have been made, Madam Speaker.
We are firmly of the belief that the federal government has a special financial responsibility to Status Indians throughout our Manitoba community and right throughout Canada.
My honourable colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and I have had the opportunity to meet with ministers right across the four western provinces, and a letter of support for our position by all four western provinces has gone to the federal minister, Madam Speaker.
We believe that the federal government will live up to its obligation and provide support to the residents of Granville Lake.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, my second question is again directed to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
In the meantime, however, while these negotiations are going on, what is to happen to these people who are living at Granville Lake? Is the First Minister planning to meet with the chief and council of the Mathias Colomb First Nation or the people at Granville Lake? What is he prepared to do?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Indeed, officials from my department have met with Chief Muswagon and the federal government, and the dialogue is ongoing around what the federal responsibility will and should be to the residents of Granville Lake.
Madam Speaker, I have written to the Minister of Native Affairs federally, copied to the Minister of Human Resources, requesting a meeting. As a matter of fact, when the Honourable Ron Irwin was in town yesterday, my office called. We found out at the last minute that he was arriving in Winnipeg. After several requests for meetings with him which he has not responded to, we did call his office and asked whether he could take a few minutes just to meet with us around this issue yesterday.
He did not have the time, Madam Speaker, but he has committed to meet with me and with my colleague the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy before the end of June to try to resolve this issue.
Reserve Status
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My last question, Madam Speaker, then, is, are there any negotiations going on right now between the provincial government and the federal government with regard to setting aside some Crown land for designation as a reserve by the federal government?
Are those negotiations going on, and, if so, could the minister give us a report as to what progress has been made to date?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Yes, Madam Speaker, the member raises a very important part of this issue, which is the possibility of reserve status for the land at Granville Lake in which the federal government will accept that responsibility.
As the member, I am sure, is very well aware from his past experience with these issues, they are very much part of the treaty land entitlement process. There are also some issues as to whether or not the community does, in fact, want that to happen, as opposed to being a Northern Affairs community.
I know there are resolutions. There is also other information that the member may not be aware of that has been provided recently through our staff in the area, and we are trying to sort that out.
Obviously, if that is the desire of the people in both Mathias Colomb who have the claim as the band and the people in Granville Lake who are band members, we certainly would not stand in the way of that happening.
I would just assure him we are very cognizant. We are very supportive of that, but there are parts to this that have come to light in the last while in terms of position that are not quite as clear as they may have been some time ago.
* (1355)
SmartHealth
Agreement Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the other $100-million deal that this government is negotiating is with the Royal Bank of Canada for SmartHealth.
Madam Speaker, since the minister has indicated that this $100-million deal will shortly be signed by the government, will the minister today undertake to table the agreement or at least the essential terms of this hundred-million dollar agreement with the Legislature, so we can review it prior to the signature of the government on this document?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we have been discussing the essential terms of this contract for the last two or three months and in great detail during the Estimates process, and when the contract is ultimately entered into, that would be the time to address the issue of making it available to members of this House.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: If this is such a good deal, why is the minister not undertaking to provide us with copies of the terms of this agreement prior to the signing, not after the signing, since it is the largest deal ever entered into by the Department of Health?
Mr. McCrae: Well, Madam Speaker, as I said in my last response, the honourable member and I have been discussing in quite finite detail the nature of the terms, what we expect out of this arrangement, and we spent 35 days of an election campaign castigating our honourable colleagues on the other side for being opposed to health care improvements that SmartHealth will bring to us.
I am sorry they feel that way, but I believe that the people of Manitoba have given us a mandate to move forward, to move forward in a cautious and consultative way, which we will do, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Chomiak: My final supplementary: Can the minister explain why they have engaged the services of a name familiar to all of us, Duncan Jessiman of the firm Pitblado & Hoskin, at the rate of $150 an hour, to negotiate this contract on behalf of the government?
I will table the untendered contract, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member is the one who said this is an important contract. We felt for a long time that it was important that we get on with the development of this sort of a health information system in our province.
You do not enter into important contracts without good legal counsel. It is not unusual that legal counsel be retained to assist in the development of our contractual relationships.
Workforce 2000
Guidelines
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the last Minister of Education finally recognized that the guidelines for Workforce 2000 were inadequate to prevent public money flowing to projects which even he believed were offside, and I use his word.
Could the present Minister of Education explain to the House the new guidelines that have been put in place which will prevent further offside use of education dollars?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The member and I have been talking about a number of things in Estimates. Workforce 2000 is coming up in the line, hopefully this afternoon. I would be pleased to go through those specific details with her at that time.
But I do thank her for raising this issue again, as she has so many times in the past, to allow me once again to indicate that we have approximately 135,000 employees who have been trained over the four years through Workforce 2000. About one in five of all of our employees have had the opportunity to receive upgrading, onsite training.
We applaud and approve onsite training. I know we have a philosophical difference on this between the two sides of the House, but if she wants to go through all of the criteria for the Workforce 2000 program, we can do that in Estimates. We have been sitting there for many days. We will be meeting again in about half an hour to go through them, and we will do that line by line.
* (1400)
Standards/Outcomes
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Would the minister undertake to table in the House the standards and outcomes that are anticipated from the human relations training which has been offered to 99 employees of McDonald's restaurants and Chicken Delight?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I have provided the member with a list of all of the grants. I am sure she has received them by now. She knows from the size and listing of the grants that there are pages and pages of companies and programs listed for people to take advantage of in the workforce.
I can get the specific details of that one for her. I do not have them here. I do not have in my memory the details of pages and pages and pages of companies that have participated in this program.
I would venture to indicate, however, Madam Speaker, that I hear inherent in her question a disdain for the types of jobs that people have when they are employed in the fast-food industry, and we do not need job snobs in this Legislature.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe our rules are very clear in Beauchesne's about the fact that answers should relate to matters that are raised and not result in debate.
The member asked very specifically about a payroll tax break to McDonald's, and we would appreciate an answer on that, rather than the kind of irrelevant debate we are receiving from the minister.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed the honourable member has a point of order.
I would remind all members that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.
I would also like to remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words very carefully, so as not to cause disruption in the Chamber.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could I ask the minister again to table in the House the results of these grants, what has been learned, what was the standard, what was the outcome, exactly what the minister is asking of the public system?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, for the record, I am delighted to hear the first real indication I have heard from the member that she supports standards and outcomes measured in education, and I thank her for that.
Of course, Madam Speaker, we do apply those same kinds of standards to all of the things we do in Education and Training.
I say to the member--and I apologize to the member for calling her a job snob--that we do have training for companies that have, through the course of their background of experience and their record--
Point of Order
Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not have my earphone in, and I did wonder whether, in fact, the minister called me a name which was perhaps not parliamentary.
I wonder if perhaps Hansard caught that and ask that the Speaker ask the minister to withdraw that.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I will check Hansard; however, I was of the understanding the minister was apologizing for a previous comment, but I will check Hansard and, if necessary, report back to the House.
Economic Growth
Employment Training
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
This government has done a very poor job in terms of ensuring that individuals have acquired the skills in order to match the challenges of the economy. Madam Speaker, there are 2,000 jobs that are there today that are going unfilled because this government has failed to meet the challenge.
Madam Speaker, you could look at the transportation industry and the garment industry alone, and you will find those 2,000 jobs.
Can the Premier, Madam Speaker, indicate to this Chamber what is the estimate of losses to this economy, to tax revenue, as a direct result of this government and this Premier not living up to the challenge?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the member opposite is acknowledging the tremendous growth that is taking place in this economy and the tremendous growth in job creation that is resulting in the fact that, of course, we have had, as of the Statistics Canada report last Friday, 14,000 additional jobs in the past year alone in this province, all of that growth in the private sector. As a matter of fact, in the first five months of 1995, our employment has grown by 13,000 jobs or 2.4 percent over the same period last year.
Certainly, that is cause for optimism, and in the manufacturing sector to which he refers, 6,000 of those jobs have occurred in manufacturing. So, certainly, it is understandable that many of our employers are unable to keep up to the hiring requirements that they have because of the tremendous growth that is taking place.
There is a particular instance in respect to the garment industry, and there is a history in the garment industry--my own parents met and married working in the garment industry, my father having emigrated here from eastern Europe and having taken that job.
The fact of the matter is it is an area in which, traditionally, we need to have open borders and opportunities to hire immigrants with skills.
It is an area in which we do not seem to be getting any support from the Liberal government in Ottawa. In fact, all of the restrictions that they are putting on immigration are going absolutely counter to the needs that are there for Manitoba to acquire some of the skills that would fill the skill shortages that we have in employment, and I say that it is absolutely ridiculous that he should try and blame that on this government, when all he has to do is pick up the phone, phone Mr. Axworthy and get the job done, Madam Speaker.
Garment Industry
Immigrant Employment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): How can the Premier indicate what he has just said when the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) in committee had indicated that, in fact, he was not necessarily looking at immigration to resolve one of these particular issues?
I am pleased to hear a commitment from this government, and I want a confirmation on this commitment, that the Premier is now looking at having immigrants fill garment industry jobs. Is this what the Premier is saying?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Now looking, Madam Speaker? I just told him that the history of this industry all the way back to the time of my own father working in the garment industry was that immigrants with skills often went into the garment industry as an opportunity in coming to this country. It remains a major opportunity.
All he has to do, as I did during the election campaign, is visit a number of these factories, talk to the people there, and he will recognize how dependent they are on immigration from many of the countries that supply very, very valuable citizens to our province.
This is an issue that does require a co-operative immigration policy, and it does require co-operation from Ottawa. All we have had is roadblocks in the last year since we have had a Liberal government in Ottawa, and it is time that he went and talked to his federal counterparts and say, now is the time for them to re-examine their policies and to make sure that we get the immigrants we need to fill the skill shortages in our province.
* (1410)
Employment Training
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, one of the biggest roadblocks is individuals--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that this is his final supplementary question, and there should be no preamble. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the Premier then indicate to this House what short-term and long-term policies does this government have at training individuals, the thousands of Manitobans who are, in fact, unemployed, in meeting the demands of these two particular industries?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is interesting how mischievous the member is trying to be today in trying to indicate that our policies differ.
Madam Speaker, the garment industry is extremely important to this province. There are many, many jobs and many, many people needed for those jobs. It is what I indicated and what this government believes in, and we are, in fact, providing training programs for those individuals.
But, as well, Madam Speaker, where there cannot be people trained and achieved for those jobs, there are opportunities for people to come to this country, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has indicated, and fulfill those job opportunities. That is what we believe in, and that is what we are doing.
Canadian Wheat Board
Export Enhancement Program Comparison
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the International Joint Commission on Grains in their review has been comparing the Export Enhancement Program with the Canadian Wheat Board.
Since the Wheat Board does not distort the international market, while the Export Enhancement Program has many times driven world prices of grain down and negatively impacted on the farmers, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he agrees that it is unacceptable to compare the Export Enhancement Program with the Canadian Wheat Board because of the negative effects that the Export Enhancement Program has on farmers, whereas the Wheat Board has a positive effect for farmers.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, one thing that Manitoba and Canadian farmers know all too well is that, regrettably, partly because of the ongoing decade-old subsidy war between the European Economic Union and the Americans, Canadian grain farmers have found themselves in a crunch that was an extremely difficult decade for them.
Thanks to some very forward-looking programming and a tremendous amount of support, both at the federal and provincial levels, programs like my colleague my predecessor in Agriculture introduced, such as the GRIP program that has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into helping to stabilize that industry during this period of stress, numbers of them managed to overcome this particular period.
What the member is referring to, whether it is the American EEP program or indeed our WGTA program to an extent, these were in the minds of some, particularly in the grain industry, trade-distorting subsidies that made it difficult for us to allow the kind of normal trade that could be so beneficial between our two countries.
While they are not equal and it is not appropriate to compare a specific program like the Export Enhancement Program, the American EEP program, and put it up against our Canadian Wheat Board program, let us be clear. One of the problems that the Americans have with the Canadian Wheat Board's system of selling is the lack of transparency in terms of how the Wheat Board does business.
This is what the commission is trying to resolve, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since the Wheat Board is, in fact, known for their good negotiations and for playing a role which has a positive effect on farmers, can the minister indicate if he has considered the negative impact that will be on farmers if the Wheat Board is lost and the negative impact on the economy of Manitoba if it is gone?
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, the Premier has answered for this government. Nobody is suggesting on this side to pack it in with the Canadian Wheat Board.
What is the issue, Madam Speaker, is the Wheat Board's ability to move into the market that will be most attractive to us, namely, the American market. If that calls for some modification, some flexibility in the manner and the way in which the Canadian Wheat Board does business, if it accomplishes the end goal of moving grain to what has rapidly become in the last few years one of our most significant customers for grain, then they will continue to enjoy the support of the Manitoba producers and Canadian producers generally. That is the issue.
Let us not get hung up on the structure, Madam Speaker. The issue surely is to move grain into a lucrative market.
Ms. Wowchuk: Will this government make a statement to the commission that it is unfair to compare the Wheat Board to the Export Enhancement Program? The minister himself indicated that the Export Enhancement Program should be compared to a transportation subsidy, not to the Wheat Board.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, we have--Madam Speaker. I apologize. My memory keeps going back to my colleague from Gladstone who occupied that chair for a number of years, and old habits are difficult to overcome.
Madam Speaker, we have five eminent Canadians who comprise the Canadian portion of that commission that she is referring to, along with five American experts. These were appointed by the federal government, not by any provincial governments.
Their report has not been released. They have not held open or public hearings on this issue. They have judiciously and selectively sought out the various experts in the grains industry, both in the American industry and in the Canadian industry. They have, at their invitation, sought audiences and briefs from various individuals.
It was not an opportunity--nor can I impose myself on the commission. My understanding is the commission's work is done. We are awaiting their report. It is done.
Youth Court
Backlog
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
For over a year now, we have been hammering away at this minister for the horrendous backlogs in the youth court, backlogs which destroy the link in the mind of a youth between a wrongdoing and a consequence and which, in fact, do teach young offenders that the youth justice system in this province is not up to the job, and, by the way, which belie the minister's tough talk.
Would the minister explain, especially to the record number of victims of youth crime under this government, why she is incapable of dealing with this backlog, given advice today that the backlog remains for up to longer than a school year, Madam Speaker, and as one lawyer told me today, it is slower and more clogged now than ever before?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we have certainly been working with the chief judge and courts to make sure that our courts are efficient and are effective.
I am very surprised to hear the numbers that the member has given, because he certainly knows that there are court dates available well before that time. He also is aware of the fact that we did put into place a night court specifically targeted to deal with youth, so that youth cases may be heard when young people are not in school and so that families may attend with them.
Madam Speaker, we are constantly in contact with the chief judge to look at making the whole court process the most efficient it can be. Frankly, his numbers are wrong.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, will the minister tell us whether these backlogs, a fact of life under this minister, are in any way responsible for Manitoba staying 43 percent of the charges against youth? This is the highest percentage in all of Canada.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, and the member also knows that in the process of Estimates, we will have the chance to, in great detail, go through the exact numbers, the most recent information that is available regarding the amount of time that it takes to take a case through court.
He also knows very well--we have been through this many times in this Chamber--why, in fact, there are delays, what additional information is asked for and who has asked for that, and, Madam Speaker, the member knows very well that there are court dates available, certainly within a four-month period, for youth.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain, particularly since I have waited one year for statistics from her department on the detailed breakdown of the backlogs which go up to one year, why the court is so backlogged that it takes up to two months for a youth to even appear in court for the first time following a wrongdoing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that in the process of Estimates last year, he received very detailed information on exactly what time it took to process a case through any one of our courts.
However, Madam Speaker, I am very happy to tell the member today and will add to it in the process of Estimates that the chief judge in my department as recently as last week had discussions regarding particularly youth court and Domestic Violence Court, because we are always interested in making sure cases progress through as quickly as possible, and we have an additional plan now, which I will be glad to elaborate on for the member, by which we expect to speed the cases up even further.
But, certainly, the dates are nothing like the member has been saying. An additional plan is in place, and I would like to say, Madam Speaker, we have the full co-operation of the judiciary of the court side and of our Crown attorneys. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Golf Tournament--Eden Mental Health Centre
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, I ask for leave to make a nonpolitical statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Pembina have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dyck: Madam Speaker, on Sunday, June 11, I was able to participate in a golf tournament which was followed by a steak barbecue at the Southland Mall in Winkler.
The golf tournament involved 150 golfers who were raising money for their very worthwhile organizations. A total of $8,000 was raised to support Eden Health Care Services, Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations.
I would like to briefly highlight some of the work done by Eden Health Care Services. Did you know that 1,300 people annually come to Eden Mental Health Centre for help? People come to the centre for help from more than 120 different communities across Manitoba.
The centre has a geriatric service working with the elderly in 24 health care institutions in south central Manitoba, and Eden Health Care Services is currently working on projects concerning addiction treatments and long-term residents.
Madam Speaker, these are only a few examples of what Eden Health Care Services is involved in, and I would encourage all members to learn more about Eden Health Care Services, which is located in the southwest corner of the town of Winkler.
At this time, I would like to thank and pay tribute to all those involved with this worthwhile fundraising campaign and wish them well in the future. Thank you.