Canadian Wheat Board
Government Support
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
Alberta is taking two cases forward that would basically eliminate the single-desk component of the Canadian Wheat Board. This, in our opinion, would have a devastating impact on producers and would have a devastating impact on the community of Winnipeg which has a number of jobs centred in our community and a number of related jobs that work with the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to ask the Premier again: Why will he not stand up for Manitoba and why will he not intervene in this very, very important case before the courts as initiated by the Province of Alberta?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the subject of the Canadian Wheat Board, of course, is a complex issue and one that has been the subject of a great deal of debate over many years. That debate is accelerated with changes to the transportation subsidy, the Crow rate and elimination, and other matters that continue to evolve as trading throughout the world broadens and liberalizes, as different opportunities are seen for value-added agriculture here in our province.
The fact of the matter is that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Goodale, in response to all of this, appointed a so-called blue ribbon panel of experts, people who were to analyze and evaluate all of the various functions of the Canadian Wheat Board and make recommendations as to what its future should be, because, I guess, most of us recognize that an institution that began in 1931 may not necessarily be structured for the challenges and the opportunities of today.
That panel gave a recommendation for change, modest change but incremental change that would address some of the issues that would give more opportunity for value-added agriculture, of which Manitoba has a huge opportunity to attract that. In the past year alone we have had over a half-billion dollars of investment in value-added agriculture. These kinds of things, of course, can multiply and grow.
We have met with various people in the farm community, we have met with people from the Wheat Board, from the traders and brokers who are associated with the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, and time and time again we see the opportunities for continued growth, job creation and huge investment in Manitoba.
We believe that the long-term solution is that which is recommended by the Western Grain Marketing Panel, which is for flexibility and some modest and incremental change in the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the position we have taken. We believe it is the best position for Manitoba farmers, and we believe it is the best position for investment, jobs and long-term growth in our economy.
Mr. Doer: The Premier never answered the question. I asked the Premier the question: Why he will not get off the fence and take a position dealing with the initiatives of the Alberta government which would eliminate the single-desk component of the Canadian Wheat Board and would eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it?
I want to ask the Premier: Why is he allowing Saskatchewan to fight the case on our behalf, why will he not get off the fence? We have got off the fence on other court cases in the past. The Oldman River, for example, we intervened. Why is the Premier choosing not to intervene in this Alberta initiative? Is he too closely aligned with Premier Klein of Alberta? Why will he not intervene on behalf of the single-desk marketing system of the Canadian Wheat Board and stand up for Manitobans, as opposed to being silent about the Alberta initiative?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is sounding a little like Old Man River, stuck in 1931-think, stuck in the past, in reverse. We want to have value-added agriculture investment, job creation and growth in this province.
We are not on the fence, Madam Speaker. We are on the side of change, positive change, change that will make this province a continued leader in value-added agriculture growth, give us new job opportunities, significant new investment and opportunities for a bright future. That is where we stand, not in the past with the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Doer: The Premier wants to go back to the Dirty Thirties, Madam Speaker, when producers could not get fair prices for their products. He wants to go back to the Depression era. That is the philosophy of the Bennett-buggy Tories across the way.
I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that on page 111 of the Future Report on the Canadian Wheat Board it states: the success of the Canadian Wheat Board is based on a reliable supplier, and this is also anchored in the single-desk concept of the Canadian Wheat Board, why will the Premier not stand for the single-desk concept of marketing for the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in the best interest of producers, which is in the best interests of millers, and in the best interest of the jobs in our community? Why is he sitting on the fence and not getting involved in the court case on behalf of Manitobans, Madam Speaker?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition could be when he compares today's times to the 1930s, when we have record crop production, record levels of payment for those crops, when we are looking in western Canada at $15-billion crop production in grains. It is unbelievable that he could compare this to the Dirty Thirties. That is how out of touch that person is. It almost seems ridiculous to answer his question when he is so out of touch with what is going on in reality.
The fact of the matter is that this province has immense opportunities to gain from value-added agriculture investment, and that involves flexibility with the Canadian Wheat Board, change that has been recommended by the Western Grain Marketing Panel, the panel of experts that were contracted to study this, and that is what we believe is best for the future of this province and the future of the farmers in this province, Madam Speaker.
* (1350)
Canadian Wheat Board
Government Support
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the position taken by this government to support all the recommendations of the Grain Marketing Panel is causing concern for farmers because they believe implementation of these recommendations will destroy the single-desk component of the Wheat Board.
Can the Premier tell farmers today, tell the farmers of Manitoba if he supports the recommendation that will place feed wheat under an open market system?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have said that we support the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. It was a cross-section of experts, people from all elements of the community who made recommendations, being knowledgable about the entire agriculture industry and all of its facets. They were not tied to or beholden to a particular group as the New Democrats are with the Farmers' Union, their lifeline of support to the farm community. These are people from across the broad spectrum of all elements of the agriculture industry.
Madam Speaker, we as a province have tens of thousands of jobs that are tied into agriculture. We have them in the production area; we have them in feed; we have them in fertilizer; we have them in agribusiness, the manufacturing of equipment; we have them in the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. We have them in all elements of the agriculture industry community. That is why we have to be aware of all of the various impacts, and when we have an opportunity to create more investment, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of investment and more jobs, we are going to take that opportunity. That is why we have taken the position that we have with respect to the Wheat Board, that is what the blue ribbon panel, the Western Grain Marketing Panel recommended and that is what the farmers of western Canada and Manitoba, in particular, want.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since we have no specific answer on that question about the recommendation, can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tell us if he supports the recommendation to allow farmers to sell a portion of their wheat outside the pool? Specifically, yes or no, do you support that recommendation?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity to indicate to all members of the House that just in the last few days the Wheat Board, at the urging I might say of the Manitoba government and the position taken by the Manitoba government about the need for some change, has announced a very important change with respect to value-added that could impact on the future flour milling capacity of this province.
That was a recommendation of the panel that my First Minister just referred to that the Wheat Board has accepted, and we applaud them for that.
The position that my government and the First Minister is eloquently expressing is, carry on with the real world, with the 1990s, and the Wheat Board will be with us.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then will the Premier admit that he is wrong and that we can have value-added jobs, we do not have to destroy the Wheat Board and, in fact, as the minister has said, the Wheat Board and the Canadian market, Millers Association are working together--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the question being posed by the honourable member for Swan River.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the members of this government admit that they are wrong? They do not have to destroy the Wheat Board, but with the Wheat Board working along with the Canadian Millers Association, we can have value-added jobs in this province, and we will, but you do not have to destroy the Wheat Board by destroying the single-desk selling position.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member does not listen to any of the answers that are given to her. At no time have we said that we want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. All we have said is that the Canadian Wheat Board has to continue to be flexible and change with the times. You cannot expect an institution that was established in 1931 not to have to change with changing times.
We did not have GATT; we did not have NAFTA; we did not have any of those opportunities. We had the Crow rate then; we do not have it today. There are so many massive changes that have taken place. All of these changes require us to have a different perspective and a new perspective. The Canadian Wheat Board's minister recognized that. He appointed a panel, a Western Grain Marketing Panel of experts to review that. They came up with suggestions for modest incremental changes that are supported by the majority of the farmers in western Canada. It is time they got on with the change, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of all Manitobans, both producers and indeed the community at large that will benefit by hundreds of millions of investment and job creation.
* (1355)
Health Sciences Centre
Dr. Odim Buy-Out Package
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about some information that has come to our attention concerning the Health Sciences Centre and Dr. Odim.
Can the Minister of Health confirm whether or not a buy-out package was entered into which resulted in Dr. Odim leaving the province of Manitoba, and if such a buy-out package was entered into and such an arrangement was entered into, will the minister table that arrangement so all the people of Manitoba may have an opportunity to view that?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): No, I cannot, I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, considering the controversy that has evolved around this, considering the fact there is an inquest going on, considering the fact that the Health Sciences Centre is $12 million in debt, can the minister advise the House whether he thinks it is appropriate that a buy-out package may have been entered into between the Health Sciences Centre and Dr. Odim?
Mr. McCrae: I already said I have no knowledge of it, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister therefore confirm that neither he, which he said has not, nor any of his officials entered into any discussions with the politically appointed board of the Health Sciences Centre, or others, concerning a possible buy-out package for Dr. Odim and an arrangement that may have been entered into?
Can the minister confirm that no one from his department has knowledge of such a package?
Mr. McCrae: I already told the honourable member I have no knowledge of such a package, so therefore I cannot confirm anything that the honourable member would ask me about a package about which I know nothing.
Gillam, Manitoba
Health Concerns--Drinking Water
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to respond--yesterday the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) raised questions respecting the water supply at Gillam.
In May and in August representatives of Manitoba Health visited Gillam and there were satisfactory arrangements made for water supply pending replacement of their water treatment plant up there. In August, however, it was noted that the turbidity levels exceeded the Canadian drinking water guideline and there were advisories provided. There have been no reported cases of morbidity or mortality related to the water supply.
Replacement of the treatment plant has started. Completion is scheduled for summer of '97. The LGD has provided a portable water supply standpipe near the treatment plant where residents have unlimited access. Boiling instructions have been provided for those who choose to use the current water supply to their homes for drinking. There have been no ill effects reported from using the water for bathing. The public health inspector is working closely with the plant operator and the water is monitored daily for chlorine levels and every two weeks for bacteria levels. In short, our department has been working with the community and I believe things are under control as they move toward the redevelopment of a water treatment plant.
Misericordia General Hospital
Emergency Services
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health.
The situation this week at the Misericordia Hospital is exactly as any reasonable person would have predicted. Emergency rooms are full, including operating rooms sometimes, ambulances are turned away, waiting periods in emergency are long. The staff can tell the minister this, the patients can tell the minister and his own hospital statistics tell him that this is an inner-city hospital with an increasing number of patients with exceptionally severe conditions. Only the minister appears to believe that the situation is abnormal or one of peaks and valleys, as he would say.
Would the minister tell us whether he has investigated the situation at the Misericordia, and will he tell us how he plans to ensure that this hospital can continue to serve its community?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Indeed, Madam Speaker, I have been advised that this time of the year, in the cycle of the year, it is a busy time in the emergency rooms of the city of Winnipeg; however, that fact alone speaks more loudly than I alone can speak about the need to integrate emergency services in the city, and I think the honourable member supports the direction being taken for Misericordia General Hospital, certainly, that part dealing with the 24-hour walk-in urgent care aspect of it. So I am pleased if this is true--I think it is--that the honourable member does support that approach. The best way of making sure that we have a system that can be there when we need it is to follow the plans that we, along with all of the people involved in hospital services in Winnipeg, announced on August 20.
* (1400)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister to tell the House how he plans to face the facts of the Misericordia Hospital, that the patients there present with more serious entrance complaints. They are often elderly patients, and hence the Misericordia Hospital has a very high admission rate. How does the minister plan to face those facts with the fact that he is closing those emergency admission beds?
Mr. McCrae: Again, I am not sure, but I believe the honourable member is supportive of the plans that we have for the city of Winnipeg and I would like her and her colleagues to come out and say so. The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) shakes his head. He has some other plan I guess, Madam Speaker, that is a better plan than the plan put in front of us by all of the professionals and the consumers in the city of Winnipeg with whom we have worked to develop our plan. The honourable member for Kildonan stands alone, but he has a better plan than everybody else and that is encouraging. I would like him to share it with us because he has not shared any wisdom with us yet; we are still waiting for that. I am sure it is in him somewhere and we are going to hear about it sooner or later.
The honourable member for Wolseley asks appropriate questions. The answer to those questions lay in the plans that we have announced and in their careful implementation.
Health Care Facilities
Emergency Services--Inner City
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is to ask the minister to go back to KPMG, his policy consultants on hospitals--if he is not going to listen to patients--and ask them to re-examine the whole issue of emergency services in the inner city since we have seen in the past week overcrowding at both Misericordia and in the Health Sciences emergency services.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I think if we listened to the honourable member and her colleagues all we would ever do is examine and re-examine and never take any action, Madam Speaker. It is necessary to take action so that we can have a health care system that is good for us today and that will be good for us to pass on to future generations. If all we ever do whenever we come up with appropriate solutions to issues in the health system is say, well, we better study it some more because we do not have the courage to make any decisions--as is being proposed by members in the New Democratic Party--we would lose our health care system, which is not a price I am willing to pay.
Adoption Services
Privatization
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services, and I know she will thank me for asking this question.
We have seen this government license out vehicle inspections, move towards privatization of home care, and now this government is moving towards the privatization of family services. According to the department's consultation workbook on pages 24 and 25, the licensing of private practitioners for adoption services, she has gone straight to the question of how to privatize adoptions, by-passing the all-important questions of whether we should privatize adoption.
Can the minister explain why she is even considering putting adoption services in the hands of private practitioners on a fee-for-service basis when this government cannot even guarantee standardized vehicle inspections?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I do thank my honourable friend. It is my first opportunity since the resuming of this session that I have had the opportunity to thank the opposition for a question.
I would encourage members of both opposition parties, as I have encouraged members of the community, to make representation to the panel that will be chaired by my honourable colleague for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) around all of the issues that we will be looking at in major changes to our Child and Family Services Act. I have met with many people throughout the community, those who want to adopt, birth parents who choose to place their children for adoption, and those adoptive parents who believe that our system in Manitoba has to be modernized and brought up to speed with other provinces that have made major changes to their adoption legislation. We are asking the public for input, and the changes that we make will be determined by that input.
Mr. Kowalski: Is the minister committed to the privatization of adoption services as this workbook implies, or is she willing to do the right thing and reject turning the adopted children of this province into a commodity?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I think my honourable friend should look to the way adoption has changed in our community and in our society right across the country over the last number of years. People are choosing private adoptions. They are dealing with private adoption agencies, which has become the norm right across the country, and I think it bodes well for both the birth parent who is making that decision for the child and for the families who want to participate in that option. I encourage all Manitobans to provide their input on how we can modernize our legislation to ensure that children do have a permanent, nurturing, loving, safe, secure home.
Mr. Kowalski: My final supplementary is for the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Will the First Minister accept that there are some services such as policing, court services and adoption that should continue to be run by government and that the privatization, for privatization's sake, is not in the best interest of Manitobans?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I think my honourable friend is living in the past and does not understand the realities of today. As I have indicated before, birth parents and adoptive parents in fact are choosing other methods of adoption rather than the secrecy that was part of adoption in the past. That is a reality today and we have to change our legislation to ensure that we have modernized it in a way that meets the needs of birth parents, adoptive families and the children who need nurturing and loving and secure homes.
Lottery Employees Labour Dispute
Minister's Comments
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, fairness and impartiality of government in dealing with its people is what Manitobans expect from their government representatives. Now we have learned that the Minister of Labour has spelled out his real agenda in dealing with workplace disputes.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour to confirm that, during a verbal exchange with lottery workers on Kildonan Drive, the Minister of Labour stated: Every day you are in front of my house I am adding seven days to your strike. Will the minister confirm that he made those comments to the lottery workers who were in front of his house?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the member as to what my role in this labour dispute is. This is a role--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Toews: This is not my strike, Madam Speaker. This is a dispute between the Lotteries Corporation and the MGEU, and there are two reasons. I will start with one as to why there cannot be apparently a settlement of this dispute.
The first is that Mr. Olfert and the leadership of the MGEU do not appear to have any intention of settling this strike. Why else would he be paying each striker $200 tax free every week, resulting in more than 50 percent of these workers earning more money on strike than they would be at work? How is it possible ever to enter into a collective agreement with that union?
Now Mr. Olfert is contemplating on raising the fees to $250.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there was a very specific question asked by the member for Transcona. The member ought to know if one cites Beauchesne that you should not provoke debate.
Madam Speaker, the minister has the option of not answering the question, but the minister is not dealing with the question, he is engaging the debate. I urge you to call--[interjection] If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would let me finish, perhaps the Premier could get up on the point of order.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I urge you to call the minister to order and to cite Beauchesne's. The minister's provoking a debate by not answering the question does not further the debates or the decorum of this House.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I would remind the honourable minister that his answer should be explicitly related to the question asked and should be as brief as possible.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Reid: Well, then I want to ask a further supplementary to the same minister, Madam Speaker.
Will the minister explain why he repeated his strike extension comments to a large group of lottery workers inside the Legislature yesterday when he said, if you do not get out of my house, this strike will last forever? Will this minister confirm or deny that he made either of the comments that are indicated here or that were made in front of his house?
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that I did not state that. What I can state and what I can confirm for this House is that there are two reasons why a mediator cannot be appointed at this time in terms of it either being necessary or appropriate.
Firstly, the conciliation process is continuing, and from the point of view of the union it is working. Secondly, from a public perspective--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps I did not hear the question correctly, but the member for Transcona specifically asked the minister about his comments in the Legislature, not to answer the question about the appointment of a mediator that we asked yesterday and the minister was unable to answer yesterday.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I explicitly heard the honourable Minister of Labour this time respond to the question left. Our rules indicate that the honourable minister indeed is entitled to an approximate time limit, and if he wishes to embellish his answer within that time limit, it is allowable.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with a final supplementary question.
Minister of Labour
Replacement Request
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I want to table copies of correspondence that my office has received today indicating that the minister did indeed make those comments.
I want to ask my question, my final supplementary, to the Premier. Since it appears that the Minister of Labour has, as the employer representative involved in this dispute, violated The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, will the Premier now replace this minister who has obviously shown his biased position in regard to this dispute? Will the Premier take the appropriate action?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Rejecting all of the preamble, the answer is no.
Cabinet Ministers
Spousal Travel
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Finance minister, as head of Treasury Board, is responsible for the General Manual of Administration, the government's procedural bible which was changed in November 1993 to enable ministers' and senior civil servants' spouses to travel at government expense where the travel is--and I quote from the policy--of high priority relative to the function of the job, the mandate of government and the goals of corporate government.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. At any time since November 1993 has the Minister of Finance, alone or with civil servants, travelled with spouses to any conference or on any government business on commercial aircraft where government paid some or all of the costs of a spouse?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I just want to be clear. He is asking if I travelled and included costs of either my spouse or any spouse married to any government employee. Is that basically the question that was being asked?
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, to quickly clarify his question.
Mr. Sale: My question is: Did the minister travel with his spouse, and, at any time or in the company of a senior civil servant or other civil servant with that person's spouse? Did any of those combinations of travel occur at government expense since 1993?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, not at government expense. My spouse has travelled with me on occasion, as has a spouse of at least one senior member of the Finance department on an occasion that I am aware of, but those were not at government expense. Those costs would have been paid by me personally in the case of my spouse.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Sale: My supplementary is: Then given the minister's role on Treasury Board, does he feel he can justify to Manitobans why some ministers and senior civil servants should travel with their spouses at public expense when others never seem to need to do so? This at a time when civil servants' wages are being frozen or rolled back and many civil servants have lost their jobs.
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, yes, I can justify that because that has been the policy within government for many years not only under our administration but under a previous administration, and just because I did not have to utilize that in terms of any travelling arrangements that I was a part of on behalf of government, there are instances where the spouses should travel as part of spousal programs or other initiatives that are in the best interest of Manitoba.
* (1420)
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister not recognize the outrage that is felt by Manitobans and expressed in many phone calls and other expressions of concern, whose tax dollars are going to support the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and will he not act to rescind the current vague policy and replace it with a clear and explicit policy regarding spousal travel?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I find it interesting now that the member for Crescentwood is part of the opposition, he is now condemning a policy that existed when members that he sits with was in fact in place and might well have been utilized--I do not know--by some people who sit in his very caucus.
There are instances where it is in the best interest of Manitoba and Manitoba taxpayers--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members, only one individual was recognized to speak, the honourable Minister of Finance.
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I state again, there are instances where it is in the best interest of Manitoba and Manitoba taxpayers for spouses to participate in travel on behalf of the government of Manitoba. That was the policy under previous administrations; that still is the policy today.
Winnipeg Police Services
Funding
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. We understand that the mayor of the city of Winnipeg has recently asked the Winnipeg Police Services to come up with a cut of $1.7 million. Imagine, of all times in this city's history, just when we become known for rapidly increasing gang activity and we now have the highest violent crime rate in all of Canada.
My question for the minister is: Would the minister tell us whether she has reviewed this disturbing matter with a view to determining whether the purpose of the provincial grant of $2 million for additional policing--which, by the way, was copied on the NDP's promise--will be cancelled out completely or in part by such a cut?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am glad the member has recognized that he now has come on board in support of a position of this government in terms of more police officers on the street. Our grant is conditional. Our grant is conditional that no officers are removed from the complement of the Winnipeg Police Services. In my recent discussion with representatives of the Winnipeg Police Services, that is fully understood.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister also concern herself not just with police officers but with other police services such as victims services, Neighbourhood Watch support, 911 support and do her job, meet with the mayor and the EPC and impress on them that while police services are one part of the solution to our crime problem, this is not the time for police cuts? It is a time for priorities, for public safety, not for New Year's bashes, not for face lifts for Pan Am Games.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, well, I am really pleased to hear the member across the way finally recognizing the importance of police services. We have heard members across the way critical of police services. We have heard members across the way, in a question just the other day, critical as well of the integrity of police services. We have had the member across the way, that party across the way, nonsupportive of police services, in our opinion, for some time. So it is just now finally wonderful for the people of Manitoba and the police officers of Manitoba to see that the other side finally supports the importance of police officers. They are moving off their support for the offender, and they are finally coming over to say police are important.
Pan Am Games
Facility Upgrading
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I am hoping the government would agree that the shortfall of $30 million for the Pan Am Games funding that has resulted from not fully costing the venue and facility upgrades could have a huge impact on the success of the games, that top-quality facilities are needed to attract top-quality athletes and ensure success of the games.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, to quickly pose her question.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the Minister for Sport or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), will the Pan Am Games committees for facility venues and constructions be setting the priorities for upgrading in these areas, and will the first priority be for competitive facilities and not as was referred to earlier?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister responsible for Sport): The province has committed $23.5 million for contribution toward the Pan Am Games to be held in Winnipeg in 1999. The Host Society has the responsibility of ensuring in which venues a sport will take place and that those venues are in fact in top-notch shape ready to receive the athletes.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, with a very short supplementary question.
Ms. Cerilli: For the same minister: Where will the $30 million shortfall be drawn from, and will the sports that need this money as early as this year to ensure that their sports qualify in their facility venues, will they be assured that they are going to receive that money on time?
Mr. Ernst: The venues need to be in place for the most part by 1998 so that they can run test events in those venues for the 1999 Pan American Games. I am assured by the members of the Host Society that they are quite capable of running top-notch games in Manitoba within the budget that they have allocated.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.