Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Charlottetown Accord, which included a devolution of labour market training, was rejected by Manitobans in a referendum or plebiscite a few years ago. The provincial government has been negotiating with the federal government on the devolution of the human resources sections of manpower training.

* (1005)

I would like to ask the Premier what mandate does he have to proceed to negotiate an agreement with the federal government from the people, first of all. Secondly, can he confirm that the cabinet of Manitoba has approved an agreement and the federal cabinet of Canada has also approved an agreement on devolution of power in this area?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): It is interesting the manner in which the member opposite phrased the question about the Charlottetown Accord, having been defeated or at least denied by the people of Manitoba. The member opposite, as Leader of the New Democratic Party, and his party supported the Charlottetown Accord and all of the contents, including that devolution of labour authority.

The whole process of events that has been carried out by federal and provincial governments ever since has been to try and disentangle responsibilities for delivery of various services in which there is clearly an overlap or a duplication between the federal government and the provinces. In good faith we have been working towards that disentanglement on a whole series of fronts--very up front about it. I mean, they have been named constantly in discussions that I have had in First Ministers' meetings, in annual Premiers' conferences. It is not a surprise to anybody.

In that context, cabinet gave a mandate to the minister responsible for labour market training, and we are getting very, very close to an agreement. I might say that this is the product of, I think, serious discussion, serious negotiation, but there has not to my knowledge been anything signed at this point. There is no question that we are working out a lot of the issues that could lead to a signing.

Mr. Doer: My question again is to the First Minister. In light of the commitment today to be up front on this issue, I would ask him to table the terms and references of the devolution agreement with the federal government. Can the Premier confirm that the devolution agreement is similar to the one negotiated by the provinces of Alberta and New Brunswick, which, unfortunately, the agreements between New Brunswick and Alberta include only a three-year commitment for support in terms of specific dollars? They only include a three-year agreement which again raises the whole question of offloading of the federal government onto the provincial government in these vital federal areas of jurisdiction.

Mr. Filmon: I do not think it would be in anybody's interest to table drafts that are for the purposes of negotiation. What I will say though is that we are all concerned about the possibility of federal governments, this or future federal governments, offloading responsibility on the provinces. I mean, it has been happening.

The responsibility for social services to aboriginals living off reserve has already been just dumped, offloaded by successive governments. The Mulroney government did it first, and we objected to that. It was carried on despite the fact that the Liberals criticized that. It has been carried on by the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Chretien now, and that has cost us over $100 million as a province over the last number of years. This is the kind of thing that we all have to be vigilant about, but in the end what we also have to be aware of is that we want to be able to create a Canada in which we serve the best interests of all Canadians, in which we do our best to eliminate overlap and duplication and make more efficient the delivery of services that are needed.

We also know--and I know the member opposite accepted the argument, in fact, put forth the argument--that we have a greater knowledge of and awareness of our specific labour market demands here in this province. We know where the skill shortages are. They do not know that in Ottawa, and a separate bureaucracy from Ottawa is not going to make it better for us to be able to train and develop our labour market to meet the skill shortages and the economic opportunities of our province.

So I believe we are working on the right thing. I believe that progress is being made. I believe that in the end the goal will be, for the best interests of all Manitobans and all Canadians, to get out of this overlap and duplication that has evolved over more than a hundred years in our country.

* (1010)

Mr. Doer: The Premier never answered the question on the three-year term, which was my specific question.

We have been informed that the agreement has been approved by both cabinets but not signed, as the Premier has indicated. We, too, are concerned about what the impact will be on our local communities. Can the Premier confirm that the staff reductions from the federal government to the provincial government will be from 143 positions to 118?

Can the Premier inform this House what will the impact of those changes on human resource officers and training officers be on the communities of Thompson, Selkirk, Brandon, Portage, St. Boniface, Morden, Steinbach, Dauphin, Swan River, The Pas, Flin Flon and the Winnipeg offices? They, too, Madam Speaker, work at the grassroots with people in terms of resource training and development on the human resource side. Can the Premier please indicate to the House what are those specific impacts on this devolution of power agreement?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not have specific figures at my fingertips. As I indicated, the agreement has not been signed, and obviously at such time as any agreement is made public, then there will be an opportunity for discussion of all the possible impacts, positive and perhaps negative, although I believe that it is a positive initiative and a positive agreement that will ultimately create better opportunities for labour market development for us as a province.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the government of Manitoba has, with no public discussion, no public input, in secrecy, behind closed doors, accepted the offload of the federal government in labour market training.

Nova Scotia rejected it. Newfoundland negotiated a co-management agreement that is long term and it involves both parties. P.E.I. as well as the Yukon are also negotiating co-management agreements.

I want to ask the Minister of Education why was she afraid of asking and listening to Manitobans on an issue of constitutional significance of jobs and of post-secondary training.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member is incorrect in implying that there was some fear attached to in camera negotiations that go on between federal and provincial jurisdictions across this country. I can assure the member that negotiations between the provinces and the federal government are being done bilaterally, province by province with the federal government, looking for solutions that are made to order for each particular province. They may have characteristics in common, but the solution that is finally put in place for Manitoba, in terms of its relationship with Ottawa in this regard, will be a made-in-Manitoba solution designed to best meet the needs of the people who live in this province and to have a good working relationship with Ottawa, which will be providing funding for the programs that we will then deliver.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I see the same secrecy continuing. I would like to ask the minister, now that we know that the cabinet has approved, approved but not signed--we know that the cabinet has approved an agreement--will she tell Manitobans whether that will enable them to receive the same bilingual services that the federal government has provided.

She has agreed to something. What has she agreed to?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member can indicate that she is conversant with the happenings in cabinet, and I say that she--I know not from whence she gathers her information.

I can tell you that we have been negotiating for many months now, that we are close to being able to get an agreement with Ottawa. One of the things, of course, that we are looking for in terms of French language services is that services that people currently expect will be maintained, perhaps even enhanced, because they are important to the people who live here in this province. That is the type of thing that will be kept foremost as we continue the discussions towards conclusion, that the needs of the people of Manitoba be dealt with in a very positive, proactive way that will see improved service and not loss of service.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister confirm that the policy of her government has been to cut longer-term training such as New Careers and to substitute short-term training programs, which the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce refers to as low or no cost and no commitment required? Is this what we can anticipate when the federal government has offloaded onto Manitoba labour service programs?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member asked two questions. I believe she is only permitted one. I will answer her first question because I am only allowed to answer one. Her first question was, can I confirm that we are going to low-paying, short-term jobs? No, Madam Speaker, I will not confirm that.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, December 20, 1994, the minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds attended a joint conference with officials of Regal Greetings & Gifts announcing the sale of McKenzie Seeds to Regal. Further, it was announced that the government will continue to hold $4.2 million of preferred shares in McKenzie for up to seven years in order to provide job security and ensure that the operation remains in Brandon. Since then, its newly appointed president has left without yet being replaced, while more senior direction is coming from Regal in Toronto. Two vice-presidents have left, and their positions are being abolished. The job of consumer products marketing assistant has been eliminated, and at the same time the marketing and sales office has been transferred to Toronto and a new position of new product manager is being established in Toronto.

* (1015)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a question, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Can the minister tell the House whether this shift in operating control of McKenzie to Toronto and Regal Greetings in Toronto and the loss of positions in Brandon is in keeping with the intent and the spirit of the government's sale agreement with Regal Greetings?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, my honourable friend has not brought up McKenzie Seeds for a number of years. Certainly he is correct that in 1994 this company was bought by Regal Greetings & Gifts. We had set out at that time six preconditions to the sale which were universally agreed upon. Those conditions have not been violated, and I am told that the number of employees at the Brandon plant has actually been enhanced.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon East, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I would advise the minister to go to Brandon and talk to some of the employees who are worried about getting--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Can the minister tell us how the government is monitoring developments at McKenzie Seeds to ensure that the new owners are truly maintaining the agreement to keep jobs and the control of the operation in the city of Brandon and, specifically, who is on the board of the company representing the government's interests?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I am truly disappointed in the member for Brandon East. When we discussed this a number of years ago, I can recall vividly him indicating that Brandon was not a good place for people to do business. That, of course, is consistent with what we have heard from some of his colleagues about other operations within the province of Manitoba, whether it is--

Mr. Leonard Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister is making allegations about statements that I made that I said Brandon was not a good place to do business. I never said that. I would never say that. The minister should withdraw that remark because it is not true.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker. Had I known my honourable friend was going to raise this issue, I would have brought along the clippings from the Brandon Sun where he was quoted as saying that, among a number of other things.

I want to say to the member for Brandon East that the preconditions--

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. Under Beauchesne we understand that ministers do not have to answer questions if they do not want to answer questions, but we do have restrictions on ensuring that whatever answers are in place do have some relevancy to the question.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, you call this minister to order. If he can do nothing better than to call into account the credibility of one of the longest-serving members of this House who has always fought for Brandon, I would say he should withdraw those disgusting comments.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. The honourable members ought to know, or be at least reminded on this occasion, that matters related to the A.E. McKenzie company are outside the administrative competence of the Minister of Labour in any event. So, while we are talking about points of order, it may well be an appropriate point to make at this time.

* (1020)

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, I believe, raised an additional point of order or a different point of order, so I will take both points of order under advisement and report back to the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, to quickly complete his response to the question asked.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, my honourable friend was asking some detail about the corporation. I would suggest that perhaps he talk to one of the board members. He perhaps knows Mr. Ray West, a long-time resident of Brandon, who was named Man of the Year a few years ago by the Brandon Chamber of Commerce, and I would suggest that, if the member for Brandon East is in Brandon at some time, he should contact Mr. West.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, not only is the minister being loose with the truth making false allegations, but he is being flippant. He is being flippant. He does not give a damn.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East was recognized to pose a final supplementary question.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): In the name of open government, will this minister now make available to this House a copy of the government's agreement with Regal Greetings and MDC, as was done in the sale of the Manitoba Data Services by the former Minister of Finance? In the name of open government, please table a copy of that agreement.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would indicate again that the preconditions were built into the agreement and have been lived up to. I was told as recently as this morning that there are at least 10 additional staff positions at the operation in Brandon and an increase in payroll of almost half a million dollars since the time that Regal Greetings & Gifts bought McKenzie Seeds.

I will review the discussions we had when we last met dealing with the annual report and see that all the commitments we made there have been met.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, despite the fact that no government report recommended the privatization of home care, the government has gone ahead to privatize a portion of home care. It is ironic that on the Rimer Alco deal the government justifies Rimer Alco on the basis that they do not want to fragment service, yet the government is fragmenting service by privatizing some portion of--with the public portion. [interjection] I hope the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who speaks from his seat will answer the question as well.

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health: since this is a multimillion-dollar venture, will the minister--and since these are public dollars that are going to private companies--today provide us with the cost of the contract, the number of employees from Health that are going to be affected by that contract, the profit margin and the number of patients affected?

* (1025)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the value of this particular contract--and, as the member may not have pointed out, this was the lowest bidder. It was the only bidder, in fact, that resulted in a reduction of costs to our system. As was discussed when this matter was debated very thoroughly in the last session of the Legislature, we would only award no more than two quadrants of the city to a particular company for new entrants into the system. Many of the details with respect to employer relations were part of an agreement reached with the union of the affected employees, the Manitoba Government Employees' Union. The value of this contract is approximately $5.6 million.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, this matter was never debated in the Chamber of the Legislature in Manitoba.

My supplementary to the minister: since the government promised that they would provide the standards and ensure the standards were enforced and they would be published so that patients would not be affected by this privatization, will the minister now table the standards that that company will be required to uphold and the criteria under which it will be dealing with patients?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, absolutely. It was a commitment that my predecessor made, and I pleased to do that today.

Mr. Chomiak: A new question to the Minister of Health, Madam Speaker.

The government has awarded a $5.6-million contract to a private company. Can the minister indicate the comparison between--will he outline for us what the profit considerations are from Olsten and what the comparison is of the rates paid to their employees versus the rates that will be paid to the employees of the government and the other contracted agencies, namely, the nonprofit VON, and what the comparisons are with respect to the service that is delivered?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, to answer that question, I believe it is appropriate to put it in the context of the process in which bids were entertained. As the member will probably recall from discussions with the previous Minister of Health in August of last year, proposals, a solicitation of interest was put out. Nine organizations were short-listed from that. Of those short-listed proponents, they were asked to provide requirements for formal proposals or they were asked to put in formal proposals to provide home care service in the Winnipeg region. In December, those were received.

Of the nine short-listed, I believe that five met the quality requirements. Three of those had other difficulties in which they decided not to pursue the contract. Three remained; their bids were opened. Only one of those bidders resulted in a saving from the estimated cost of delivering our own system. Madam Speaker, that is about a half-million-dollar saving on the two quadrants.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is also for the Minister of Health. It is to follow up with respect to the regional health boards. In Saskatchewan, it was clearly demonstrated through the way in which they had their elections that less than, I believe, 15 percent of people actually showed up for the actual vote.

My question to the Minister of Health is will the government acknowledge in the election of regional health authorities that maybe the best way to administer that is at the same time that we elect our municipalities. We would call on the minister to make a commitment that the next municipal election will also have on the ballots regional health boards being elected.

* (1030)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I think the average turnout in municipalities across this province is in the order of a third turnout. It varies across the province, but it is not as high as provincial and federal elections.

The real key issue in going to an elected system--I have said that to municipal officials, I have said that to regional health authorities, I have challenged him and members of the New Democratic Party-- is what mechanism would they recommend to ensure that there is a direct taxing authority of some sort for those health authorities so that they can be responsible to the taxpayers and their electors.

In any democratic system you have to have that responsibility to return to the electors, to the taxpayers, for the results of your decisions. I have yet to hear of a model that the Liberal Party or New Democratic Party is prepared to argue publicly should be part of that elected system.

Mr. Lamoureux: We would disagree with the government with respect to taxation rights.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Question.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister--and, quite frankly, I would be prepared to debate him anywhere the Minister of Health would feel most comfortable--is specifically will this government commit to an election of regional health boards at the next municipal election. People are going to the polls at that time--providing the additional ballot, so this way people will have a direct vote for these regional health care boards.

Mr. Praznik: It is very interesting this position from the Liberal Party. They are suggesting that, without having the right to raise its own revenue, these boards, quite frankly, if they were to be elected then, would have no ultimate financial responsibility for the decisions.

All they would be setting up across the province--it is not direct involvement--they would be setting up that standard, classic debate of one group saying we want to deliver these services; we are really not accountable because we do not have to return to the taxpayers who pay the bill, so every one of our mistakes is someone else's fault.

I think what has made our school boards more responsive and effective, our municipalities responsive and effective, is that they have some responsibility to their taxpayers and have to return to their taxpayers not just for election but also to levy a tax bill. That right and that ability is absolutely critical I think to the effectiveness of any elected boards. We are not adverse to that, but let us get into the real discussion, which is how we develop that mechanism.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Health is why does he persist in using the taxation rights as the issue in order to prolong indefinitely the need to have an elected regional board as opposed to a politically appointed board. Why does the government not commit to elected regional boards?

Mr. Praznik: If the member for Inkster wants to attack the whole concept of governments, we are elected, members opposite are elected by their constituents, members of Parliament are elected. He is attacking the principle that we as elected members and trustees of the public, who have the responsibility to go back to the taxpayers for the results of our decisions, do not have the right that somehow, when we appoint boards to administer services, we have to go to the taxpayers to fund. If he is attacking that principle, then I would like him to attack as well the principle of all the appointments that his federal Liberal colleagues have made, including that of his former Leader to the Senate of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I am not asking to do that because I think that is unrealistic and unfair to the Government of Canada. They were elected to discharge the duties. They will be responsible to the voters for whom they appoint. We have never said that we are adverse to elected boards. In fact, we have included that provision in the legislation. All we have said is there has to be a tax and responsibility, and let us get into that discussion and not try to hide from it.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last night, over 200 area residents attended a public meeting in Selkirk to discuss preparations for potential spring flooding. One of the many concerns raised at the meeting was advance notice of the opening of the floodgate. My question is to the minister. Can the minister tell Manitobans what the government is doing to ensure that there will be as much advance notice as possible this year?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, certainly I would assure the member that the ministry is aware of the concern and will make sure to do everything possible to make the public aware of anything that is about to happen.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, that answer is cold comfort to those individuals faced with the potential flood.

My supplementary question to the same minister: can the minister tell the House what additional monitoring is being added this year in order to avoid a repeat of last year?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with the forces of nature, and in co-operation with EMO we have undertaken to make sure that public information is readily available, and advance warning on the issues such as the member raises is of primary importance. If he wants a time and a day and an hour, obviously, I cannot give him that.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, my final question: could the minister tell the House whether he has made a decision on bringing in a hovercraft to break up the ice, as I and others have recommended to him over two months ago?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter when people's well-being, safety are at stake, and I do not think either the member for Selkirk or myself is trying to one-up each other on who has the best ideas as to how to deal with the issue. He is as well aware as I am with the information that was made available at the meetings, and that is that we intend to look at carefully and bring in people who have experience in this practice to advise us if it in fact can work under Manitoba conditions. If it is their advice that it will work, then we will attempt it.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, we have concerns about the proposal passed by the City of Winnipeg yesterday to give a property tax break to new homes built on the periphery of the city, that even though there is a small incentive for infill over new lands, the report makes clear that the majority of new homes under this program will be on the outlying areas of the city.

I want to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing if he will confirm that he supports this report. Does the minister not agree that this program will not address the problem of a stagnant city population spreading out over a larger area, further increasing the burden on the majority of property taxpayers in Winnipeg?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that the question and the criticism of what the city is trying to bring forth to stimulate an economy, to try to bring forth the creation of jobs through the housing industry is being overly critical.

The program that has been outlined by the City of Winnipeg is an incentive to increase not only the homes in the new development, but another component of it that I feel the member may not be aware of is that there is a component for infill housing also. I feel that this is a tremendous incentive for people to purchase homes as first-time buyers. They can look at savings upwards of almost $8,500 over three years if they combine the various rebates not only because of the rebate on the provincial side but on the homeowner side. These are incentives that are going to create jobs, that are going to give first-time buyers the opportunity to be homeowners here in the city of Winnipeg. I believe this was an excellent initiative by the City of Winnipeg.

Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister not realize that there is more than one and a half times more jobs created in renovation and retrofitting? Does the minister not agree that new homes built either just inside or just outside the city of Winnipeg line with no plan for existing urban home retrofitting and renovation will just further contribute to the decline of the urban core of Winnipeg?

Mr. Reimer: The member is referring to a home renovation program. This government had a tremendously successful home renovation program over the last few years, which added to the enhancement of a lot of homes in the city of Winnipeg. The new program that has been initiated by the City of Winnipeg is an add-on for the stimulation of the business. I find this very ironic that, with the initiatives that the city is trying to bring forth, there is a criticism of people wanting to own homes, to take advantage of the home ownership, to take advantage of the first-time homeowners. This, Madam Speaker, I find very, very unfortunate.

The home renovation program was a program that was very successful. In fact, it was that side of the government that voted against it. You cannot have your cake and eat it and be part of the recipe.

* (1040)

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is will he make any requirements in this program for developers to complete existing housing developments, such as Harbour View South in my own constituency, rather than allowing new lands to be started for new housing developments on the periphery of the city. Will they complete the existing housing developments so they qualify for services rather than opening up new lands in the periphery of the city?

Mr. Reimer: The indication that I have from the City of Winnipeg is that the program is geared to new development. I believe it does not cover the additional new development as she has pointed out. It is in regard to homes in the development areas of the city of Winnipeg. It involves the homes that are in the infill area of the city of Winnipeg. So it has its expansive nature that a lot of the area's various components can be complied with. The homes that were going to be constructed are homes that the Home Builders' Association can take advantage of with this program. The homeowners will benefit from it. There will be a tax rebate of upwards of, as I mentioned before, $8,500 over the next two years. So, Madam Speaker, it is a good thing.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice, when the Pawley government appointed departmental staff to do the work, take on the work, of the Law Reform Commission, the Conservatives screamed bloody murder and in the 1988 election ran committing to restore the commission and enhance its independence. Then in '89 the Attorney General introduced legislation in this House that he said would, and I quote, protect the commission as far as possible from any attempt by any future government to destroy the effectiveness of the commission.

My question to the minister: Given that the government is now committed to entirely abolishing the commission, would the minister admit that there is something wrong with this picture?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the issue is a difficult one, and it indicates the dilemma that we face at times when we are met with the budget restraints that have been imposed on us by the high-spending days of the Pawley government.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: The choice that we as a government had to make at this particular point in time was whether we continue the Law Reform Commission or whether we put those resources into public safety and community issues. My preference was into public safety, and I find it strange that the member for St. Johns would not support us in that respect.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: It just shows you cannot be part of the cake if you eat the recipe.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.