Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, there was a resolution before a town hall meeting, a large meeting in Melita last evening, dealing with a number of components to treat people in southwestern and the central part of Manitoba on an equitable basis to the victims of the Red River flood in 1997. Part of those resolutions deal with the per-acreage issues that are now, as I understand it, before the federal Minister of Agriculture and the ministers of Agriculture from Saskatchewan and Manitoba who are meeting as we speak in Ottawa with the federal minister. The second component is dealing with the issue of federal disaster assistance programs and other programs that could flow from that.

My first question is dealing with the per-acreage treatment. Has the Premier discussed this issue with the Prime Minister to make him aware directly of the shortfall from his federal Minister of Agriculture's announcements and the shortfall that is needed to be made up in this meeting this afternoon with the ministers of Agriculture?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for that question. As the member will know, last week both Premier Romanow and I wrote to the Prime Minister. I had contacted Premier Romanow, who was out in Maple Creek at the time, and suggested that we have a joint effort. We both wrote letters and then there followed a series of telephone calls from my senior staff to the Prime Minister's office, from Premier Romanow's senior staff to the Prime Minister's office, and many different opportunities to try and put together a meeting. Although I have not received a letter from the Prime Minister, I have a copy of the letter that he sent to Premier Romanow in which he said that his first preference was to have Agriculture ministers Upshall, Enns and Vanclief get together to try and further refine the federal response to our requests.

As the member opposite knows, I put out a very lengthy list of all the things that have been asked of the federal government over the last number of days and weeks, which amount to the same application of programs as was available in the 1997 flood of the Red River. The problem with the difference of approach and treatment is that this is all being confined within the realm of the responsibilities of the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Vanclief, whereas many of the programs that were put together in 1997 came from Western Diversification, came from PFRA, came from Disaster Financial Assistance, which comes under the Minister of National Defence.

So we have been trying to get all of that onto the table of the Prime Minister through a direct meeting that has thus far been turned down, but certainly it has been fed into the Prime Minister's office through both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. My discussion with Premier Romanow about an hour ago was to the effect that they wanted to be in lock step with us in utilizing that as the model, so we are giving them all of the information on the '97 programs. We hope that either through a direct meeting face to face with the Prime Minister–and if we do not get satisfaction out of today's meeting with Mr. Vanclief, we will certainly pursue that–or through the ongoing discussions that are taking place through staff meetings, we will get all of these things in front of the decision makers in the cabinet of the federal government.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We have been asking on a repeated basis. On June 10 the government wrote the federal minister responsible for the disaster assistance program, Mr. Eggleton, and asked that Manitoba be considered for those purposes. Many of these programs that the Premier indicated, the JERI program, the other programs that were announced, were partially through the disaster assistance program, partly through Western Diversification, programs that were beyond the scope and authority of the federal Minister of Agriculture.

Have you had a response from the federal minister responsible for the federal disaster assistance program? How soon are we able to announce programs for businesses that were also part of the resolution last evening, a business proposal, as I understand it, under infrastructure of the JERI program, a 50-50 provincial-federal announcement? How close are we to an announcement on those vital areas that again were identified as part of the concern in southwest Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am told by the minister responsible for the Manitoba Emergency Management Organization that at this point we have not yet heard back from the federal government on that. I announced on Monday night in Brandon that we would undertake consultations with the business community first in southwest Manitoba before we refined our proposal on business support with the federal government. The reason is that the JERI program of the Red River Valley resulted in advances being made and then clawed back. We do not want to encounter that again, and so to ask for exactly the same program would be to ask for exactly the same problems.

So we would rather face them with a better proposal, which we would like to first get through consultation with Chambers of Commerce and business representatives in south Westman in the next little while. I expect that Rural Development will be responsible for that consultation, will put that together in the next week or so. That is our circumstance that we want to pursue as quickly as possible with the Prime Minister and the entire federal government.

The member is correct. I have made the same analogy about all of the different departments. I point out that people asked yesterday, well, how can you expect the federal government to come in on this when you unilaterally announce these things. The member probably knows full well that in the course of the federal election campaign of 1997, the JERI program was announced without any consultation with us, and ultimately we were asked to pay 50 percent of it even though the federal departments were running ads saying phone this number and you will qualify for an immediate $5,000 advance, and so on and so forth. We assumed that that was a 100 percent federal program because it was being totally run by and publicized by the federal government, and ultimately we, the provincial government, paid 50 percent of it because that was a condition that the federal government put on it eventually. So that is how we are operating.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): There was a lot of anger at the meeting last night towards all politicians, I might say, in terms of short-term and long-term programs for agriculture and particularly to the federal government in terms of the lack of response, lack of predictability and a lack of a tangible program.

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister visited Manitoba when the election was called in 1997 and met with all the municipal officials affected–I believe it was at the air force base, the headquarters in Winnipeg–to listen to people directly. The Prime Minister has not visited here on this to deal with people directly affected by this flood. I believe in the ice storm a few years ago he visited the affected region, the Red River Valley situation; he visited with municipal officials. Given the fact we cannot get a meeting with the Prime Minister, I would have loved to have seen the Prime Minister meet with those people last evening. Is it not possible to get a meeting directly with the Prime Minister with the victims of this flooding in the area, the businesses, the farmers, the producers, and the community members? Would that be an action that the Premier will be pursuing?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): As the member knows, my initial request to the Prime Minister was that he meet with representatives of farm, business and municipal leadership, and that the fallback position was that we had to get the urgency of the situation before him. Premier Romanow and I could fly and meet him anywhere, anytime kind of thing. Obviously that is still our first position, that we would like him to hear from the people most affected first and foremost.

I just would also add to my answer that I have been handed a response from the Prime Minister, which apparently just arrived in my office moments ago, in which he essentially says what he said to Premier Romanow in his letter yesterday, which is that his desire is to have the ministers Vanclief, Enns and Upshall meet first, and also that Minister Eggleton is reviewing on an urgent basis our government's request for financial assistance under the Disaster Financial Assistance arrangements, and he is confident that Minister Vanclief will work closely with producers, producer groups and Minister Enns to find appropriate ways to ensure that all agricultural producers are treated fairly and equitably and that both ministers, Vanclief and Eggleton, have copies of the correspondence.

So it appears as though we have to do this step by step, but I can assure the member opposite that, as I did the Premier of Saskatchewan, this is not something that can be left for any length of time, that if we do not get satisfaction out of today's meeting, then we will have to pursue it vigorously with the Prime Minister early next week at the very latest.

* (1345)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. After a year and a half, Guimond and Lamirande were finally sentenced this morning for their role in the tragic killing of Jeff Giles. While no one can say that this tragedy would have been avoided if Guimond was not released on bail four days before this tragedy, we can say with certainty that it would have reduced the risk. My question to the minister is: would the Minister of Justice, who refused to answer this question earlier, now tell us why Guimond, a textbook case of someone who, in our opinion, would be denied bail, with extensive criminal record, including failing to comply with conditions, person on probation, a known gang member, facing weapons charge, got bail that Christmas Day?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do not want to get into the details of this particular case. I learned this morning that, in fact, there was a sentencing that has occurred. The sentence, as I understand it, in respect of the two individuals that have been mentioned was a sentence of life imprisonment. There is, of course, a potential of an appeal, and I think that before I know what the status of that issue is, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on that issue. I know that the member in past situations has jeopardized trials by citing information that he knew to be subject to court proceedings. I think it is very important that I not say anything that may well jeopardize the good work of the various people in the justice system.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister, with this silly attempt at intimidating me into abdicating my role in the parliamentary system, Madam Speaker, answer this question which does not go to the guilt or innocence of anyone? The trial and sentencing is completed now. There is no appeal pending. Would he now answer police sources who say that Mr. Guimond was released pursuant to guidelines issued by the Justice department?

Mr. Toews: As I have indicated, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this particular issue. The reason I express concern is I know that this member, while there was an issue before the court, stood before TV cameras and released a criminal record of an individual who was facing charges and had not yet been dealt with by the courts. The member as a lawyer knows that was inappropriate. He had no concern about jeopardizing a trial in that situation, and I do not want to go down that same road.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister, who is jeopardizing justice in this province, please assure not just the people affected by this tragedy but all Manitobans that what appears to be a very serious glitch was not due to the unavailability of a Crown attorney or magistrate or staff or space? Would he please tell Manitobans and assure us and finally begin the probe to explain why Mr. Guimond was released that Christmas Day?

Mr. Toews: Without getting into the details of any particular case, what I do want to say is that there are various components of our justice system, each of which exercises an independent role. In some situations police exercise responsibilities; in others, my Crown attorneys and my department exercise responsibilities; in other situations, judicial officers, judges, exercise those responsibilities. So I want to be very careful before I point fingers at any one particular element of the justice system. I want to ensure that a particular matter is dealt with fully by the courts. I do not want to generate any controversy in that respect.

It may not mean anything to the member for St. Johns that he may well jeopardize trials by some of the irresponsible comments that he has been making; I believe that I do not want to be a party to that.

* (1350)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): On a new question to this Minister of Justice, who does not appear willing to live up to his legal and constitutional responsibilities to administer justice in this province, it was one year ago exactly that this Legislature passed The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation Act–one year ago.

My question to the minister is this: why has the minister not put that legislation into force? Why is he waiting for the eve of an election to have another press conference to announce this legislation?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I fail to understand where the member's question is coming from. He says this legislation has been passed and that I am going to be releasing some kind of a news release in respect of on the eve of an election. People know that the legislation has been passed, and I believe that staff are working diligently to ensure that not only the regulatory aspects of this legislation are firmly in place but also the training of judicial officers and peace officers have been met in order to ensure that this very important and in many respects unique legislation is successful in its application. It is not an unusual thing that legislation is passed and then the administrative issues in respect of training and regulations are followed up, and I anticipate that occurring in this situation as well.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister, who knows that this legislation is the fourth of its kind in Canada–regulations have been enforced for years in Saskatchewan–not admit to Manitobans it does not take one year to put together regulations and training? This government is simply using the safety of Manitobans–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Toews: It was the former Attorney General, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), who was instrumental in convincing the federal government to increase–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the minister's response.

Mr. Toews: –protection to people being stalked under the criminal law. This government moved very quickly to follow up on recommendations made to the government in respect of a civil process, and I am advised by staff in my department that this process is moving forward in a timely fashion.

I am concerned not simply in passing laws, but I want those laws to be effective, and that means that I have to be satisfied that the people of Manitoba will benefit from the administrative and regulatory issues necessary. So we do not take a back seat in terms of the safety issues. We have been proactive, the former Attorneys General have been proactive, and I am proud to continue on with that work.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister admit that this legislation, recommended two years ago by the Lavoie inquiry, has not been put into force because this government insists on putting its political interests ahead of the safety of Manitobans, particularly its women and children?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, what I would like to demonstrate is by simply pointing the member to the Lavoie inquiry that was conducted by Mr. Justice Schulman–in fact, in a very, very complicated report that came out, numerous recommendations, a community implementation group headed by Dr. Jane Ursel ensured that the recommendations were implemented in a timely fashion and indeed there was money there to put the appropriate resources in place to protect women and other vulnerable people in our society. For him to suggest that is simply to ignore the facts, and it also speaks very poorly of what he thinks about members in the community working together with the government in order to implement very important programs.

* (1355)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, today marks one year since this House passed The Domestic Violence Act, and while this government waits for an election to proclaim the act, the lives and well-being of Manitoba women are being compromised. This same inaction is reflected in the Minister of Culture's attitudes towards video game classification. I would like to ask her today if, out of respect for the safety of Manitoba women, she will reconsider her decision not to classify video games, many of which take as their central discourse pornography and violence against women. Are you for zero tolerance or are you not?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I am for zero tolerance as this government is. I am also for personal responsibility rather than dependency. I am for partnership rather than control. The difference on this side is clearly different from those on the other side. This government has made a decision to work with the people of Manitoba–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, it is because this government is concerned about the content of some of the video games, which are currently now available, that this government is providing a tool and making sure that parents know that that tool is available so that they can scrutinize and screen the kinds of video games that their children see.

The games then do have a classification. The classification is on the front of the video game and on the back is a descriptor of what is in the game so that people can make that decision, they can take some responsibility into their own hands and parents can take responsibility. This is a partnership.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this minister, who is clearly choosing to ignore video violence, how many women's groups and women's agencies who provide services to domestic violence she consulted with before deciding not to classify video games.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, it is because this government considers the content of some of those video games worth a warning that we have, in fact, adopted a classification system which is, in fact, international in its nature and which will provide information to women, to children, and to all other people who will need it in terms of making their decisions.

There is not a jurisdiction, there is not another province in this country who classifies. The member has referenced countries such as Great Britain, who do not have a localized system, which she is in fact asking for here. We are looking for a system that works, not a politically expedient statement that the member across the way is trying to make again, and again forcing her position of control versus position of partnership and personal responsibility.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this minister, this self-styled promoter of partnerships with community, how many women's groups and women's agencies providing services for domestic violence she consulted with before she made the decision not to classify video games which feature violence against women and pornography. How many groups? That is the question.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the important point here is that the games are classified. There is a classification system and people can look at that game, and they can know what the content is within that video game.

But, on a broader sense, this government is absolutely taking second place to no one about our position of commitment in terms of the protection of women and the safety of women. It is this government that put into place the zero tolerance. It is this government that has dealt with stalking. It is this government that set up the Family Violence Court. This government continues to work in partnership, which the member has clearly rejected through her question, for the protection of vulnerable people in this province.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind all honourable members, this is not a time for debate. This is Question Period.

The honourable member for Inkster, to pose his question.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.

Last night, the Westman coalition, consisting of a number of organizations, had a rally to express concerns. What they were hoping to see was support for a resolution that they put together, and I bring it up because in that resolution there are a number of issues that were raised, such as the potential for our banking industry in the province of Manitoba to also participate in providing relief.

My question for the Premier is: is the Premier prepared to work with the three political parties inside this Chamber in trying to get a resolution that would address the concerns that the farmers and others expressed last night?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is admonishing me to be charitable to the member for Inkster. I do not know how I can best respond to that other than to say I find it passing strange, as a former colleague of mine used to say, that the member opposite, whose party denied the opportunity to have an all-party resolution be passed in this House to call attention to the seriousness of this issue to a prime player who has thus far been reluctant to get in the game, that is the federal Liberal government, in Manitoba. He and his party denied the opportunity for that to be discussed in this House so that we could have that kind of all-party consensus that he is now talking about. The hopes of all those thousands of western Manitobans, southwestern Manitobans were absolutely dashed by the actions of his Leader and his party.

I can say this, that I will welcome any support that he and his party now want to give the rest of the members of this House in ensuring that Ottawa plays its principal role in addressing this economic crisis as they did in the flood of 1997 on the Red River, as they did in the case of the Saguenay floods in Quebec and in the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario. I would ask him to just simply set aside any partisan interest and just get on board with urging the federal government to take their responsibility seriously. We have a full list of issues that have to be addressed that were part of the 1997 flood response, and all he needs to do is sign on with us to say: Ottawa, it is time you stepped up to the plate and took your responsibility.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I look to the Premier to attempt to show some leadership on this particular issue, and I ask the Premier to acknowledge the differences in the resolution that the farmers have put forward that obviously the Premier did not consult prior. Will he acknowledge the differences and work with the parties inside this Chamber in order to do as the farmers would like in terms of addressing the issues which they would like this Chamber to deal with?

Will the Premier in fact make a commitment to meet with members of the–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member has been in this Legislature since 1988. He knows the rules, he knows the procedures and he knows how things get done here. One of the ways in which things get done is by putting forth a resolution that allows people to discuss and debate. If there is a concern that the resolution is incomplete, that it fails to address a number of issues, then the mechanism is of course that you amend it, and you add those things that you believe ought to be part of the resolution.

So, if he believes that references ought to be made to bankers and others, we would have probably gone along with that. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and I have already met with some of the senior bankers in the province to ensure that they knew that we, through Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, were doing certain things to allow for forgoing of interest and capital payments for periods of time and other measures of flexibility to address what we perceive to be a crisis. One of the issues that will be discussed–we just talked about it earlier this Question Period, about addressing the needs of business–will be small business loans or support programs that may involve the banks. There are many of these things that can be done, but the first thing is that you allow the resolution to at least be introduced so that that kind of discussion can take place. The member opposite and his party would not allow that to happen.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, on a new area, my question is for the Minister of Education. In regard to the report that the minister has, and we have been calling for the government to table that report, my question to the Minister of Education is: can he indicate if the report is about Mr. O'Leary, or has the school division focused its actions on the teacher in question?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am mindful of suggestions that, by dealing with aspects of the report without actually making it public, I might indeed be accused of cherry picking by people in the media, but I am not the only one being singled out for comment. Frances Russell says that the–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. McCrae: Well, Madam Speaker, I really only just got going, but in making reference to the matter raised by the honourable member, Frances Russell made note of the release of the code of ethics by the New Democratic Party, but she observes that the code's release only served to highlight the fact Mr. Doer dropped the ethics ball on the very first pass. What is really at issue here is the failure of that gentleman to lead.

Mr. Lamoureux: Beauchesne's–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear. The honourable member for Inkster was recognized on a point of order.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Education, the former government House leader, is very much aware of the rule that says that when you answer a question, it should be somewhat relevant to the question that has been posed. The Minister of Education is being completely irrelevant to the question that I posed. In case the minister missed the question, it was: where was the focus of the report? Was it on the principal or was it on the teacher that was demoted?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I believe, Madam Speaker, the honourable member rose to raise a point of order somewhat prematurely, because I was just getting into that part of my answer. In order to avoid the necessity for you to study this issue and make a ruling, I am quite happy to move right to the point raised by the honourable member.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult to rule on a point of order when the honourable Minister of Education and Training is trying to come to his own defence and explain why he was not complying with the rules of the House. However, very quickly, I will ignore the point of order raised by the honourable member for Inkster because I see him nodding his head in consent to the commitment made by the honourable Minister of Education and Training. Very quickly.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, in a genuine attempt to be as open as I can with this report that was prepared by the Seven Oaks School Division, I am having Freedom of Information people look at it and lawyers look at it to decipher just what it is we are able properly and legally to release without imposing on perhaps innocent third parties, the whole issue of defamation and all of the rest of it. So we are attempting to be as open as we can to release as much of that report as we possibly can.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, today Winnipeggers are paying their property tax bills. They know, on average, that their property taxes have risen by 65 percent more in those school divisions than when this government was elected.

Will the Minister of Education admit now that his government's cut of $482 per pupil in the Education budget has driven up school taxes across the province of Manitoba?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member, just short weeks ago she stood to her feet and supported a budget that brought 2.6 percent more to the education coffers here in Manitoba. So the honourable member cannot have it both ways. She cannot pretend to support what goes on, the leadership of this government, and on the other hand complain about it. The fact is that the commitment to education today is greater than it ever was prior to the time when this government took office.

In the bad old NDP days, commitment to education was 17.7 percent of budget; today it is 19.9 percent, and that is significant.

* (1410)

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, maybe I can get a straight answer from the Minister of Finance.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Will the Minister of Finance admit today to Manitobans, because of the government's clawbacks to property tax credits and the escalation of school property taxes–is equivalent to 10 points of personal income tax?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to answer a question. I would like to thank the member for voting for the budget and having a good understanding of the fiscal policies of this government.

One of the real difficulties in budgeting is the fact that we still have a tremendous debt in this province that was put on this province by the NDP government during the 1980s. We are working our way through that to the point where we are–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was trying to make the point that one of the real difficulties in budgeting is to pay a great deal of money each and every year on the debt that was accumulated during the 1980s. We are working our way through that with our balanced budget legislation. We now have surpluses. We are paying down the debt. We are pleased that we were able to contribute a significant increase to the Department of Education in this last budget, and we look forward to that as we move forward with future budgets.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, it is really simple arithmetic. Will he admit that his government's policies have meant an average Winnipegger is paying over 65 percent more on their property tax bills today than they did when this government got elected?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Assuming, by standing to her feet and supporting the budget of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), the honourable member is also supportive of a Lower Tax Commission to look at the tax situation here in Manitoba and the burden of property taxes and property taxation respecting the funding for our schools, I assume the honourable member already supports all of that, and for what reason she raises the question, I am not sure, because her position is clear. It is exactly the same as ours. We appreciate the support.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.