We are on Resolution 14.1 Administration and Finance (d) Manitoba Film Classification Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $108,000. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I understand the minister has made an arrangement with one of my colleagues, the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), to entertain his sections today. I will just be here for a short time.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Yes, I understand that was a request and I have no problem with that at all. I have the appropriate staff available and will proceed according to what you need.

Ms. McGifford: Then I did want to ask some more questions about the Film Classification Board. We began talking about it yesterday. Yesterday we were discussing the Film Classification Board and its work, and I just wanted to take a moment to summarize and then ask some new questions.

I know that the minister told me yesterday that she was new to the ministry and therefore some of the questions were not necessarily ones that she new the ins and outs of, but I know she does have the advantage of expert staff. I would like to pursue the questions since Estimates really are the opportunity to do this kind of work, so if I could just proceed with the questions then.

I understand from what the minister said yesterday that there are two inspectors who do annual inspections of cinemas and licensed video stores. At least not each and every one, but I presume have a pattern whereby one year they do some and another year they do others. Though more often, I understand, that these inspectors respond to complaints. I understand, furthermore, that the complaints are nearly always related to so-called adult video stores. I suppose I should call them adult video outlets. Is that accurate?

Mrs. Vodrey: I appreciate the member's comments and just to clarify for her, I think it is important that we pursue the factual line of questioning. The issues that I had mentioned, I was fairly new about, were if there would be any further policy changes. In those I believe it would only be appropriate to give reasonable thought and thinking to about the issues raised by the member and also issues which now come to me in my new portfolio.

So on the policy development issues I will be taking some time to think about the issues. However, in the factual areas, I have staff and am more than happy to try and answer the questions. In terms of the inspectors, as the member outlined, that is, I am informed, the majority of the issues that they deal with; however, I also am informed that they deal with complaints at regular video outlet stores in which there is a complaint where a product has been rented to an underage person, for instance, a restricted movie being rented to someone under 18. So the complaints and investigations are not strictly focused on the adult video outlets, as we have been calling them, but also can affect other video outlets as well.

Ms. McGifford: So the complaints are usually made directly to the Film Classification Board.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that is correct. That is the process.

Ms. McGifford: Now I understand that the Film Classification Board classifies but does not censor, so that material that could ultimately be judged obscene could very well turn up in a local cinema or a local video outlet. I suppose showing the film or renting the video then becomes the responsibility of the owner, and if a complaint is made, would the owner then be responsible?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member is right in that the board does classify the films and this is an area where it does become a kind of crossover between Film Classification Board and Justice, but to her specific question, I am informed that, yes, then under any charges that might be laid under the Criminal Code, it would be the owner of the video store.

Ms. McGifford: Does that explain why on the video update that goes out from the Film Classification Board, there is a kind of, I suppose, a warning that reads, the board assigns classifications to film and video for the information of the public? The board does not censor. It does not interpret the Criminal Code which only the courts can do. As such, video retailers and distributors should not consider a classification assigned by the board as an implied endorsement of a film or a video's legal status under the Criminal Code.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that is correct and that is the Film Classification's effort to clearly define their role and the onus also on the vendor or the store owner.

Ms. McGifford: It seems to me a very delicate position for members of the Film Classification Board to be in, to perhaps classify a film or a video as a plus-18 and it be distributed and then the owner perhaps being implicated for showing obscene or renting obscene material.

* (1440)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand in the theoretical sense the issue that the member has raised. However, I am informed that the material is screened at the outset by the distributor in terms of trying to ensure that it meets what would fall into community standards, that step already having been taken. I am informed that this, in general, has not been a problem to this point.

Ms. McGifford: I do not know if this is a fair question, but I wonder if the minister could give me any information about how other jurisdictions in Canada operate as far as film classification. Do they also classify or do they, at times, not allow material? In other words, do most equivalents in other jurisdictions merely classify, or do they, at times, also act as, I suppose the correct word would be censors?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that in the two larger provinces, B.C. and Ontario, the boards do have a censorship ability in those provinces, and that, by and large, because their markets are so much larger, there has generally been an opportunity to determine, based, I presume, under the Criminal Code in those markets, whether or not a film would be obscene. I believe I am correct in describing it this way. So, in Manitoba, which has been a smaller market--and I am also informed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, though Alberta and Saskatchewan, under their legislation, have an ability to censor, in fact have not really been required to, nor have we, simply by virtue of the larger markets and their roles.

Ms. McGifford: Is that censorship ability something that the minister might consider looking at?

Mrs. Vodrey: Just to follow up on the last question. I am informed that B.C. and Ontario will then, because of their larger markets, reject films. Because they are rejected, then there is an effect in other jurisdictions.

In terms of changing our legislation, again, I am fairly new to the issue. What I have been informed of at the moment is that our legislation, which, I understand, is newer than most legislation across the country, we have been given legal advice or opinion that it would not withstand a challenge. In fact, my understanding is that the censorship on the advice that we have been given would not stand up. I am informed that it has not been tested in the other provinces and basically has not been used in Alberta, for instance, or in Saskatchewan.

Ms. McGifford: Yes, I was just going to ask the minister how B.C. and Ontario were able to withstand challenges; perhaps I could just put that out.

Mrs. Vodrey: The information that I have at the moment is that we do not believe that they have been challenged on that matter, but I would have to confirm that with the information that our own Film Classification Board would have on the roles in other provinces.

Ms. McGifford: So I guess my logic is that, if these two provinces have been able to have the ability to censor in their acts operating in their provinces, and they have not been challenged or appear not to have been challenged, it may also be a possibility in Manitoba.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the information that I have received says that fairly recently, and the member probably knows, because it has happened within the past few years, that the Supreme Court, in the Butler case, clarified for the Criminal Code, for the application of those sections, quite carefully what in fact would be obscene and what is not. So my understanding is that British Columbia and Ontario, in the rejecting of any films, are very careful that they follow very explicitly what has now been clarified and what previously was not clarified. That really was a watershed case in terms of the Justice and the federal government's responsibility in clarification. So at this point I see the question of why British Columbia and Ontario and perhaps why not Manitoba, but I think we now have further information on the Justice side which will assist us here in Manitoba.

Ms. McGifford: Yesterday I asked the minister if she was planning a review of The

Amusement Act, on the 10th anniversary of The Amusement Act, just as the former minister told us that he planned to review The Heritage Act for the reason that it was the 10th anniversary. The minister now tells me that our legislation is new legislation as compared to other provinces. I was not aware of that. I ask this question because I have concerns about the kind of material that is available in Manitoba and especially on videos and especially the plus-18s. I just wanted to read a couple of examples into the record from the video update of the week of April 7 to 18. Here are some examples of the plus-18 videos: Bulletin Board Buddies, Butt Sluts in Leather, Decadence, Eurosnatch, Eurotica. I mean, I could go on.

I do not think this kind of material serves the best interests of Manitobans. I think the majority of Manitobans probably would object to the presence of this material. As I told the minister outside the House yesterday where we had a short discussion, I know I have an advisory group of women who are really disturbed by the presence of this kind of material in our province. They believe that it is pornography, and they believe that pornography is violence against women, or as some feminists have put it, pornography is the theory and rape is the practice.

* (1450)

I do not expect the minister to respond to what I have been saying, but she might want to. I did want to suggest that the minister might be interested in legislation from Australia, or perhaps her staff are familiar with legislation from Australia where the massacre at, I think it was Port Arthur--I think I have the name of the town right--was so disturbing to Australians especially when the criminal in that case was found to have hoards and hoards of pornography that there was a movement on classification of film, video and I believe, also video games. What happens there, as I understand it, is the equivalent of the Film Classification Board, simply refuses to classify certain videos, movies, and perhaps video games, and therefore they cannot be shown, because in order to be shown something has to be classified. So I do not know whether the minister wants to comment on that.

Mrs. Vodrey: I would just start by saying, first of all, and in our other conversations, I am Minister for the Status of Women as well, I find what the member has put forward distasteful, no question, and I think that she is in fact quite right that most Manitobans would find that to be the case also. The difficulty for us is that the Criminal Code is really the main document and its interpretation by the courts. So this is really the only case where there is a code, a codified document. You know in Canadian law, the Criminal Code is really one of the only ones and then the courts have to interpret. So it is difficult, I think, to find a role specifically for our Film Classification Board with the onus being a Criminal Code responsibility. However, I take your point quite seriously.

I have not seen that Australian legislation. I certainly am prepared to look at it, but if it is a national kind of legislation--or is it a localized legislation affecting only a small part? I would need to find out a little bit more about it and how it was applied. In many ways it is quite worth looking at, because I think that there are a lot of concerns in that way. I would have to find the way to look at that and then to work with Justice to see if there was in fact a way to deal with that issue in Manitoba. However, based on some of our discussions, I think that this is an area worth pursuing, and so I am prepared to at least look into this over the next while and see what we can find out and what is possible for us in Manitoba.

I would just add very quickly as well to say it is very difficult legally to in some ways control everything. There is an issue of personal responsibility where controls can be put in place either by parents, or as I explained yesterday, in the justice system, we have put certain controls in place in relation to our correctional institutions even in terms of what TV channels they can watch now. So that where there is an actual opportunity to exert that control, which does not come from the classification, it comes right down to a more localized area. I think that is also an important way to look at things and to not rest entirely on what we might be able to put together in a legal framework but also to work with institutions and with families and with groups such as Corrections to look at seeing what we can do in that way. If we cannot make a major change federally to the law, then what else can we do in our province?

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I certainly understand as the minister has said and indicated that there are a lot of limitations on what the Film Classification Board can do because of the Criminal Code. Yesterday the minister actually brought up the question of films and videos shown in prisons. I wonder if she could tell me if the classifications of the Film Classification Board apply in prisons or how that works.

Mrs. Vodrey: I want to answer that question, but I would just like to go back as well to our more general discussion and make sure that I have also left on the record that where citizens do feel offended by certain material that they should in fact make a complaint to the police; they should allow an investigation; they should let the challenge take place. That third option should also be made known to people. I think as we go about our work with a lot of the groups that the member and I both associate with, that is an important point to make as well so people do feel they have a place to go.

In terms of the specifics in prisons, my understanding is that the classifications apply to the films wherever publicly exhibited. The details of what happens in Corrections--she might like to get an update during the Justice Estimates on that in terms of how that material is being dealt with, but it was certainly an issue which had been recognized in that system, that being a group of people which may be particularly vulnerable to certain types of either books or movies or things that are on TV which generally come into our homes but might not be appropriate in that situation.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for making the point that the public does have recourse and that the public does have the opportunity to lay a complaint with the police. I think that the public does not necessarily know that. I know I get calls from the public. Actually, I usually phone the Film Classification Board myself and then get back to the complainee, but the minister's suggestion is an excellent one and perhaps a stronger one and an avenue that I think I might take.

I also wanted to tell the minister that I agree with the whole concept of personal responsibility and encouraging as parents being personally responsible and encouraging our children to be personally responsible and encouraging discretion and judgment in our children. Certainly there is nothing that can replace those qualities but my concern, of course, and I know it is one the minister shares from what she said, that persons who are probably--my concern and my suspicion is that persons who are probably viewing the material that we have been discussing have not developed those capacities and probably are not going to, so I just wanted to say that.

I have two other things that I wanted to just check in or ask briefly about related to the Film Classification Board. I have a letter from one of my constituents, a man named Matthew Lawrence which I seem to have lost. No, I have it here. Matthew Lawrence and his wife took their young daughter who was a babe in arms, I think three months or four months, to a movie, the movie being The People vs. Larry Flynt, and they were denied access to this movie because the child was under whatever--I guess, it is 18 and this constituent was quite cross about it.

He may be more offended than I am by the decision, but I wanted to ask the minister: Is the policy that no child, whatever the age of that child, should be allowed in a restricted movie and that once we start letting in four months--now I am interpreting, once we start letting in children of four months, then where is the cut-off line? I wonder if the minister wanted to respond.

* (1500)

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that perhaps even more powerful than the policy is in fact the law which says that persons under 18 must be refused entrance to a theatre where the film is designated as restricted. So I understand the chair of the Film Classification Board replied to your constituent stating what the obligation of the owner is. The question is really, I think, as the member herself said: So where do we draw the line?

I understand for parents it is very comfortable and great to take our children with us, but at what point are we not able to do that or where do we draw the line? Though it might have been a difficult decision at the time, and I think certainly one that your constituent was right to explore in terms of why did this happen, the Film Classification Board chair did write back stating the law, so it is more than policy.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, if the movie operator had allowed this constituent into the movie, along with partner and baby, and the inspector had visited the movie that night, would the movie owner have been prosecuted for allowing a minor into the theatre or censored or whatever the correct term is?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, it is very difficult dealing with so many hypotheticals, but my understanding, and as I have been informed, what may have happened is that if it is a first-time offence that the inspector discovers, it is usually a warning and the law is explained to the operator so that they fully understand what the issue is, in an effort to not have it happen again.

Ms. McGifford: There is no room for maneuvering as far as the age? "Restricted" means absolutely what it says, nobody under 18?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand that is the case.

Ms. McGifford: To change topics, I wanted to ask the minister if her government has ever considered the classification of video games. She may or may not have noticed that I have a private member's resolution in this year's mix on the classification of video games, and I wonder if the minister has any opinions or if her department has developed any policy on the classification of video games.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that at the moment it is our understanding that no other province does classify video games, but I am also informed that there is a meeting going on at the moment in Ottawa. We do have a representative attending that meeting in which we are asking that our representative find out from other jurisdictions clearly whether or not they do classify video games. If so, what do they do, and if not, what kinds of issues are showing themselves in their jurisdictions? So we are looking into the matter, but we do not really have, to my knowledge, any other reference points from across the country on that issue yet.

Ms. McGifford: Yes, my understanding is that there is not another jurisdiction in Canada that classifies video games, that there is some classification within the industry, and I suppose another way of expressing it is that the industry is self-regulating in a sense. However, it seems to me that when those who stand to benefit the most by number of sales are the ones who are classifying the video games, then I do not really have a lot of faith in those classifications, and having taken some time to explore video games, I am more convinced than ever that classification should not remain in the hands of the industry.

I am sure the minister is aware--because she is the Minister of Culture and Heritage, and because it is very hard for all of us not to be, living in the age that we do--that video games are increasingly popular especially with young men, and I suppose with young people generally, but especially with young men. I am sure we have all passed arcades where we hear all kinds of noise and see all kinds of young people intently glued to the screen. From the research I have done and from the hands-on research as well as from the printed material I have read, video games appear to be increasingly realistic; that is to say, some of them actually have real actors in them. They are increasingly graphic--that is to say, very realistic in what they portray; also pornographic, and I do not think I need to qualify that, sexist, violent.

What I find really disturbing is they are very interactive and increasingly interactive. I know the minister and I have shared our concerns about some of the video materials that are available. That at least is a kind of passive viewing; the video game is active because you are pulling switches and what not. I understand the video game is moving towards virtual reality. So I think it is something, and I am glad to hear that the minister and her staff are beginning to look into this matter.

Mrs. Vodrey: I would say that the increase in interest in video games is really evident. There are the arcades which the member has referenced. Then there are also single source video games, things like the Game Boy and so on which lots of kids have in their home. There is also the kinds that you play on TV and on computers, Nintendo and so on. There is a wide range of video game opportunities for all ages of people and many of them very focused on young people.

So I will be very interested in hearing back from our representative at this national meeting to see if there is any thinking going on in other provinces and would suggest that I think it would be useful to put our minds to some thinking on this way.

But I would say as I did when we were speaking about the video classifications that I also believe that there are perhaps two other ways. Self-regulation is one. That is going on, and we would want to know if or not that was in fact successful. The other part is the parental responsibility, the individual responsibility again where a parent was aware of the content of the game so that parents in fact are also in some way informed consumers when they go out and purchase games or are able to help their young person in the kinds of games they are bringing in or how they are spending their time.

So I do think that the parental responsibility aspect is an important one. I take the member's point from our previous discussion in that not all parents are able to be that involved or wish to be that involved, so some other type of reference may in fact be useful as well.

There would be then--and I guess this is the important point of our discussion so far--possibly three ways to look at this. One, is there any classification occurring or possibility of that? We will find out a little more about that following the meeting. The effectiveness of the self-regulation which I think in fact some responsibility should be put on the industry. Then thirdly, the role of parents or other people in terms of monitoring what in fact particularly young people have available to them.

Ms. McGifford: I agree with the minister with regard to parental responsibility. Yet I point out that parents cannot be with their kids 24 hours a day or however many hours a day their children are awake and out and about. This would not be good for either parents or children. You know parental responsibility is very important. The minister has already recognized that some parents either cannot or are not willing to be what we might consider "responsible parents."

Furthermore, I am not only concerned about children but about individuals and some individuals who may also be involved in these games who are not children, the adverse effects on those individuals, and the antisocial possibilities.

* (1510)

I wanted to suggest to the minister that I do know that there is some legislation, again in Australia, that she may want to look at. I understand as well that there has been some legislation vis-a-vis video games in Britain.

One other sector that I think has some responsibility when it comes to video games is the seller, the person who markets these. There are ways as consumers we can put pressure on those people. I do not know whether the minister wants to respond to anything I have said.

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, I would like to thank the member for the references to the other jurisdictions, and we will follow up in terms of both Australia and Britain in the two areas that she has referenced. In terms of the sellers, we were able to do some things as a result of parents' pressure and concerns in terms of where certain videos or magazines were placed, and that might be something which sellers may be willing to look at. This seems to be a new field, though, a new area, and so it will take I think some opportunity to consider and to look at the options and see what others have done.

But I do know the member has a resolution, and I have said, as well, that with the Classification Board I will follow up with them on these two areas.

Ms. McGifford: This is not about video games, but yesterday when I was asking the minister about Culture, Heritage and Citizenship's measures, the measures that have been taken to enhance and co-ordinate the level of service and quality of training as set out in the memo that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) sent to deputy ministers, I think that the minister said I should bring up this question again on line 14.(d).

Maybe I misheard because I have been looking through the Estimates book trying to find line 14.(d), and I know that the Film Classification Board is 14.1.(d). I think I must have misheard.

Mrs. Vodrey: The line would be 14.3.(d) under the Archives.

Ms. McGifford: I have no more questions on the Film Classification Board, and I think that the minister has agreed to hear questions from my colleague from Point Douglas.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 14.1.(d) Manitoba Film Classification Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $108,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $188,400--pass. Item 14.2.

Mrs. Vodrey: By agreement, and if it is possible through the Chair, I understand my critics for the appropriation 14.4 Citizenship would like to have that considered now and then come back to

appropriations 14.2 and 14.3.

So if that is agreeable to the Chair, it is certainly agreeable to me as minister. I wondered if we could move ahead to 14.4 to consider this afternoon the Citizenship and Multiculturalism lines.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Is there agreement within the committee to move to 14.4. Citizenship and Multiculturalism and then revert back at the completion to 14.2. and 14.3.? Is there agreement of the committee? [agreed]

Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to take this opportunity to introduce to the table Mr. Gerry Clement, who is the assistant deputy minister of the Citizenship branch.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Before we proceed on with the committee, I just wonder for the benefit of the committee if there is leave to allow the honourable member for Point Douglas to sit other than in his own chair in the Chamber for the purpose of this committee. Is there agreement by this committee? [agreed]

Item 14.4. Citizenship and Multiculturalism (a) Citizenship (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,368,400.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I would like to, first of all, thank the minister for agreeing to this change. With all that is happening, we have different situations arising. I would just like to state a few things on record. I made a little speech a couple weeks ago pertaining to immigration and what is happening. What I am hearing out in the community, it really bothers me. It seems like we are getting away further and further from family reunification. We hear all governments and individuals that I speak to on a daily basis stating their concerns and the importance of being with family, having family around, and the support and commitments of families.

It seems we are getting further and further away from that. It seems to be just words. The action part of it is missing. I have to look at the whole cost of bringing relatives over. I have said it many, many times, and I will continue saying it until, hopefully, it is changed. That is the whole structure of landing fees of $975, the processing fees. Now, what we see is a decrease of point systems for individuals that are sponsored by their families; where they used to get bonus points, now that has been taken away.

I know that the federal Liberal government had brought in a change of policy where individuals that are now accepted into Canada would pay that $975 upon being accepted. That is fine. I think the real measure should have been to eliminate the $975 in total, just take it right off the books. If you look at the past, it brought in about $200 million, generated revenues for the federal government. What has happened? Where have they used those dollars? Have they used it to help the new immigrants coming to our great country and, hopefully, to our great province?

If that is the case, why are we seeing transfer payments being cut at the same time? We see cuts to our English as a Second Language programs. We see other cuts from the federal government to our province.

I would like to ask the minister to maybe just jot this down. I would like her to address it a little bit later. The whole agreement of federal transfer payments, if I understand correctly, a lot of it is based on our population in the province. If we have a decrease in our population, then we will have a decrease in our transfer payments. So I think that, if the government would just look at the whole process of immigration, it should enhance the money coming from the federal government to our province.

* (1520)

You hear a lot of individuals, or some people, talk about some of the measures. I would like to put on record some of the comments that were made by individuals that do a lot of work with new individuals coming to Manitoba, and how they view some of these policies that are being changed.

For instance, in a Winnipeg Sun article, dated March 31, 1997, I would like to read some quotes from Tom Denton, who is the executive director of the International Centre, and I would like to see someone, if they disagree with his comments, to seek him out and get a better understanding, because Tom Denton is, from the individuals that I speak to, extremely respected in the multicultural community and the ethnic community.

What he says here, it says, "Local immigration advocates have dubbed a 'cruel' change in federal policy on family sponsorship the 'anti-granny' rule." I think that is a very harsh and true statement, "'anti-granny' rule," because we know--you look in the aboriginal community; we highly respect our elders. That is because of their wisdom and their teachings that they pass on to family members, members in the community, and members as a whole. If we stop the possibility of grandparents and even elders and seniors from other countries, we will lose that.

I do not understand why that should be. We should be encouraging grandparents and family members to come to a new country that a member of that family has chosen. If you just try to isolate yourselves individually from your family members and your family supports, you could imagine how extremely difficult and hard that would be. If we were here or in another country, or even wherever, totally on our own, I do not know how we would function as a person. I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult, but we are fortunate enough that when we are in crises or difficulties, or even just for companionship and friendship and spending time, we can always turn to our families. A lot of these individuals cannot, and that is why I totally, totally disagree with what I am seeing being as policies.

I do not care what government is in power. If it was even my own party that was in power, and if they were taking these measures, I would question very strongly and disagree with those kinds of measures.

It goes on to say: "Tom Denton, executive director of the International Centre, said last week's announcement of a 'slight' hike in the income minimums for new Canadians to sponsor family-class immigrants will only hurt the poor.

"The minimums, which vary by size of family and city of residence, have a middle-class bias and end up applying only to grandparents as the others in family-class--minor children, parents, spouses, fiances--either aren't subject to or can get around a financial requirement.

"'This is an anti-grandma and grandpa rule,' Denton said. 'I disagree with the increase of the financial requirement for sponsorship, but it really effects a very narrow group.

"'It is one more step in a relentless tightening of immigration policies in this country that we have seen going on for a number of years.

"'All of these things have an essential cruelty or meanness about them.'"

I have to say I totally agree with his statements, because of what I just mentioned to you, from my own experience. When we were little children growing up, we had our own sort of a little village. I grew up in Churchill and we lived down in the flats. We were the only Inuit family that resided in Churchill at that time. We lived in our own little village. We had about eight houses there, and there were my uncles and aunts and grandparents. There are 12 children in my family; there are 11 boys and one girl. I know we would not have learned a whole bunch about who we are or what is our culture or values if we were isolated on our own, because we just would not have had that time. Our parents would have been too busy trying to eke out a living to feed us, just to try and get food on the table for us. That was all done through hunting and fishing because you could not go to the store and buy pork, roast beef and everything with the prices the way they are. So I understand why the individuals are saddened by these changes or saddened by the lack of the federal government to eliminate those measures.

Yes, like I said earlier, they said only ones that are accepted will have to pay. The ones that are not accepted will not have to pay the money. But that still is no consequence if you live in a country where $975 might even be more than your yearly earnings for the 365 days out of that year, because on top of that, that is what you have to save. Plus you have to look after your family, feed your family and continue on.

When we talk about the restricting of family class reunification, there is a great danger here, and I hope the minister will address it when she has the opportunity, or if she has not yet, with her federal counterpart whenever they have a meeting. The danger of this is that more of the emphasis is going to what they call business class immigration. If you have the dollars, I think it is around $200,000, somewhere around there, to immigrate to Canada, then you are accepted almost immediately if you have the funds.

That is fine when you are sure those individuals hopefully will come here, start businesses, create jobs, and employment opportunities. If we are only going to depend on that or greatly depend on that for our immigration policies, because Manitoba and Canada was built on immigration, if we do not increase our immigration from other countries, our population is going to decline. If you look at stats that are coming out on a daily basis, you will see that families are having less children than they used to in the past.

As I just mentioned to you earlier, I was raised with 12 children. Now, if you met a young family and they said they had 12 children, you would almost be in shock because nowadays a lot of couples will have two, maybe three, children and that is it. So for us to increase or keep our population as is in Canada, we have to increase immigration. If we try to depend solely on the business class, I fear what will happen is once they are here for a couple of years and they say, hey, my mother and father or my uncle and aunt and my grandparents, I really wish they were close here because they could really help out the family, and I really miss them, and we love them dearly, and we should be with them in their elder years.

What we will see is then, when they try to bring their parents over, they will have a difficult time, or they will not, and word will get across. So other countries that have less strict measures for family reunification will probably start getting more of the business class immigration that we try to bring to Canada now, because I know if I had a choice personally, if I wanted to move to another country and if I knew that there was less chance if I wished some day to bring my mother or my family over, or go to another country where I had the same employment opportunities where I knew I had a much better chance to bring my parents or my extended family to be with me at a later date, I would not have to think twice where I would go because family, as we all state, is very valuable.

That is why it bothers me when I hear comments once in a while from individuals where, like, well, the people will have the money to pay. Some people will not have the money to pay, and those individuals should have the same opportunity, if they choose to come to another country and if they choose Canada, to start their own careers and not just because they have the dollars to buy their way in. I totally disagree with that because everybody has different situations and different needs.

* (1530)

The other thing I would like to get into a little bit later is we talked a lot about certification and people who are choosing Canada to be their new home, where you hear stories and you speak to individuals who were working in their chosen careers in their own home country, and all of a sudden, whatever their reasons in choosing Canada to be their new home, come here and are now employed in another field, not the one that they have chosen. You take some individuals who have come here as even auto mechanics or engineers or lawyers and what have you, but when they come to Canada, their degrees and certification diplomas are not accepted. We have standards in Canada, and that is fine, but we also have to look at ways of assisting individuals who choose Canada as their new home to fulfill their dreams and to fulfill employment in their chosen careers.

If we just took ourselves, for example, if we were forced to be employed in an occupation that was not our choosing or an occupation that we viewed in our own minds as less than what we may be able to do, I do not think we would live a complete life of fulfilment. There would be an emptiness there, and I understand that because if I am a plumber and I am very skilled at it in my own mind and I do a good job wherever I have worked, and if I move elsewhere and someone says, well, sorry, but your certificate, your diploma, we cannot accept it, so we cannot even hire you. We cannot even give you a chance to be what you are.

There are ways of doing that, a lot of ways of doing that. All we have to do is look at evaluating certification compared to Manitoba or Canadian standards and look at what is missing. Say for an individual who comes from India or the Philippines, you do a task analysis, and you look at what is required, and then you do an evaluation of the courses that the individual has taken to get their degree in their country and compare it to ours. If there is, for example, five, and they meet, say, three, then what is wrong with developing a specialized course where the individual has only to take the two and then challenges the examination, say, if it is six months or a year or whatever have you, a special designed course.

That way, if an individual passes it, then they would meet our standards and be employed in their chosen careers, and they would be much happier and more than likely would have a better chance of a better lifestyle for their families. You hear of individuals that have come here that are driving taxis, washing dishes, or working in a restaurant. Some of these people are highly skilled. Some of them are even engineers in their own country; they come here, and they have to work as something else. I cannot see how they would feel fulfilled in their own minds, in their own self.

Then, when you look at some individuals, because of the lack of money, they would not be able to go into, say, a full four-year course or two-year course. I have said this before, and I have said it many times. The minister heard me say it not too long ago, and I will state it again: we should have a fund in place to assist individuals when they are training. That way the individual is not trying to hold down two or three jobs, raise a family, and study at the same time, because that is a pretty impossible task. I give all the credit to individuals who have succeeded doing it that way.

But to be fair to people, to show individuals that choose Manitoba to be their home that we are a loving and caring province, I think we have to look at doing things a little bit differently. Yes, it is going to cost money, but there are ways of revolving that funding. For instance, if an individual gets the full funding--which, I hope, the minister will seriously consider--to adequately feed their family, pay their tuition, upon graduation the individual would have a choice where they can now start repaying the loan, because they should be in a good income bracket or decent income bracket to pay that loan down. Or, if an individual chooses to move to a high-skills needs area, for instance, you look at rural communities and northern communities, a lot of times it is hard to get individuals out into the rural or northern communities. You talk about doctors, lawyers, engineers, even plumbers, electricians for the mines and stuff. There is always a shortage in northern Manitoba. If they choose to live up there, say, for three or five years, or whatever is reasonable, then upon fulfilment, the loan is forgiven. That way you help assist the individual; you help assist the rural and northern communities that are in need and have a shortage of skilled workers.

I think that is how we have to start looking at addressing the needs of individuals that choose not only our great country, but our great province. You hear and you read things, and it is easy to make excuses on anyone's behalf. Even on my own behalf I can make excuses until the cows come home on anything if you like, but it is much harder and much more of a commitment on our behalf as individuals to really try and put in place programs and assist individuals to benefit the family, the individual, but also our own province of Manitoba.

If you look at doing some of those things, I think we will only make Manitoba a stronger province. We all have to have a common respect for all citizens of the province, no matter if you are aboriginal, if you are Jewish, or if you are Filipino. We are all human beings. We all should care about one another. That is what this province is made of.

When you hear individuals make comments about, yes, well, an immigrant will take our jobs away from our children or us, how uncaring of a comment is that? If you remove the aboriginal people from Manitoba, did not all the rest of the people come through immigration at one time or another? That is how most people came to Canada, through immigration, if you removed the First Nations people.

That is why the whole aspect of education is another area that I hope the minister will look at addressing with the Minister of Education to ensure that multiculturalism, immigration is part of our whole history lessons and taught at every school in this province. That way when people are educated and have a better understanding, hopefully, that will eliminate some of the racism, or racism that we view from time to time in very extreme cases in some cases.

I wanted to go on some more. I do not know how much time you allow for each question. Thirty minutes? Okay.

* (1540)

So I just wanted to go back a little bit to immigration sponsor rules. I wanted to especially read two articles that I came across in the paper. They were written by a lawyer who, obviously, must do some immigration work, because he seems to have a very good understanding of what is happening with our immigration policies. I really hope, and I am confident, that you as minister will address some of our concerns and our issues and take them to Ottawa and ask for some of those changes to be changed, because we have too many good people here, just as they have in the rest of Canada, but you cannot make policies based on situations in big cities like Toronto and implement them here in Winnipeg.

For instance, when you have comments of individuals that they had to make changes to the sponsorship programs because of the abuse of social assistance, and yet in Manitoba I think it is even less than 1 percent of individuals that come to Winnipeg that abuse our social assistance program, so why should we be penalized because of whatever happens in another province? Yet, as a province, we can request more immigration to come to our province.

I want to read these letters a little bit later, but I came across a very interesting article here where one of the biggest drawbacks that we are going to see in the whole family-class policy and the reunification of families--and it is an article that was in The Globe and Mail. I do not know why this policy could be brought forward, because if we talk about families and we really believe in families, and we believe in supporting and helping families, when this policy came about, a lot of individuals could not believe it. The policy I am talking about is the sponsorship of families where, before, families could pool their resources, where if you had two or three or four families, you could pool your resources and your income and meet that level of sponsorship. But now, according to this article from The Globe and Mail, that has been changed, where now siblings can no longer pool their incomes to meet the income requirement when sponsoring parents or grandparents.

Well, I do not understand that, because the grandparents or parents are not the grandparents or the parents of only one individual child. If there are two or three or four children in Winnipeg and they choose to pool their resources to sponsor their parents or grandparents, that should be a responsibility of all members of that family, and not only have to be the responsibility of one individual, because the other family members will want to share that responsibility, as they will want to share the love, comfort, education, and everything that goes along with being near your parents and your grandparents.

So I do not understand the reasoning behind that change of policy. To me, it does not make any sense. I know in my own mother's case, if something happened to my mother where she was in need of funds immediately, if she called, we would all immediately help. We would not say, well, only you help; there are 12 of us, but only you help it. The rest will just--we will keep it here and do not worry about it; you look after it. Well, that is not how families function. So, if governments talk about families, how can they make that kind of a change? I do not understand, and I hope, when you meet with the minister, you will ask the Minister for Immigration the reason for that because that is beyond my belief.

The other thing that I wanted to touch upon, I want to ask the minister to just mark this down, because there is a skills shortage of workers in the garment industry in Manitoba. We as a province went to recruit 200 skilled workers and their families to work in Manitoba. I read an article. I kept it just to ask the minister what happened because it said: Under the provincial nominee class the province sought to recruit 200 skilled workers and their families to work in Manitoba's garment industry. However, because of imposed deadlines by the federal government, the recruitment effort came up short. Provincial officials expressed great frustration at the constant stonewalling from federal officials. Provincial officials have also complained Ottawa has thwarted other proposals for similar movements involving extended family of Ukrainians and southeast Asians living in Manitoba.

I would like to get a response from the minister. You probably have to check back from the previous minister to find out what happened here. What happened here? When we saw that Manitoba was going to be recruiting 200 garment workers and bringing in new families, there was a lot of happiness, because we were going to get 200 additional families to move here. When you get 200 additional families, you have the increase of spending power. People have to have homes; people need transportation, whether they use the bus or purchase a car. People have to eat; people have to clothe their kids. So it stimulates the economy. By bringing in more numbers of immigration, we increase the benefits to all Manitobans, because there are now more things being sold and more things being bought. That really troubled me. I do not know what happened there.

Also, I want to get into what is happening with our point system, because in the same article it said, the elimination of assisted relative class where applicants were awarded up to 15 additional points towards their final total if they were sponsored by extended family already living in Canada. That was eliminated a few years back, but I would like the minister--if she or her party has addressed this concern to the federal government to see if it could be reinstated where additional points should be, I feel anyway, put back on for individuals wishing to bring their extended families or their parents or grandparents to Manitoba.

I know I only have a few seconds, so I will wait for a response. Then I would like to get into some more information here. I will leave you with those questions.

Mrs. Vodrey: The member has given a number of very important points forward, and I know that he has really a very strong interest known by the community in this whole citizenship area. So I take his questions very seriously, because I believe that they are founded upon experiences, experiences that people have brought forward.

I will give some general answers to the comments that I believe you wanted to put on the record, and then what I will do is I will leave the time, whatever time you need, for you to ask specific questions which may be the best way to do it.

* (1550)

Just in a general sense to start with, I have written to the federal minister and I have in that letter focused again on Manitoba's interest in family reunification and family reunification classes. Manitoba is not supportive of steps which interfere with that, and Manitoba will be scrutinizing any effect on our province of changes that the federal government is making that may interfere with family reunification.

In a general sense, we are very interested in Manitoba in increasing our proportion of immigration, that in fact it had declined for some years. I understand now that it is increasing slightly. We have been very, very aggressive in terms of our participation and trying to attract immigration to Manitoba. In my opening statements yesterday, I spoke about the co-operation that my department has had with Industry, Trade and Tourism so that we can put together a broad, a real presence for our province at the immigration centres across the world, and I actually named a number of them.

So I am happy to talk about that a little bit more and also our presence on the Internet, which I am sure the member knows about and the increased access that people have made to the information that we have put on the Internet. I just wanted to assure him that I have not waited for a ministerial meeting to raise some of the concerns that he has put forward today, because I share them, our government shares them. So I have already addressed that in a letter to the federal minister.

I have some statistics and I am not sure if the member would like those now. I have some that are actually positive ones in terms of--and I believe that this reflects our really aggressive position as a province--attempting to attract immigration because, for the reasons that have been discussed, it is important to our province. I understand that in the past year, overall immigration to Manitoba has increased by 29 percent from--these are the figures that I have: 3,515, 3-1-3-5 arrivals in 1995 to 4,525 arrivals in 1996, 4-5-2-5 is the number there.

In 1996, I understand that Manitoba received 2.4 percent of all immigrant arrivals to Canada. However, we believe that our proportional share is 3.85 percent, so we have had an increase. It is obvious that on one side, we do not want the federal government enacting changes which will discourage our opportunity to encourage immigration to our province, and on the other active side, we as a province have taken responsibility to co-operate and make ourselves known with the Manitoba Advantage to people across the world so that they will choose Manitoba.

I am not sure whether this is more than the member wants to know, but I understand that the top five source countries of immigration to Manitoba in 1996 include the Philippines, China, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina and England. So it is a fairly representative group.

I also understand that the family-class arrivals in Manitoba increased 12 percent, and the figures that I have been given, the arrivals in 1995 were 1,326 in '95 to 1,485 in 1996 and that refugee arrivals in Manitoba increased 32 percent from 646 in 1995 to 852 in 1996.

So I think that we have had some success on our side and in our efforts, but that we have to be absolutely vigilant in monitoring steps taken by the federal government to make sure that that does not have an opposite effect on the efforts of our province.

In the area of credentials, we can get into that in more detail in terms of the questions that you want to ask, but I will just say in a general sense that I have been quite interested in this, have met with a number of groups and individuals making an effort on the credentialing side. Personal experience, when I was in law school, one of my classmates in my same year, an adult who was a Chilean lawyer, obviously a different system, a civil system and a different language, Spanish, he did have the experience that the member spoke about. He came here, he worked in one of the hospitals, he worked in the laundry in the hospital, as did his wife, to gain language experience and then was able to come into law school, graduated and has now done very well. But it was a real effort, a real family effort.

On the dentistry side, we have been assisting two other families, both refugees in terms of their credentialing, and I understand, and we can talk further about this, that the credentialing issue is also part of what professional associations require, and that it requires work with these associations to determine what kind of remediation, if any, is necessary and what the requirements might be.

I know we have been working with those, but I am aware, on a very personal basis, of some of the efforts of some of those individuals to gain their credentials. The member probably knows, too, we face this sometimes even province to province and when I moved here from Ontario had to deal with my own credentials as a school psychologist in order to practice here in Manitoba, so it is not a particularly easy system, and it is one that does require some effort. So if the member wants to pose some more detailed questions on that, I will certainly be happy to provide the information that I have.

The third area that he spoke about is the initiatives that might be undertaken with the Minister of Education dealing with the valuing of the multicultural community and the efforts also to deal with antiracism activities, and that certainly is something that makes sense and that my department, where possible, has been very happy to assist other areas. When we get into the questioning, I am sure we have, or if we do not have with us today can make available to you tomorrow, the initiatives that we have been participating with other departments in terms of the antiracism and multicultural curriculum. The member referenced history as a specific, and I understand that there are some curriculum opportunities.

Just to very quickly say, I had the real pleasure of being at Selkirk high school, their regional comprehensive school for their own multiculturama that they held, and it is almost like a mini Folklorama but they work on it for a whole year, and they were absolutely incredible in terms of their appreciation of the countries that they had chosen in that year--and they change every year--to represent. So there are a number of things which are going on in education, both through the curriculum and also through activities within the school, that I think are very worth noting.

The member then wanted to speak a little bit about the effects of the new immigration rules and to make sure that our province does not in fact come to some disadvantage, that are the rules made perhaps for Ontario, and that in Manitoba we have a much better record of meeting obligations, or that people who immigrate have a much better record. In fact, in my letter to the federal minister I pointed that fact out to her. I raise that only to say I have done that now by letter and look forward to having the opportunity of taking these issues to the federal-provincial conference and raising them in person and having a sense of what the response would be, because I have not yet met the federal minister, and now we are in an election, who knows who that may be after June 2.

Then the details of questions in terms of garment workers and a point system, I will be happy to try and answer those very specifics, but I wanted to just respond to your opening remarks with some general comments.

* (1600)

Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for some of her comments, and I am very pleased that you have written to the federal minister, and you have stated some of those concerns that I have raised. It is reassuring to me, and it should be reassuring to citizens of our province that you are taking your role very seriously, and that you will be addressing some of the concerns that are brought forward in the Chamber and also some concerns that I am sure will be brought to your attention outside of the Chamber by citizens of the province.

I am glad to hear that you have responded, and I can assure you that when you mentioned taking some of these issues to the federal minister that those are concerns that you will be raising on behalf of the citizens. I will assure you as I am sitting here today, a pair for that trip. We will pair you for that trip, for sure.

An Honourable Member: Using your authority as the Whip here.

Mr. Hickes: Using my authority as the Whip.

But, anyway, to get more back to the serious matters--

Mrs. Vodrey: Sorry, I hate to interrupt, but I know you are getting down to some detailed questioning. I now made the mistake of mentioning one school that specifically had culturama and had taken a great effort. I must raise the two others that I am aware of, because I think it would be unfair on the record to not mention those schools. College Louis Riel had an incredible day which I was very fortunate to attend, and they had such tremendous participation of people from all areas. It was a wonderful opportunity. Then the Maples Collegiate also had a day in which they recognized particularly the issue of antiracism. I believe they held theirs on the antiracism day, the UN day recognizing this issue.

So I just felt for the record and also for the efforts of those schools that I wanted to recognize those on the record as well.

Mr. Hickes: I am sure any other school or organization that assisted throughout the province, because that is the kind of education measure, I think, that is very educational but very valuable to all citizens.

When we talk about Folklorama music and dance, you know, like they are great to see, great to participate, but that is only a very small slice of the pie, if you may, because we see a lot of the happiness; and the cultural activities are usually very happy occasions. But the other side when we experience or see racism or negative activities onto people, I think it not only hurts the individual, it hurts all of us as citizens of this province.

I wanted to say that again I am pleased that you are taking some action, because there are a lot of our community leaders that have expressed their disappointment on the activities of the federal government, very negative activities.

I wanted to read this letter. I found it in the paper, and I mentioned earlier that I was going to read it on record. I would like you to respond to this letter. I will just do one at a time. It says here: Changes to immigration sponsorship rules--this is written by Kenneth Zaifman, who is a lawyer--on March 18, 1997, Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, announced final regulatory changes to sponsorship. The regulations are set for publication in the Canada Gazette on April 2, 1997, and the changes have gone into effect on April 1, 1997. Currently, individuals who sponsor must meet the low-income cutoff, LICO, and provide the required financial data at the time they sponsor. The requirements, to take effect on April 1, 1997, will require the sponsor to meet the LICO for 12 months before sponsoring. The consequences of this provision are extremely prejudicial to individuals who during the 12-month period fall below LICO notwithstanding that they may have exceeded that requirement within that period.

Obvious examples where this provision will impose hardship will be cases of maternity leave, temporary medical disabilities or interruption of income due to layoffs or strikes. Given the requirements that the sponsor sign an agreement confirming their responsibilities as a sponsor, there is no need for this requirement. In any event, the enforcement of a sponsorship undertaking occurs after the undertaking has been approved, and, in most cases, many years after. In addition, a sponsor may be asset-rich, choosing to put savings into a home or business. Immigration has never taken a sponsor's assets into consideration when evaluating the ability to meet the financial requirements of a sponsorship.

So that might be an interesting point to make to the federal Immigration minister. No one takes issue with making an undertaking to sponsor an enforceable contract, but it should not be more difficult to sponsor parents than obtaining a car loan or a mortgage. The amount of income required to sponsor for a resident of Winnipeg is the same as for a resident of Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. It is clear the cost of living in Winnipeg is less than the largest Canadian cities, especially with respect to housing. Yet, no differentiation has been made for this fact. This is another barrier to encouraging the reunification of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close families from abroad.

The current situation enables sponsors who cannot meet the LICO on their own to combine their income with their siblings in order to sponsor their parents. This provision has been eliminated in the new measures. I cannot discern any public policy reason for the current situation to be altered. In fact, it strengthens the ability to enforce an undertaking. The current situation has enabled children who individually might not be in the position to meet the LICO to pool their income to sponsor their parents.

It goes on to say: The minister must reconsider these changes, as their intended effects are to discourage sponsorships and are contrary to the regulations of the Immigration Act.

I would like to ask the minister if she agrees or disagrees, or if she will undertake, on behalf of the province, to raise these issues, hopefully, when you have a meeting with the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, just on the new rules and regulations on this low income cutoff or the LICO formula, the member is quite right in that it has imposed a uniform income threshold for all cities over 500,000 population, and we believe that does have a negative impact on Manitoba. I have registered that point in my letter to the federal minister, and I will be taking that point to the federal-provincial meeting whenever that occurs.

In Manitoba, as the member notes, we do enjoy a higher standard of living at some significantly lower costs than some of the other provinces, and there was not a provision made within these LICO guidelines to accommodate any regional disparity.

Now I am informed that Manitoba participated in this federal-provincial working group on sponsorship, and Manitoba recommended various changes to the sponsorship regulations. I understand that in 1995 the working group presented a grid, which was, in fact, developed by Manitoba, on strategies for improving the sponsorship process. I am informed that some of the key ideas included more reliable indicators of financial capability to sponsor be developed and establishing a criterion that really does reflect the regional circumstances. Also, reviewing the reliability of LICO is another one of the key ideas.

* (1610)

So I am certainly very concerned about that and, as I have said, have noted that. The other areas which he spoke about, income interruptions, which now apply, that in fact really, I think, could be a very difficult problem. So in my letter, though I have been very specific on some areas, I have also said in a general sense that anything which we see on application that appears to affect immigration to Manitoba, that is something which we would not be supportive of and which I would raise specifically.

So I think at this point the member is, along with me, helping to develop a list of some of the concerns that, in the specific, Manitoba will want to raise at this conference.

Mr. Hickes: Well, Mr. Chair, I think that would be a very interesting letter to read because it would probably be one of the few letters that, as a socialist and NDPer, I could probably agree 100 percent to, by the sounds of it.

It seems like the minister's response to my questions gives me a lot of confidence. I know this is a new portfolio for you. I should have taken the time to congratulate you earlier, but we see each other in the House, and this is really the first time we have been in Estimates. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, your staff and new assistant deputy minister that I am aware of.

I look forward to continuing to work together with you on these, because from what I hear you are saying we do have a lot of work to do on some of the policies and changes that are being brought forward to our province and all provinces of Canada. I think if we feel that they are harmful to our province or to individuals of our province, we should stand up and say so. As I said earlier, it does not matter what government is in power. Sometimes they just have to step back and rethink; and, maybe yes, maybe we did make a mistake, and they would warrant some changes.

This other article that is by the same individual, Kenneth Zaifman, I have to read this in too, because I was not aware of this. I know a lot of individuals in our province--once I read it, I asked the individuals. They were not aware of these changes, so it was not made known to a lot of the public. I do not know if the federal government did a press release on it. I think these are very serious changes that are going to have a real negative impact on our ability to recruit individuals to our province.

It goes on to say: Proposed regulatory changes to the selection criteria for independent immigrants including the former assisted relative category. Amendments to the regulations to the immigration selection criteria were introduced on March 15, 1997, by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and are scheduled to go into effect on May 1, 1997. These changes were described as technical in nature and would not result in substantive changes to the selection criteria.

The changes are intended to take into account employment, training, and experience factors when determining the points awarded to a prospective immigrant. These are far-reaching proposals and will significantly affect the way in which the eligibility of immigrants is determined. It will result in a dramatic decrease in the number of immigrants eligible for admission to Canada as skilled workers. The proposed rule changes will affect three factors respecting selection. The current system in use is the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, CCDO, which sets out the criteria used to determine the points for specific vocational preparation, SVP, experience and occupational demand. The CCDO will be replaced by the national occupational classification, and consequently SVP has been replaced by an education and training indicator, ETI. The proposed changes will reduce the number of individuals who can qualify for admission to Canada even if they have a close family member prepared to assist them.

Case studies indicate that a significant number of individuals who now qualify would be refused. Some estimates indicate that this would apply to 50 percent of applicants who currently qualify, 50 percent. In order to pass the selection criteria, an applicant must receive 70 points. For example, a secretary between 21 and 44 years of age with a high school education, completed one year post-secondary secretarial course, with three or more years of experience in the occupation, speaks, reads, writes English and who receives family bonus points will receive 70 points under the present system. Under the proposed system this secretary will receive 62 points and would be refused. Other examples are financial aids officer who scored 70 points would only receive 60 points. Under the NOC system, that person could not pass with a university degree or with family bonus points. A refrigerator repairer with a university degree and family bonus would pass under the current system but fail under the NOC. Cooks and chefs who scored 70 points would receive 60 points. Under the NOC, the applicant would not pass even with a university degree and a family bonus point.

These are merely examples; however, they demonstrate that the proposed system will make it more difficult for prospective immigrants to qualify. This is one of the most significant changes to Canada's immigration policy, and it has been done by regulation without public debate and without disclosure to any interested parties. I feel strongly that we should take the time to inform the public, because I think these are real negative measures that the public has to be aware of, and I hope that we will do that.

No press release was issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to announce the changes. I do not know why. Make no mistake about these changes. They are intended to make it more difficult for individuals to qualify and thereby be reunited with their family members in Canada. It goes on to say: I would urge that any individuals who are considering applying for permanent residence in Canada do so before May 1, 1997, which has already passed us.

* (1620)

So I think these kinds of things--it seems like they were done in the middle of the night, on a very cold Sunday. We have a responsibility, I think, as elected members, to inform the public of these drastic negative changes, because a lot of people will still be under the understanding that the same regulations and everything else applies as in the past. If they are looking at sponsoring their families and if there is no hope, they might think otherwise. Why go through the frustrations of making the application when you know you are going to be denied before you even start? So I think we do have a responsibility and I ask the minister if she--as the minister, were you aware of these changes? If you were or were not, will you do something about it to inform the public out there, as government has the media and the means to issue these kinds of notifications? I hope you will disagree with some of these changes, but do you agree or disagree? I would like to hear your response to that.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, what I have understood about these changes, I am informed that although the intention of the change was a technical one, the practical effect of replacing the SVP with the ETF is a reduction in points for persons who are highly skilled, but they are less formally educated. Those were some of the examples that the member has given.

The maximum number of points that can be obtained by some occupations will be reduced from six to four under this new ETF. I can tell the member that provincial consultation was not sought on this change or this development, and Manitoba has been promoting and recruiting internationally for skilled independent immigrants, and we have been very active with our own promotion and recruitment campaign. So we are concerned that the new policies may negatively impact on the selection of skilled independent immigrants to our province.

I can tell the member that consultation on these measures will be initiated under the terms of the Canada-Manitoba immigration agreement, so having signed that agreement, we do have the ability to then directly go to the federal government and to want to discuss any of these changes which impact on Manitoba.

Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for her response because I know that the people that will be affected, or the families that are affected, will appreciate your commitment to seek some answers and to raise their concerns when you have the opportunity.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I just wanted to touch a bit on the certification and training program. I do not know if the minister is aware of it, but my colleague for Broadway, the MLA for Broadway, Conrad Santos, has brought forward a private member's resolution on accreditation. I would like to put on record what my colleague's resolution reads. It reads:

"WHEREAS human beings, considered as any country's most important resource, are not merely a material factor of production, or are instrumental to achieving non-tangible values of fairness, freedom and individual self-actualization; and

"WHEREAS recent immigrants to Canada and to Manitoba tend to possess higher than average levels of education and skills that contribute to the enrichment of the Canadian diversity essential in carrying a position of competitiveness in a global economy; and

"WHEREAS there are some new Canadians who settled in Manitoba, and elsewhere in Canada, who brought with them professional and technical education, skills and training which they are unable to use in Manitoba or elsewhere in Canada; and

"WHEREAS there are institutionalized social structures in Manitoba and in Canada, vested self-interested and self-governing groups of professional and technical persons who collectively are exercising almost absolute autonomy to the extent that the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government have practically abdicated their inherent public regulatory power of the Crown over the education, training, internship, admission, disciplining and other related processes connected with the creation, empowerment and operations of professional and technical associations, societies and organizations; and

"WHEREAS the utilization of the professional and technical education, skills and training of new Canadians would, without many social costs, be immediately beneficial to Canada in general and to the province of Manitoba in particular.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider implementing an enlightened policy of formal recognition and accreditation in meritorious cases of the professional and technical education, skills and training brought into Canada by new Canadians; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly ask the Provincial Government to consider holding public hearings to elicit the opinions and views of Manitobans, including new Canadians, on the desirability of forming formal Governmental Accreditation and Licencing Boards for each of the new self-governing professional and technical associations, societies and organizations; the Boards of which should have membership drawn from the respective and related professional and technical groupings, the Provincial Government and lay members of the general public to ensure that members of such Boards will be trustees of the general public interest of all, instead of being privileged guardians of vested, self-governing groups."

I wanted to read that into record because I think when we look at accreditation of new immigrants or people that are coming especially to Manitoba, that we should have the opportunity and the means to bring forward the possible changes and whatever measures that we need to take to ensure people have an opportunity to fulfill their chosen careers.

I know that we have not had a chance to vote on this, but I just hope that the minister will look at that, consider the value of such a resolution, and look at ways of taking out or using all or part of the body of the resolution to implement positive changes that will benefit our citizens of the province. I would like to ask the minister if she will look at the resolution seriously to see if there are some pieces of it, or all of it, that she would be looking at possibly implementing or making changes where it would benefit individuals to maybe get their Manitoba accreditation or also to some for meeting Canadian standards.

Mrs. Vodrey: I said to the member's colleague as well, I am still fairly new to this portfolio, and so on matters of major policy decision I really believe that it is important I have the opportunity to look at all the issues that are presented to me and to have the opportunity to look at all sides. I am unable to make a commitment on that specific set of things that have been brought forward. However, I did say in my remarks in response to the member's opening remarks that I see the issue of credentials as an important one and that we have to work with, in many cases, the self-regulating professions and also the trades in terms of getting those groups, who currently have the power over their professions, to determine how in fact they are willing to either open the doors or assist in terms of additional training which may be required.

* (1630)

As I said, I do have some personal experiences, partly in the field of dentistry, partly in the field of law where individuals have been required to retrain. Sometimes the retraining seems to be--what has been put forward seems to be so difficult that they, in fact, then try and enter a profession which is similar, if not the same.

So what I can do at this point is express my interest in the area, again partly by my own personal experiences and people which currently are known to us who are struggling to actually practise their professions and trying to meet what has been required of them. In terms of an overall policy, however, I will be honest to say that it is going to take a little bit of thinking and also an opportunity to perhaps meet with some of the professions and find out what some of the issues are. But I do take the issue seriously, and I think that is one thing the member wants to know today.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I appreciate the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), who saw fit to allow me to put a few words on the record currently in order to accommodate another meeting that I have a little bit later.

Immigration is and always has been a very important issue to me personally as I have gone through numerous hours of debates and discussions, both inside this Chamber and actually outside this Chamber, where we have had discussions with the Minister of Immigration, different members of Parliament. In fact, at one time there was some consideration on my part to even looking at the possibility of running for member of Parliament, and one of the driving factors to that was health care and immigration. Immigration, as I indicate, is ultimately a very important issue for me personally because I see so much opportunity for not only the Province of Manitoba, but the country as a whole to keep its doors open and have immigrants, as we have in the past, build our country.

Mr. Chairperson, I wanted to talk on a few points in terms of opening remarks and then a very few questions that I have, specific questions that I have, for the minister. There have been some actions over the recent years that give me reason to believe that there is hope in Manitoba in terms of seeing immigration numbers increase. After years and years of decline, we have seen in most recent years the number of immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba increasing which is great. I am really pleased to see that.

I have always been somewhat miffed by what arguments the department and--some of the staff might recall this from previous Estimates--how the Province of Manitoba approaches the number of immigrants we should be arguing for. To be specific, previous ministers and civil servants from within the department ultimately tried to give the impression that we want more immigrants coming to Manitoba, and it should be based on a percentage of immigrants that Canada gets in compared to the percentage of the population that we have. So, for example, Manitoba might make up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3.7, 3.5 percent of Canada's population, so they would argue we should get 3.7 percent of the immigration that comes to Canada.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, I take a different approach. I look at it from the perspective of what can Manitoba sustain on an annual basis for immigrants and the different types of classifications that might enhance overall immigration to the province. So, for example, in the province of Manitoba depending on the immigration mix, I would think that we could get somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10,000 immigrants a year, give or take 1,200 to 1,500 and that is the starting point. That is when the minister sits down with her federal counterpart, the argument that I would like to see the government ultimately take. To date, I believe, that we are somewhere in and around 4,500 immigrants which is up considerably from a few years back, but that 4,500 demonstrates fairly clearly--if you compare it to the numbers that I just finished talking about--that Manitoba could sustain a great deal more immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba.

The people who criticize the number of immigrants that would come to the country, and particularly to the province of Manitoba, are not necessarily aware, as I would like to say, of the benefits of immigration. I heard the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) talk about the garment industry. There are industries today that if it were not for immigrants that we would not have those industries today, and there are jobs that are there today that could be filled by skills that we need to bring in through immigration or those jobs go left empty. When you leave those jobs empty, that has a negative impact on the overall provincial potential GNP and that then decreases the lifestyle for all Manitobans. So there is a valid argument that needs to be articulated, and to a certain degree, it is a question of education, for those that fear increase in immigration or immigration numbers. We look to the provincial government to address that particular issue.

You know, it is interesting, across Canada we have different provinces like British Columbia and Ontario where the provincial governments are not open to having as many immigrants or increases in immigrants as, let us say, the province of Manitoba, so what I like that the government did is they entered into a bilateral immigration agreement. For years the Filmon government, her government, attempted to get a bilateral agreement, and in the last couple of years we actually did get a bilateral agreement. I believe that is one of the reasons why we have seen an increase, and if we do our homework, I would ultimately argue that we could see us getting more immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba.

The importance of the bilateral agreement, as I was pointing out a minute ago, is that you have some provinces that do not necessarily want to have the huge increases in immigration for whatever reasons that they might have, and some of them might be valid. But strictly speaking, in the province of Manitoba there is no reason why we cannot be having more immigrants.

So we have a vehicle for the first time through the bilateral agreement which allows our Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey) to bring to the table issues with the Minister of Immigration on how we might be able to have more immigrants come to the province.

Now, having said that, I believe personally--and when I say personally, it is because after talking to many individuals from within the community which I represent and beyond that and also hearing from previous estimates from some of the civil servants--the most successful immigration program that we could have in the province of Manitoba is one that is based on family reunification. Family reunification has been the most successful aspect of immigration in the province of Manitoba, because what we have are individuals that will immigrate to the province of Manitoba, and they will stay in the province of Manitoba as opposed to going out to any other province.

So when the minister sits down and talks to the federal minister, when she talks about the numbers and she talks about the types of immigrants that we need in the province of Manitoba, I would put a special emphasis on family reunification, the brothers and the sisters, the moms and the dads.

* (1640)

There have been some other positive signs. I indicated earlier the garment industry. You know, for the first time I had toured some facilities. I met with the Minister of Immigration in Toronto; I did a follow-up meeting in Ottawa to lobby on behalf of the government, ultimately, and Manitobans that we have to respect the fact that Manitoba needs garment industry workers, and it needs them today. There were some very significant blocks. I appreciate the efforts. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) got involved first-hand, so did the Minister of Culture, Heritage (Mrs. Vodrey), so did David Walker, so did Rey Pagtakhan. There was a good group of people that sat around the table in the committee room just out here dealing with that issue.

I believe what ultimately happened is that because of the push from the industry, people like Bob Silver, we were successful at clearing a lot of the red tape that was in place that would have prevented us from getting the garment workers. Now there still needs to be a lot more done in trying to rectify that particular problem, but we at least today--something that we did not have in the past--have a vehicle in which we can address that. It is not as high maybe as we would like to see, and that is the 100. We can sponsor, if you like, 100.

There are other things in some of the discussions that I had within the Department of Immigration that we might want to further look into, things such as how can the province play a role in co-sponsoring other types, other forms of immigration, because that is a concern that other provinces do have. When immigrants come to some provinces, they quickly will leave and go to other provinces. That has not been the case here in the province of Manitoba, especially because these are legitimate jobs that could be filled, that by the province giving some sort of security or providing some security, if you like, through sponsorship, we might be able to increase some of those numbers in a more direct fashion.

Mr. Chairperson, I think it is wonderful that the department has gotten its act on the Internet. I think it is a wonderful opportunity. I think that there is a benefit with the department having some sort of a communication link with the different embassies. Not every embassy; I do not think that is practical. We should not be trying to duplicate what the federal government does, but there are some key countries which we should be focusing in on, the Philippines, China, the countries where today, the top three or the top four countries where we are receiving our immigrants today.

I know a couple of years ago we were getting a lot of immigrants coming in from Poland. We have the greatest potential. The Ukrainian community--you take a look at significant communication links we have today with the Ukraine. I looked at individuals like John Petrishen [phonetic], Myroslaw Tracz. We could go with members from all different types of political parties, of the connections that they have with some of these homelands. Maybe what we might want to consider doing, at least being more aggressive, is having a liaison of sorts with some of these embassies.

I get very frustrated because I get individuals, Mr. Chairperson, who will seek some assistance from me in trying to get visas. It is frustrating when I fax something to an embassy and the embassy does not even provide a courtesy in terms of returning something in a timely fashion, the visiting visa. These people have come to Manitoba to contribute, contribute handsomely, to the economy. Individuals are being harassed to a certain degree in not being able to come to the province of Manitoba.

I have challenged some officials to demonstrate where we have actually had people coming from visas where they have not returned back to their homeland, because that is ultimately the excuse that the immigration officials abroad will give. I bring it up because when the Minister of Immigration or Citizenship meets with the Immigration minister in Ottawa, one of the approaches or one of the strong stands that I believe she needs to take is to say, look, if you cannot demonstrate, clearly demonstrate that we are having visa visiting problems in the province of Manitoba, then if someone wants to visit this province he better be more open to it or at the very least respond and tell us why you are rejecting some of these visiting visas.

It is frustrating in the sense that I have known a lot of good people that I know should have been able to come to the province of Manitoba on a visiting visa. For some reasons, and I know some of those reasons, and quite frankly I think "balderdash" is a parliamentary word that might be acceptable. Some of the civil servants within the embassies have to become a little bit more sensitized to what it is that the people are requesting in those respective embassies and start respecting what it is, the family members in particular that want these visitors, and be a little bit more sensitive to some of the reasons why they want them to come to Canada. I say that in the fashion that I have because I believe that the minister does carry some clout when we go to these ministerial meetings. That is a point that has to be emphasized, because we will benefit tremendously if we have more people that are allowed to visit our province or at least justify it. I say that to the minister in the sense that if they try to indicate that that is not the case in the province of Manitoba, she can come back to me and I will give her some very clear cases and will, in fact, go to bat for a couple of these individuals that I have known first-hand.

Mr. Chairperson, the accreditation or credentials has always been an issue. The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) talked about a resolution. I did not quite catch the beginning of the resolution, but I would assume it was a resolution that is introduced in this session. I have, on behalf of our party, introduced resolutions in the past dealing with credentials. If memory serves me correctly, it was regarding the establishing of a data bank. We have systemic barriers that are put into place in the province of Manitoba. Some of them are a little more obvious than others. Accreditation is something that really frustrates individuals who come to our province, in particular, but to Canada, in general, and they are not allowed or the talents that they bring are not recognized for what they are. That does happen, and I would point to areas in health care, in particular, engineering; there are professions, accounting. There are professions that are out there in which the Department of Citizenship should be at least investigating and seeing if there are things which we can do to alleviate that concern.

Having said that, I believe, to a certain degree or at least it would appear to a certain degree that it has been getting better. We have been moving forward, nowhere near as fast as I would like to see it, Mr. Chairperson, but I understand that there has been some forward movement.

There is another issue which I have brought up in the past and I believe I even had a first reading on a bill--but we know how successful private member's bills have been in the past inside the Chamber--and that is dealing with immigration consultants. I deal with a number of immigration cases, and one of the things that frustrates me is that in many cases there is a need to go to a lawyer, but I would ultimately argue that there might be a role for the Citizenship or Consumer and Corporate Affairs or some sort of department or maybe it is even the Department of Education to look at some sort of a certification for immigration consultants.

* (1650)

Immigration consultants, if it is handled properly, can be of great assistance to the province, because what you could ultimately see--you have got to watch for unethical immigration consultations that could pose a problem, but if it is handled right and there is some sort of an official certification from within the government, the provincial government, then what you could see happen, Mr. Chairperson, and I emphasize that it has to be done very carefully, you could see individuals promoting the province of Manitoba abroad, because it is in their best economic interests to try to get more immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba. That is one of the things that, if done carefully, we could see some benefit.

The other real benefit, Mr. Chairperson, is that we have some very strong community-minded--and the minister has gone out to different ethnic events--individuals that do go out of their way to try to assist people with immigration matters. I know a number of them from several communities. I think there would be some merit for the department to look at the possibility of establishing some sort of certification for immigration consultants--which department, how it would actually work, needs to be talked about, but as we move more and more, and as a province, we move more towards wanting to realize the benefits of immigration to the province of Manitoba, that it is in our best interests to start investing some of the things today that maybe we would not have done five or 10 years ago. I believe that the immigration consultant is one of those areas.

Finally, Mr. Chairperson, I did want to comment on multiculturalism in the sense that it is something in which all members of this Chamber believe in multiculturalism. There is no one that I have heard, even the former member for Rossmere who was quoted as saying some things with respect to, and that would be Harold Neufeld--not the New Democrat--who was questioning the multicultural grants at one point in time. We all believe in a multicultural society, and I think there have been efforts from all political stripes to try to move towards it. We had the creation of the Manitoba Intercultural Council from the NDP.

An Honourable Member: Who created it?

Mr. Lamoureux: From the NDP. I gave you credit for it. We had the multicultural policy book from the Conservative government, and if we go back to the Trudeau era, we had the multiculturalism enacted in Ottawa and made part of the Constitution. So all political parties realize that today we live in a multicultural society. In fact, in the Charlottetown Accord we had the Canada clause. In the Canada clause we recognize the multicultural society. I take great pride in the fact that we are a very rich society today, and I am not talking monetarily. I am talking in terms of heritage because of the many different ethnic groups that make up Canadian society.

One of the most dramatic things that I experienced a number of years ago was when someone was trying to pose the question in the form of a play of sorts in which you had people of different ethnic origins walking onto a stage. In essence, what they were trying to say is that is what a Canadian is, many different cultures and heritage that are appreciated in one country as we know as Canada, and that is what makes us Canadian. Why it is that I will enjoy many different dishes that are out there, I like to believe that is a part of our Canadian heritage.

Along with multiculturalism, when we talk about multiculturalism a lot of people look at it as the food and the dance, i.e., Folklorama, but there are more--I should not say more serious--more issues than the food and the dance and the costumes, Mr. Chairperson. We have the issues, such as the systemic barriers, the issues such as racism. We have issues such as settlement programs that need to be addressed.

I recall the Combatting Racism report from Manitoba Intercultural Council, and in there they came up with a number of recommendations on what we should be doing in order to combat racism. I do not know if it has been every session, but I do believe I have raised this question more than anyone else on behalf of our party is one of the recommendations was providing one-day cross-cultural lessons for MLAs and politicians. I remember when that report first came out, the then minister, now current Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was the minister, I believe. I posed the question then, why not arrange to have that cross-cultural awareness day in one of the committee rooms? Now, that would have been back in 1990, I believe. To this date that has not occurred.

There is a list of recommendations, and instead of trying to go through each and every recommendation--because I want to be sensitive to what I mentioned to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) in terms of the amount of time I would use--but I think that there are a number of recommendations in which at some point in time the current minister should refer back to that report and give us some sort of an update in terms of to what degree those have been implemented. I am not expecting it today. That would be quite unreasonable to a certain degree, because I know it is somewhat of an older report, but maybe when we go back into the Estimates next year, or through concurrence, or maybe through other speeches where she has some time in which she could give some good thought to this particular report.

In the interim between now and then, why not provide that cross-cultural awareness day for the MLAs? Set up Room 254, invite some people to come down and share with them some issues regarding racism. I can come up with a couple of real good examples.

An Honourable Member: You cannot use that; it is unparliamentary, Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux: No, a lot depends in terms of the context in which you say it.

A couple of good examples that I have run across over the years, and I might even have referred to them in the past, is one day I was at an event over at the International Inn. I had a young black lady that was standing beside me. Someone walked up and started a conversation and asked her, well, how long have you been in Canada? If this person only knew how long the black community has been here--for many, many years. One has to question if it would have been someone from Europe standing beside me that just got off the plane, would they have asked that question? That is something which I would classify as being innocent, being somewhat naive. Then you get the more blatant stuff like the KKK hotline or some of these groups that really go out and preach hatred.

Mr. Chairperson, what I do know is that racism is something that is a learned behaviour. You go around to a preschool class and you see kids playing with each other no matter what their ethnicity might be. They are just having a good time. Something happens there. That is why, again, I would go back to the Combatting Racism report. In that report, it said that we need to incorporate into the curriculum some sort of educational process on cross-cultural awareness. Again, I would suggest to you that education is the key.

* (1700)

Realizing that I have about two or three minutes left, I wanted--[interjection] No, then my 30 minutes expires. I wanted to emphasize the fact that there is some serious work that needs to be done within our multicultural society, and racism is just one of those issues. There are other issues. That is where we are looking at having the government come forward with some very proactive ideas, thoughts and programs.

With those few words I would conclude. I am sure the minister could come up with a few questions that I would have posed in that little bit of a dialogue.

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand the member has some questions, so I will just take a couple of moments so you will see that I have given some thought to the issues you have raised now. First of all, you began with the issue of arguing for a greater share of immigration. I understand, I am told, your goal which you had said was about 10,000, we are not far off in our own goal. Currently we have an increase. We have had an increase in immigration. We are at 2.04 percent. The real number, I am told, is about 4,525. Our target is 3.85 percent, and I am told in actual numbers that is 8,540. So I just wanted to raise that point with the member to say that even as the target exists now, we are fairly close to what his thinking, as he presented it, in terms of real numbers.

The member referenced the Canada-Manitoba immigration agreement which my colleague the former minister worked very hard on with the federal government to bring forward and was actually able to successfully sign on behalf of our government fairly recently.

The benefit that does provide for us is that it provides us with a forum, an agreement of a forum to raise our issues, and I think that is very important for Manitoba, this bilateral agreement which allows us and guarantees us an opportunity to discuss. In the Estimates so far I have raised some issues which, based on that agreement to discuss, I will be raising issues with the federal minister because I believe that there are some decisions which have been made. Our government believes that there are some decisions which have been made which may negatively impact on our immigration numbers.

Our government has been very consistent in terms of our desire to increase immigration and to have a focus on the family reunification area as well, so wherever there appears to be steps taken by the federal government, I will be looking to use our agreement so that I can raise the issues of concern on behalf of the people of Manitoba to the federal government. So I am very pleased the member referenced that agreement, and we are in the process now of really seeing how we can benefit from that agreement on all sides.

The member noted that he is very happy that we are on the Internet. I think that has just been a wonderful benefit and I just have a little bit of information to give him. I understand, as we know, we have had a number of campaigns in terms of immigration, and our department on behalf of our government has been very aggressive in looking at attracting further immigration to our province. I understand that campaign clients are contacted worldwide via the Internet, also regular e-mail correspondence, home page promotion and access and also an international advertisement campaign. To date, I am told that there have been 34 information seminars abroad, and those seminars have attracted more than 2,140 people. That is the current number that I have, 2,140. The Manitoba home page has had 93,250 visits to date and that 6,472 Manitoba information kits have been distributed worldwide, so the number of visits or touches to the home page I believe has been significant. I think that we will see a benefit by using the new technology in attracting interest and contacts about our province and about the life in our province.

The member also referenced source countries as maybe being some areas in which there may be a focus. I am not able to respond to that, but what I can tell him is that I am informed of the top five source countries of immigrants to Manitoba in 1996, and I have five of them. Those include the Phillippines which the member referenced, China, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and England. So we have some statistics now, or concrete examples, of where some of our information is reaching and where we are able to attract immigrants.

The accreditation issues which the member raised, I have in Estimates made it clear that I see this as a very important issue for people when they come here to be able to work, but then it is an issue that we as a government can provide some assistance in. But we also have to work with some of the professional associations, particularly in the area of the self-regulating professions: medicine, dentistry, law, for instance, in order to have them assess and to determine either No. 1, how they may either open their doors or on the other hand assist people that they believe need for their standards to have some focus of training.

I think the member knows, so I will not go through today in terms of the work being done by our Credentials Recognition Program, although you may wish to question further. I am more than happy to share the information with you in terms of some of the assessment assistance, which is provided, some of the wage assistance, which has been provided, and perhaps a little bit more detail on some of the work that we have done with the professional organizations and also the trades to try and facilitate for people their ability to work in these areas. So I am quite interested in that area. I am looking forward to having further opportunity to participate there.

The issue of immigration consultants is somewhat of a new issue for me, and I have said to our other colleagues in questioning that areas which are policy-related, I am asking to have a little bit of time before I provide any specific comments on, because some of the issues are in fact fairly new. So I am not able to provide you with anything further on that one.

Then your final area was to discuss the issue of multiculturalism and its importance to our province, and I agree. That is certainly the position of our government as we brought forward the act and as we really looked at providing some very concrete reference points for people when they look at our province to say, has this province something which really says, how do they feel about this issue? So I think that we have, in fact, tried to do some things which indicate that to people around the world and also to citizens within Manitoba.

I have been very interested, as the new minister, in some of the antiracism projects which have been offered through my department or where my department has participated with other departments of government and with the community. I participated in a number of events on the day that recognizes that issue as well. So I would agree that is very important, and with the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), I think that it is important for us to make sure people know about what is available through our school system in terms of antiracism material and multiculturalism material.

I agree with you as well that multiculturalism is not only the celebratory events, but I have experienced lately some of those celebratory events where people have worked so hard on them that they have, in fact, really meant even more than just the day on which the event occurs. I reference three schools that I attended programs at. It was clear to me that in those schools, the day was often a day of celebration and recognition, but they had worked all year long on these issues. They has absorbed so many of the important issues that we wanted to make sure that as young people, in particular, they understood. So I agree that we have to have a significant place, and yet I also believe there has been a lot of positive experiences through what may be seen as a celebratory event, but more goes into it than just the day specifically.

I am very interested in those issues and will look forward to having more opportunities as minister to participate with the communities, with the multicultural communities. Obviously, within my own community, I have participated with a number of the community groups and as a member of the Legislature. Now as minister, I am looking forward to learning more and knowing more about them.

* (1710)

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would say to the member that he gave quite an impassioned speech on the issues of immigration. It sounds as if he is willing to talk to his federal counterparts on some of the issues that may provide difficulty for Manitoba. Manitoba is monitoring the changes that have been made by the federal government. I have written to the federal minister on those issues. Where they negatively impact Manitoba, we are going to be very, very concerned as a government and believe that in some areas there is really another way to do things for our province.

So I am happy to hear what the member has put on the record today, and I look for his support when I approach the federal government on behalf of the people of Manitoba on some of these issues. Perhaps we can talk at another time about what he is willing to do in terms of assisting Manitoba in this very important area, because I think that there have been some things which we need to watch very carefully and in fact may already know may negatively impact our province. So I think that his assistance in that may be quite helpful given his connections with the federal Liberal government.

With that, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to give an overview of my sense of the issues the member has raised so you know I have taken them in. I am more than happy to try and answer questions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, what I would be interested in receiving at some point in time from the department is some sort of a statistical breakdown over the last, let us say, five to 10 years on the number of immigrants who have been coming to the province of Manitoba and their classification. It would also be somewhat beneficial if you could even give to a certain degree, and I do not know if you have those sorts of numbers, but in terms of the locations in which they have come from or the homelands from which they have come from, that type of information would be beneficial for me in discussions that I do have with my federal counterparts, as I am sure that we all attempt to have some influence on this important issue.

There are a lot of questions that I could ask, and maybe what I will end up ultimately doing if time permits, maybe during concurrence, go into some of those questions in more detail, but I would in fact go as far as even to make myself available if the minister was wanting to get some kind of north end insights from a relatively rookie MLA on some of the immigration concerns from our area on a very informal basis if she believes that she would benefit by that. When it comes to immigration, I am always prepared to make myself available, because I do see the benefits of it. As I say, any further questions that I might have I will hold off until we get to concurrence, if I get the time during concurrence, because I have spent so much time in the past on this issue.

Mrs. Vodrey: I do have some information broken down from 1990 through '96. It is not actually year by year, it is '90, '94, '95, '96 and the classification breakdown. I do not have that by homeland, by country of origin, but rather than read it into the record I can just provide it to the member at our next sitting and that may be a start on the information that he wants.

Mr. Hickes: I just wanted to go back on some of the numbers where we or I stated a little earlier about the importance of immigration to stimulate the economy, to help our businesses and to help all of Canada grow. I just wanted to go through some of the numbers, immigration numbers to Canada since 1991, and I hope that the minister will address this. It seems to me a very serious decline right across Canada and to use those numbers and to also point out the much needed immigration that we need to balance off some of the out-migration that we have had in our province and to help stimulate our economy.

In 1991 immigration to Canada was 230,781. In 1992 it increased to 252,842, and in 1993 it was a peak year, it was 255,893, and then we see a decrease. It started in 1994 down to 223,750, and then in 1995 we saw another decrease to 206,750. In the first six months of 1996, it was 88,000, so if you just double that, you are looking at less than 200,000 new immigrants coming to Canada.

So I think we have to look at those numbers and analyze those numbers, hopefully pointing out to the federal governments the negative impact that it is having on Canada and specifically what is happening to our province here, because you know we repeat over and over the importance of immigration to our province because of the decline in population and the decline of the number of children that families are having.

I read a letter that was written in the Winnipeg Sun, and it dealt specifically on--I think it gives a good reading of political parties and what maybe political parties should be a little bit wary of, and should be aware of and should be a little cautious at times.

An Honourable Member: What was the headline?

Mr. Hickes: The headline says, Liberals should be ashamed. It goes on and says--

An Honourable Member: The federal Liberals.

Mr. Hickes: They should have put federal Liberals here. It goes on and says:

Perhaps someone can explain to me why Immigration minister Lucienne Robillard finds it necessary to continually announce regulations and issue press releases which demean and defame immigrants. The latest of these, issued March 18, 1997, says Robillard is concerned about defaults by immigrants sponsoring their family members to come to Canada and is introducing stricter eligibility requirements and special administrative measures.

Noting Canadians do not want their generosity taken for granted, she quotes a study in Metropolitan Toronto which shows 86 percent of sponsors fulfill their undertaking, implying 14 percent do not. She states there is no reason to believe that the number would be lower in other parts of the country. The Immigration Act was amended in 1992 to eliminate the assisted relatives programs where one could sponsor brothers, sisters, cousins, et cetera. Since then, one can only sponsor parents, minor children and/or fiances if one meets the financial requirements and signs a commitment document.

The Toronto study, whose data is questionable, was done about two or three years ago during the previous minister's regime and refers primarily to sponsored relatives who are no longer eligible for sponsorship.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

At the time of the previous minister's announcement of the study, the Winnipeg welfare department reported less, that is less, than one-tenth of 1 percent of welfare recipients were receiving assistance due to family sponsorship default. This was primarily due to the sponsors losing jobs, and when they became re-employed they renewed their commitments.

* (1720)

This is certainly less than 14 percent, but once again Manitobans get punished for perceived problems in Toronto. In the upcoming election, the Liberals appear to want the negative exclusionary vote and are prepared to defame new Canadians to show they are protecting, trusting and kindly Canadians--us, against the wiles and schemes of sleazy newcomers--them, who would take advantage of our generous social support system.

Not only does this policy not reflect the majority opinion of Canadians, it represents what is most base and bigoted in politics and should be rejected by all, by all political parties and politicians. Some votes are not worth having.

That appeared, this letter appeared in the Winnipeg Sun on Wednesday, March 26, 1997. I think it reflects a lot of what the majority--or I would say most, probably 99.99 percent of all citizens of Canada would probably put their signatures to this letter, because I think it identifies a few individuals that really are not committed or really see immigration as a negative and where we know it is a positive. It is the only way.

I just want to read that into the record because I am sure, and I am sure that the minister will agree with me, that this letter--I personally would not be ashamed to put my name to it and I am sure the minister would feel the same way, because I am sure that your opinion would not be much different than what that letter says. That is why I think it is important, very important, when you meet with the federal Minister of Immigration that you point out some of these facts and some of the numbers and the decline in immigration right across Canada and especially the need for more immigration to Manitoba. We have businesses. You can walk down--just over here on Portage Avenue, you will see boarded-up businesses and buildings, and the reason is lack of business. If we increased the population and more individuals purchasing goods, I think we would see businesses thrive much stronger than what is happening today.

I want to hear your response to that and then I want to say a few words about another article that I came across, and I think you will be very interested in this one too.

Mrs. Vodrey: In the letter the member just read into the record, the letter summarizes again a number of the issues we have spoken about today, the impact of a number of changes which have been taken by the federal government which we believe, as well, may, in fact, negatively impact Manitoba's ability to attract additional immigration.

The other area that we would be concerned about is that these changes somehow thwart our own aggressive efforts at attracting immigration. Our government's position has been that there is a great benefit to our province with enhanced immigration. We were very concerned when the numbers went down and have very actively attempted to attract further immigration. I had just made a comment of how we believe our campaign around the world in a number of the countries where we have been able to visit has in fact impacted positively.

So when we are doing this work and attempting to create Manitoba's advantage and to show people around the world why they should come here, it is very frustrating to have the federal government make changes which may in fact negatively impact and, if not nullify, even completely make ineffective other efforts that we have done.

So I just want to respond quickly in two ways: first of all, again, to say in my letter to the federal government, I did point out to the federal government that defaults in terms of sponsorship have an occurrence rate of less than 1 percent in Manitoba. I did want to point out to the federal government that decisions made, based on Ontario and Toronto specifically, really cannot necessarily apply to Manitoba, and that that has to be considered and needs to be discussed.

I also commented to the federal minister on changes to the sponsorship provisions which now limit the signing of financial undertaking to the principal sponsor and his or her spouse, reducing the broader range of support which was available when sponsoring siblings could pool their resources. That was part of the discussion that the member and I had earlier. I just wanted you to know that was also included in my letter to the federal minister, that has been pointed out, and the limitations have raised concerns within Manitoba in our immigrant community, within our immigrant-serving agencies. We have actively promoted policies that support the immigration of all classes of immigrants to Manitoba. We do not want these changes to impact on us negatively; but, on a positive note, to say that our own efforts, we believe, have been successful to some degree, because there has been a slight increase, and we are aiming for a significantly greater increase.

I think it may be worth putting this on the record again in that we have conducted a campaign, that we are on the Internet, we do make contacts through the Internet, through regular e-mail, through home page promotion and access and an international advertisement campaign. What we have been making every effort to do is, to date there have been 34 informational seminars abroad to tell people about Manitoba, to attempt to attract them to our province. Apparently at those seminars it has attracted approximately 2,100 people, a little bit over 2,100 people. The home page has had 93,250 visits to date. That is really significant. I have had, even in the time since I have been minister, contacts from people in other parts of the world who have via the Internet, via the home page identified what we have talked about, how we have talked about Manitoba and expressed their interest, wanting information, and 6,472 Manitoba information kits have been distributed worldwide.

So it is a two-pronged issue. We need to be aggressive and have a policy which allows us to promote ourselves as a province internationally to assist in increasing our immigration, and we need the co-operation of the federal government to not implement policies that hinder us but rather policies which will assist us in promoting ourselves.

Mr. Hickes: I would like to applaud the government for going on the Internet and promoting our great province. I hope the information that is being passed on to other potential citizens of Manitoba from other countries that are considering relocating elsewhere that when they look through the Internet that you have included through that Internet our vast diversity that we have through our farming, mining, forestry. Also, I am sure that you have covered some of our farming communities.

Also, I hope that there is something in there that shows the value and the diversity that we have in the North. We must value our aboriginal communities and the different programs, the different activities that happen on reserves and in aboriginal communities and also the attractiveness of the North. We have the great rivers and the potential for the hunting and the fishing. I would suggest that there be a little section there on the greatness of the community of Churchill. We have the fort. We have the rocket site. We have the beluga whales. We have the polar bear. It is very unique in itself, as are many nice towns. But I just wanted to put a plug in for my own home community while I was on the subject.

Mrs. Vodrey: Just to give the member a little bit more information, I am informed that our website has approximately 100 pages to access information on Manitoba. Information able to be accessed includes the economy, the quality of life, information on all regions. When the member asks specifically, do we have information on the North as well as simply major cities or whatever, the answer is yes. So I think it is quite comprehensive.

* (1730)

Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for that response. I wanted to touch a little bit about, you know, we hear things about racism and different activities that happen. If you look at an article from the Winnipeg Free Press, and there was a survey that was done through Ottawa, and in 1997 it is hard to believe that it is still happening. The big headline screams at you. It says, Skin colour affects earnings. This is in 1997. That the colour of a person's skin still plays a role in employment and the ability to be promoted or the ability to gain advancements in one's career astonishes me in 1997. Sure we experienced a lot of that in the past, but I thought we had gone beyond that. So, when I read this, I think it warrants reading into the record, because I think it warrants people seeing the print of this article if they have not had the opportunity to have read this.

It says, for the first time, Canadian researchers are putting hard numbers on how the colour of a man's skin affects what he earns. Three studies obtained by The Citizen have found that racial minority men earn less than whites, even when they were born and raised in Canada. The latest studies are significant because they are the first to look at how Canadian-born minorities fare in the workforce. Earlier research looked at minority immigrants. They also earn less than whites, but that is more easily explained. Their foreign degrees may not be recognized here or they may be less fluent in English or French.

Two of the studies found visible minority men born here earn substantially less than the white men, while a third study by the federal government found a small wage gap. While the wages of all minority men lagged behind, some did better than others. According to one study by the University of Toronto, south Asians and blacks earned 20 percent and 16 percent less respectively than whites; Chinese men earned about 5 percent less, while southeast Asians took home about 2.3 percent less. Another study by an economist and a federal government sociologist found that on average visible minority men living in cities earned 8 percent less than whites.

Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world and the proportion of racial minorities is growing rapidly. In the 1991 census, 9 percent of adults in Canada were visible minorities, double the number of 10 years before, but little is known about what happens to minorities in the workforce, especially people born in Canada. We did find a gap, and it is much more difficult to justify and much more difficult to understand why it would be there for some reason other than discrimination, says Ravi Pendakur, a sociologist with the federal Heritage department. He co-authored the study with his brother, Krishna, an economist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

All three studies of men took into account factors that might cause wage differences, such as age, occupation, education, experience, and language ability. It says, it is possible that the gap is based on stuff we cannot measure. Says Ravi Pendakur, maybe all visible minorities are stupider. It is possible, but highly unlikely. Another option is, all visible minorities simply do not have the drive that all these white guys have. Also I am not sure that is a reasonable thing to say. There are not too many explanations left.

Only one of three studies looked at women. The Pendakurs were surprised to find that racial minority women born here earn about as much as white women. Their wages still lag behind men, but the finding challenges the theory that racial minority women are doubly disadvantaged and should be corrected.

The reason I wanted to read that is because I would like to encourage the minister that we have affirmative action policies in place in Manitoba, and I would encourage the minister to consult with her cabinet colleagues, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province to encourage the government to ensure that affirmative action guidelines are followed by all government hiring and to look at the ability to recommend to your government to make appointments to government-appointed boards, and then government-appointed boards, by your government, to reflect the true make-up of our province and to monitor it on a monthly or appointment-by-appointment basis, and also to look at the possibility of ensuring that affirmative action guidelines that we undertake as a provincial government that we are where we should be bound by to follow, that all government contracts that are awarded to contractors, they must follow the same stipulation of affirmative action guidelines that are imposed on the province. I think if we take those measures, we should not have to read articles like this in this daily paper.

I would ask the minister to consider that, and I hope that she will recommend it to her cabinet and her colleagues.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am aware, and I am sure the member is aware, through the civil service, I believe, that there is monitoring in terms of hiring, and also I will have to find this out in the area of multiculturalism. I know certainly, as Minister for the Status of Women, that I have previously had some information which looked at how we might assist women if they needed to have encouragement sometimes to apply for certain positions. Sometimes that is the case that people do not necessarily see the pathway for themselves, and so they need to have some assistance in terms of pointing out, here is how you can continue to move ahead, and to take some of these positions.

Again, perhaps this is a very long-shot example, but for instance in the judiciary, one of the things we are finding is women simply were not applying. Now that is speaking for the women's side, which at the moment I have a little more background on, and it takes encouragement. It takes perhaps the pathway to be outlined for individuals and, of course, opportunities then to present themselves.

So I would say to the member that I would be interested in looking at making sure that those opportunities are there. Though I would say I believe our government does have quite a good record in terms of trying to make sure that everyone has opportunities for appointments both to boards--I know that there is a sensitivity to make sure that there is representation of all kinds of points of view as well as the balance of male and female, but also to reflect what our community really looks like.

I do not have numbers in front of me to be able to say to the member here is what our record is. I can just tell you through the process that that in fact has been one of the principles that I have seen in operation. We are probably not where we would want to be at this point already, but it is a process, and it does require not only the will to do it but then the encouragement and support as well.

* (1740)

I have a little information on how we have attempted to do executive development programming for women. I would need to find out a little bit more in terms of what we are doing in the multicultural area, but I would also just like to read him a little bit of information then which speaks about our branch's accomplishments for '96-97 in terms of our effort to deal with respectful workplace, because I think that is one of the other points that is implicit in the issues that you have raised. It has to be a respectful workplace so that an individual operating in it feels confident to look at moving ahead, look at taking advantage of opportunities which are there and recognizes that there is a place for that person within the workplace.

So without stepping into the territory of the civil servants or another area, I can just tell you that in 1996-97, our department and this branch delivered respectful workplace training to the Department of Justice for probation officers, specifically working out of Brandon and also Small Claims Court hearing officers. They also worked with the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission to train liquor control inspectors in the cross-cultural issues that they would encounter in the various businesses that they go in and out of across our province.

Participated in the Holocaust Remembrance Project with B'nai Brith, conducted staff awareness project in recognition of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with a focus on hate and racism, those issues, on the Internet. Also participated in a training project with the federal government, developing a civil service package, training package, entitled Diversity Works. We also conducted, as the member knows, two citizenship courts, one in co-operation with the United Nations Day and the other to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act and the 50th anniversary of the first Citizenship Court held in Manitoba, that was in this Legislature.

We have done some other things which I think are important to recognize. Developed and implemented a training program for the civil service, the Respectful Workplace program offered by the Civil Service Commission as a corporate service. In co-operation with Community Legal Education Association developed a brochure, Racism and Your Rights, and I do not have one to table, but I can sort of show you across the room. Glad to pass one of these on to you though at a later time. This is to identify legal ramifications of racism and discrimination and it is really quite specific.

In addition, as I said, I mentioned the Citizenship Court. Established a departmental antiracism committee to develop staff awareness projects culminating with the recognition of March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination throughout government, and I know all members received information on that. Developed promotional material for the division's promotion and recruitment campaign to attract skilled, independent immigrants to Manitoba.

So those are some of the projects which we, as a department and a branch, are currently undertaking to assist across government and also those who will work with us or would be interested to work with us, our Crown corporations and other groups. I think that it is a process and there are some initiatives in other departments.

So just to say there are initiatives in other departments which I am happy to share with the member if he would just like a little bit more detailed information. I will not take the time to read them into the record now, but there is work that we have done with other departments, including Agriculture, Family Services, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Education and Training.

Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for her response. I just want to make it clear that I was not questioning the lack of or the effort of the government. The reason I raised it is, as the minister I am sure you will be, but I hope that you will be on top of all appointments and have some influence. If it warrants some action on your part to ensure that affirmative action guidelines are followed, that you would pick up the challenge and ensure that it is always enforced. That is the reason I raised it. I was not questioning the government's lack of, or whatever. I just wanted to raise it to ensure that, if need be, you would step in to make sure that policies are followed.

I just wanted to touch on one more area. Like I said, I want to try and wrap this up by six o'clock, this Citizenship part, and we are getting close to there, because tomorrow I presume that you would probably, as agreed, go back to Heritage.

I raised this before, the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I keep in touch with the members, I have seen their work and I see how they operate. It is an organization that is made up of all different cultural organizations, and they pretty well have representation from almost every ethnic group that is out there. What they do is they belong to the council where they have elected members that represent all organizations. So instead of having to deal, say, with 50 or 100 Filipino organizations, if need be, you would have one representative on the council.

Also dealing with issues pertaining to the community concerns, whether it be duplication of services or duplication of programs or racism, or whatever have you, they have input from all organizations, and also the Manitoba Intercultural Council had the capacity to give direction and advice to governments so that they would be representative of the ethnic community as a whole, and also they used to look after allocating grants to organizations. So that would be a real arm's length away from government.

I am not sure if the possibility of reinstating the funding or not is possible, but I would like to hope the minister will look at the possibility and look at the pros and cons and maybe see if it warrants reinstatement, because I personally feel it does, but I am one member of 57 here, and I am not part of the government. I hope the minister will look at the operations of MIC and the valuable contributions they make to all the groups that are involved and the community as a whole.

Would the minister look at or consider looking at the MIC program as a whole and maybe seeing where they could be of assistance to her or the government?

* (1750)

Mrs. Vodrey: Our government is very, very committed to supporting distribution of grants and supports to Manitoba's multicultural organizations. The vehicle that we have in place now is the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council. It has seemed, I am informed, that over the past while there has been more interest in what has been referred to as bilateral agreements between certain multicultural groups and the government. So that seems to be at the moment really quite functional. MIC in itself, as the member knows, has received some support from MGAC, or the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, over the past few years, and I understand that they did not submit an application for funding in '96-97. So I am interested in the fact that they provide a function in terms of, I am informed, leaders, but that the communities themselves are in fact finding in very practical terms that they are relating bilaterally to the government. So at the moment I do not see the benefit in terms of reinstating the act.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I want to put some remarks on the record in regard to immigration issues.

I do want to indicate my disappointment that the government once again is not reviewing the issue of core funding for the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I had the opportunity to attend many of the meetings of the MIC. My wife was a representative on the MIC, and I want to indicate, there were a lot more benefits from MIC than can be gained from mere contact between governments and community groups on a bilateral basis. I would hope that would happen no matter what, but I am very concerned that the MIC for the last number of years basically has been operating on a voluntary basis with no support from the government. I say that because I would hope that the critic who earlier talked about the fact that we are all in favour of multiculturalism, and I know the Liberal member talked about that. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. MIC did not receive a significant amount of funding, to my mind, relative to the overall picture, and I know there was a meeting just recently, in fact just over a week ago, at which there was a very good turnout. Many communities were represented.

The thing I want to stress is that what the MIC did was, it put groups in a position of working together, and that is what multiculturalism is all about. I believe it is important to recognize too that you had MIC involving many groups who had up until that time worked strictly on a bilateral basis. Some of them were French-Canadian groups, for example, Francophone groups. You had First Nations who did co-operative work with the MIC. You had many groups representing cultures that have been present in Manitoba for generations, others where you have much newer make-up. So I do want to put that on the record.

I want to indicate, our critic said that he certainly supports reinstating funding. We do, and I think it is not much surprise, Mr. Chairperson, to anyone in this House to say that one of the first things that the New Democratic Party government would do would be reinstate funding for the MIC, and I believe that would be the kind of statement of support that would be appreciated by the multicultural community in this province.

This leads me to my second point, and this is an area where perhaps the government and us are perhaps on a more of a closer wavelength, and that is in terms of immigration. I think what we need to do, Mr. Chairperson, is have a new vision for immigration in this province. I am very concerned about some of the trends we have seen in recent years. I am very concerned about the federal government's policies, and a lot of attention has been put on the head tax. I know people who have been affected by that. I have family members who are potentially affected by that, and I noticed that there was a rather convenient conversion of the federal Liberals just before the election now saying that, well, they are only going to charge you the head tax if you get into this country. I would just like to remind the federal government that I believe this country was built by many people, First Nations, obviously, but generations of immigrants who came afterwards with nothing more than a dedication to hard work, not much more than that. When my dad came to this country, he came without a job, in 1967. He ended up in Thompson, Manitoba, found a job there, and between our family and extended family, there are now probably 27 or 28 people who, through family sponsorship, are now proud Canadians. I want to stress that is the story of many, many families.

What particularly concerns me is not just the head tax, but the fact that we have not seen the reinstatement of the family sponsorship system that worked so well before. I believe that this was the perfect balance because you ended up with communities being able to, through families and communities themselves, sponsor people, provide the kind of social safety network that you need.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that the Liberal government did not reinstate that, but I am wondering--and I realize we only have two minutes to go here and I wanted to ask the minister, and I know she has been critical of the federal government on the immigration issues. What I wanted to suggest is perhaps, I do not think we need to bring the staff back, if she would just want to respond on the record. I am not trying to, you know, block it off, but I am wondering if there is any way in which we cannot see the provincial government adopt the family sponsorship mechanism as a provincial class of immigration, because the provinces have some significant say on this.

The reason I want to stress that is because if you look at say the city of Winnipeg right now, and I do not want to exclude the rest of Manitoba, there are immigrants in other areas, but if it was not for two factors, the city of Winnipeg would be declining in population, would have declined the last number of years. One is the migration of aboriginal people to Winnipeg, the second is in terms of immigration. It has to be, I think, recognized that it was not that long ago that Winnipeg was the third largest destination for immigrants in Canada, behind Toronto and Vancouver for a while. They shifted between Vancouver and Montreal, but we were the third largest destination for many years. That has slipped. If you look at where we are now, I believe we have slipped. I believe we are either seventh or eighth in terms of population with our capital city, eighth now. We have slipped now below Quebec City. I am very concerned about that trend. I know there has been some fluctuation up and down, and once again I am not blaming the provincial government on this score. A lot of it has been provincial policies, but it strikes me that the solution to this is by reinstatement of the family sponsorship program.

I want to give just a quick example of what I think is indicative of the demand out there, the recent federal-provincial program for the garment industry. If you look at the retention rate of those in the garment industry, it is not the percentage that obviously was hoped for, but, you know, what has happened is many of the people who have come, the mechanism that is being used is what would have been used at other times through the family sponsorship program. I know families who are desperate to get family members to Canada. I know sectors they could work in. I know in my own community. These are families that would guarantee the sponsorship of these individuals, and, of course, given the current shift in the system that we have seen and the elimination of that particular category and the more difficult situation now facing people through the normal process, it is difficult.

So I want to suggest to the minister, and I look forward to her comments on this tomorrow, that perhaps we not only lobby for this but if we can see if it cannot be adopted as a provincial class of immigration, a separate provincial class. I really believe that we would benefit greatly in this province by having immigration return to its previous level. Particularly here in the city of Winnipeg, I believe, a lot of the national immigration policies of the last few years have been biased towards the larger urban centres, and I think that has got to stop. I think our survival as a province is going to be based on some level of orderly population growth. Just in terms of demographics, we need the workforce, we need the consumption, we need that dynamic energy that can be brought by an increased level of immigration.

I want to finish off by saying that I also think this is one of our advantages as a province. We have the most diverse ethnocultural mix in Canada. We combine Pacific Rim connections with eastern Europe, with Africa, the Caribbean. I believe we can use the enhanced immigration to position ourselves internationally, because I think that is one our strengths as a province.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): The hour being after 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning (Thursday).